Talk:Robert Mugabe

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

Vandalism Warning

Robert Mugabe's reputation due to his command of kicking white farmers out of Zimbabwe is causing upset and vandalism to this article. This article will need to go on the watch list for administrators if this article is going to be kept clean.

Thank you.

too late, it's been vandalized, i just discovered. i will try to correct the insertion of racist slurs in place of Robert Mugabe's name.Fixifex 07:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a slur right before: "a militant ZANU faction, leaving Sithole to lead the moderate Zanu (Ndonga) party, which renounced violent struggle." in the first section.

POV

There is serious, bewildering, pro-Mugabe bias here. Pelegius 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, and have several times pointed out this before. 80.255 01:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: with lines like:

Mugabe is credited to be the first African leader to extend the hand of reconciliation to the white community as he sought to build a new united Zimbabwe.

You can't really call it anything else--87.74.86.195 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

His first 10 years were like that. It is the last 6 that we read about today. We need more discussion as to what is POV to keep the tag on the main page. Wizzy…☎ 13:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's late at night, I've had a couple of glasses of wine, and I really couldn't give a monkeys about wikipedia rules. I don't spend my free time working for no money. So, I just wanted 2 say: MUGABE IS AN EVIL WANKER. Thanks. I know I'll be deleted soon but it was good to get it off my chest. DIE MUGABE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE and release the people from your evil rule.83.61.2.236 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

From what is generally known in Zimbabwe, Mugabe was castrated during his time in prison. For that reason, I am not sure how what you call a WANKER comes into the equation at all. Being female I probably wrongly assume that you need your equipment to endulge in that. Maybe I am wrong. Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 23:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash

Wow. POV hardly begins to describe it. What an utter whitewash of an article. From a quick skim through, there is a good chance you would come away with no particular reason to think that Mugabe was anything but a great leader and that any criticism is unfounded and/or the nasty propoganda of the West or "whites". There is no substantive content explaining why any criticism exists. FakeTango 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• Following up the latest pov tag, how about the inclusion of a 1 or 2 liner in the lead. To get the ball rolling, how about something like (borrowing from Ezeu's description from July 2006): Although Mugabe is admired by some as a Pan-Africanist and as a champion for African independence and unity, he and his government continue to attract substantial criticism and international condemnation for a number of controversial actions and policies. FakeTango 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of text

I removed the following text from the article:

The "willing buyer, willing seller" land reform program had broken down, after Tony Blair's Labour government unilaterally decided to stop funding it. Not being of the land owning class, members of his government felt themselves under no obligation to continue paying White farmers compensation, or in minister Claire Short's words, "I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new Government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and as you know we were colonised not colonisers." (http://www.swans.com/library/art9/ankomah5.html)

It has also emerged, that during the early to mid-1990s Zimbabwe refrained from a more aggressive land reform policy, to give the ANC in South Africa a breathing space in it's negotiations for an end to White minority rule. Within that context, it is clear that the Zimbabwean government decided to unilaterally move forward with land reform outside of the "willing buyer, willing seller" framework.

The author, MrSativa, has a valid point about the break down of the "willing buyer, willing seller" framework. Still, I have issues with the style of the text, which reads like more of an essay than an encyclopedic entry. Further, the source, Swans Commentary, has a strong left-wing ideological bent, which means that it may widely be seen by readers as a dubious source. 172 06:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph is biased: Not being of the land owning class, members of his government however there is no problem with the Clare Short quote nor the statement that government stopped funding the program in 1997. It should also be noted that the source is copyrighted (© New African 2003) Angryafghan

I still have a slight problem with the updated paragraph, as it seems inconsistent with the article "Land reform in Zimbabwe", which is linked to on the same page. The "Land reform in Zimbabwe" article mentions that funding for the "willing buyer, willingseller" programme was cut, in the section entitled "1992".83.244.149.133 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Former Colonial Powers

Since Mugabe began to redistribute white-owned landholdings, he has faced harsh attacks, externally from mostly Western countries including the former colonial power of the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia

I think it's fairly obvious that Australia was not a 'colonial power'. The entire statement above stinks of propaganda and mis-information and needs to be re-written.

The implication of the sentence above is that criticism of Mugabe's governance is due to imperialist or colonial motivations, rather than a criticism of the less than upstanding nature of his policies and actions. "Harsh attacks" could be replaced with the less baised "Severe Criticisms" for example.

See also section

The articles Crimes against humanity, International Criminal Court, and UN Security Council are listed but there is no indication in the text why. This should be changed. Nameme 23:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing but points of opinion, so removed them. --Ezeu 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Suspension and criticism

Surely there should be more in this article relating to Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth and the realted controversy? (or at least a link to somewhere where it is discussed more fully). I realise American readers/editors may know little about the modern Commonwealth, but it is the world's largest multi-national organisation after the UN! Certainly in the UK, the debates over Zimbabwe at the bi-ennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)featured promoninently on tv news and newspapers.

Ian. 03.02.06

I agree with you, it should be covered here. Nameme 13:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

KCB

Could someone please add a comment as to when he became a KCB, and the circumstances. Graham Bould 11:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that Mugabe ever received the KCB. Suggest this reference be taken out of the text until it can be proven.

Also, what I do know is that some of his honorary degrees from the US were recalled and that something similar is going on in the UK.--Vumba 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what? A fairly trivial google search will deliver all the results you need. From The Zimbabwe Situation:

John Major's government advised the Queen to invest Mugabe to the rank of an Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath.

Also, a quote from the House of Commons' Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Eighth Report:

25. Robert Mugabe was created an honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 1994. He is not the first bearer of that honour to fail to deserve it, and his would not be the first name to be erased from the Order's Register were Her Majesty to be so advised: in both cases, the relevant precedent is provided by another despot, Nicolai Ceausescu of Romania. When we expressed our concern to Baroness Amos, she said that she would "take it back", by which we presume she intended us to understand that she would raise it with senior colleagues in the Government. We recommend that the Government take steps to strip Robert Mugabe of all honours, decorations and privileges bestowed on him by the United Kingdom.

There have been moves to strip him of the title, but as far as my admittedly superficial research goes, it seems that it hasn't, in fact, been stripped yet. Therefore, I'm reverting your edit. dewet|™ 20:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heavy bias

This article is heavily biased against Mugabe. His land reforms are mentioned as an entire topic but western sanctions have one line. I think sanctioning a country hurts its economy more than redistributing land owned by a handful of farmers.

Actually, in the particular case of Zimbabwe, the redistribution of land hurt the economy far more than sanctions (limited againt individuals and selected governmental groupings). It does not matter whether the distributed land was white or not. What matters is that the land was taken from one group of true farmers and given to people who have almost no knowledge of modern agriculture. That is the tragedy of Zimbabwe today.--Vumba 21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

not only this, but from a malaysian women i spoke with that was working there to help them improve farming, she stated the people flat out didn't want to work. not only that, but that "white" owned land was mostly purchased after 1980... what a farse. i like how mugabe has his little hitler mustache though from time to time -- the racist that he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.183.214 (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

In fact, the article is biased in favour of Mugabe. The Government had 14 years in power to undertake land reform before the unbanning of the ANC in South Africa in 1994. But due to corruption and inefficiency, very little reform was undertaken. The land reform program that took place from 2000 was not intended to actually redistribute land, but was purely political rhetoric, designed by the Mugabe Government to distract attention from its other policy failures, and to reward senior officials with stolen land. 2006-06-04.

this seriously needs some clean-up

besides being biased, this article simply has too many irrevelancies. For example, why is there a list of all of the Zimbabwean political parties?

Insufficient info & bias

As an ex-Zimbabwean living in South Africa, where we are exposed to independent news about Zim on an almost daily basis, I find the article rather tame & at times rather biased. Reading through the article gives one the impression that Mugabe isn't that bad & no doubt people are asking "what's all the fuss about?" after reading it.
I feel that people editing the article need to do plenty of research first, becaus simply reading news articles online about Mugabe can be dangerous: the press is state-controlled in Zim. This has resulted, however, in a number of independent news sites based outside the country (which Mugabe has attempted to shut down). I recommend people look at the independent sites as well as the Zim section on South African news sites. The press in South Africa certainly does not hold back when it comes to reporting on the reality of the crisis in Zimbabwe because the average South African is not happy with our Government's response to the situation.
Unless you have been exposed to the Zim situation from the beginning & personally know people who have lived or are living there, I believe you will write a rather nice article about the man. Unfortunately very little news of Zim reaches the international press on a regular basis. There are many things that are not mentioned in this article & some important things that have been edited out. People outside of Southern Africa have absolutely no idea of the dire situation the average Zimbabwean is in! Supafly.za 17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that people who want to criticize Mugabe often want extreme defamation of him, often based more on emotional fervor than fact. Mugabe is hated for his land reform policies, but he is also admired as a Pan-Africanist and as a champion of African independence. I do not particularly sympathize with Mugabe's politics, but neither do I see the need to call him a mass-murderer, as someone suggested a few weeks ago. --Ezeu 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I regularly remove more extreme views from this article. I have no love for Mugabe, and I think the situation there is appalling. I read the SA press on Zim - all of it. If you think there is something wrong with the article, fix it. If you have substantiated items that should be added, that contribute materially to this biography, and do not simply emphasise things that are already said, go ahead. Wizzy…☎ 08:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert Mugabe epitomizes a phenomenon that is deeply hurting much of the world in the post-colonial era. Many of the leaders and movements that fought against the colonial powers were not fighting for the noble goal of freedom, but rather simply for power, which is a very different thing. Mugabe is one such leader. This article needs to be honest about the man who transformed Zimbabwe from the "breadbasket of southern Africa" into a famine-ridden police state, which now exports not food, but refugees (and, coincidentally, new strains of AIDS). Mugabe's "land reforms" as well as his crackdowns on dissent, election rigging, and wholesale assaults on his own people, mar a part of Africa that has been relatively succesful and at peace. TheKaplan 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more criticism of Mugabe in this article. However, emotionally driven and unsourced criticism will be challenged. To set the record straight, I have personally written to New African's columnist Baffour Ankomah (New Africa is a renowned publication that supports Mugabe) and complained about his unquestioning (I used the word "half-assed") support for Mugabe.--Ezeu 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to List of Dictators

It is entirely appropriate to link to a list on which the article subject appears. If anyone has a problem with him appearing on that list, that is an issue for the talk page of that article. Unless the situation at that article changes, there are no grounds for removing the link. TheKaplan 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "dictator" is way too subjective. Even List of dictators says that Mugabe "Gained power through election, and [was] repeatedly re-elected, but criticized for steps used to maintain power." Whether Mugabe is a dictator or not is conjecture that depends on opinion. --Ezeu 18:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are overlooking the very basic fact that we are talking about a link to a relevant page (he is featured on it). If you have a problem with him being featured there take it up on that talk page. Until then the link is undisputably relevant. TheKaplan 19:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not overlooking the fact, I am taking the basic fact into account.--Ezeu 19:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then I'm sure you understand why it merits inclusion. TheKaplan 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was up to my own opinion, I too would call Mugabe a dictator. Refer to the above section named "Insufficient info & bias" for why I oppose caling him a dictator. --Ezeu 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything in that section that would indicate that he shouldn't be classified as a dictator. I see that you argue for "mass murderer" and other wild accusations to be kept out in favor of documented and proven things, which is certainly valid. However, I fail to see how that precludes mention of his indisputable status as a dictator, albeit one who originally (like so many of the world's worst) gained power through an election. I think it is important that wikipedia call things what they are. Since he is a dictator (we agree on that), it would be an abdication of our responsibility to the encyclopedia not to put that in his article. Happy editing, TheKaplan 10:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I argued more than once for the deletion of List of Dictators, as I think it is hopelessly POV. However, it has been beaten into some sort of shape in the last 6 months. Criteria for List of Dictators :-

• is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state; (Yes, obviously not sufficient)
• governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law; (weasel-words - too subjective, I say no)
• commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état; (no)
• may develop a cult of personality; (hopeless)
• may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical. (I will give you the first two).

Does not look clear-cut to me. indisputable status as a dictator - more hopeless POV. Wizzy…☎ 11:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to go over said criteria, if you will.

• is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state; (yes, as you said)
• governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law; (yes-he violates his country's own laws on a regular basis, as well as much of what is accepted among the free nations)
• commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état; (not technically, but his actions fit the spirit if not the letter of the criterion: he maintains power that way.)
• may develop a cult of personality; (may)
• may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical. (definitely)

Robert Mugabe is a perfect example of one type of dictator. He's not Kim Jong Il of Fidel Castro; unlike them, Mugabe actually attempts to maintain the illusion that he governs with the consent of the people. However, just because he attempts to maintain this illusion does not mean he isn't what he very clearly is. TheKaplan 18:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• The applicability of the term "dictator" will almost always be a matter of opinion as the definition is ambiguous (evident above), and will almost always cause pointless conflicts.--Ezeu 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law - he claims to be within the law - and changes the rules so he is within the law. not technically - this is all about technicalities. I took List of dictators off my watchlist a while back, as I see it being against the spirit of Wikipedia. I guess Bob deserves to be on the list, if the list deserves to exist. Wizzy…☎ 10:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with a few points here. Mugabe is a dictator.

You said a dictator must meet these criteria:

• is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state; (Yes, unquestionably applicable)
• governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law; (Yes, just about equally unquestionable)
• commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état; (YES - his supposed 'election victories' are riddled with fraud, intimidation, ballot-stuffing, and a number of other frauds)
• may develop a cult of personality; (Absolutely accurate of him)
• may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical. (All four fit him).

Tuviya 01:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Surely this article can't be considered unbiased and neutral considering the clear pro Mugabe dribble on it? Maybe that's putting it too harshly, and I must admit that I am somewhat negative in my POV about Mugabe (but that's hardly surprising), nevertheless this article cannot be considered unbiased, serious attention needed IMHO.222.155.12.62 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions, please ? Otherwise the tag comes off. Wizzy…☎ 18:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP RACIALLY RE-WRITING HISTORY..!

Look, I will not spend too long on this as I know most of the contributors to this flagged article are my very jaded, pre-dominantly white, colonially hung-over peers... (ie old dogs no one can ever teach new tricks...) BUT, I have to say this... There is no denying that Mugabe was covertly positioned to political prominence pre-Lancaster House, because British 'intelligence' knew of his very 'Western' friendly aspirations and preferences... He was useful to them in that he would allow smoothe transition and encourage a quite business friendly enviroment in the 'new' 'independent' state... In other words, he would be a nice mask, like Mandela, while the white population re-organised thier interests to suit the new 'language' of an 'independant' Zimbabwe...

So stop trying to act blind and ignorant... Mugabe played this role very well for You till Your peers in the UK decided to stick it to him after the ascendence of New Labour in the UK... Anyone can trace back and see where Mugabe started to kick back at his former 'master'... STOP LYING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD... Mugabe got that honourary 'honour' circa 1994 before the John Majors of this world relinquished power... Reflect on how things then escalted after this point... Thank You and STOP please. A deal is a deal, even between crooks

• Please do not assume bad faith, unless you can prove it Mieciu K 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we please get some citations and sources on that covert manipulation section? As it reads right now, it is merely speculation and, unless it is respectably sourced, should be removed as a conspiracy theory. TheKaplan 21:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• There is little doubt that Mugabe's leadership is a curse to Zimbabwe. A fair article cannot fail to mention this.

Wanyonyi 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Balance

This article is so bizarrely pro-Mugabe: reading it, you would think he's helped the poor and underprivileged of Zimbabwe when, it's objective to say that, from the point of view of the poor and minorities in Zimbabwe, he's made life much, much worse for them, with the inflation, tragic changes in the life expectency and infant mortality rates, mass exodus (25% of the country has escaped to South Africa!), elimination of the independent media, etc. Therefore, to try to balance it out, I just added in a section titled, "Changes to Zimbabwe during Mugabe's Reign" where I tried to give some of these facts to paint a fuller picture of Mugabe's reign. Note that I cite the source at the end, and that's the source for all the facts in the article. Also note that, every one of the facts here is widely reported by the media and repeated over and over, I just used this one citation from that one article because, that article conveniently compiled a lot of the criticisms of Mugabe into one place. CityWanderer 20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The new section Changes to Zimbabwe during Mugabe's Reign is very POV, and has been added as a single lump instead of being put into the relevant sections following the timeline and current sections of the article. Reign?? He is not a king. I am not sure the section is salvageable as is - I am inclined to revert it. Wizzy…☎ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizzy, the article as it currently stands (without this section) is profoundly pro-Mugabe (very very POV). This new section I added tries to balance it out -- and, if you have problems with this section such as the ones you mention, shouldn't the solution be to fix the problems rather than delete the section and continue biasing the article? If you don't like the word "reign", then change it! If you think that one sentence I wrote better belongs in a different section, then move it! But in deleting the whole section, you are making an active decision to continue letting the article be biased pro-Mugabe. Which is ironic, considering above on this page, you wrote, "I have no love for Mugabe, and I think the situation there is appalling... If you think there is something wrong with the article, fix it. If you have substantiated items that should be added, that contribute materially to this biography, and do not simply emphasise things that are already said, go ahead" -- yet, when I follow your advice and contribute materially to the the page, in a well-documented way, and even made it as neutrally-sounding as I could (as neutral as I can be about a man who does things like, say, strips citizenship of everyone of a certain race!). I find it bizarre, and troubling, that following your advice, documenting what I do, you delete it (rather than edit it, move it, or fix it up) and thus allow the article to continue supporting Mugabe. I'm pretty much a Newbie to Wikipedia, so my question is: what are the next steps for me to appeal your decision? I had thought the way Wikipedia worked was, when you saw a problem, to try to fix it (in a clear and well documented way, trying to be as neutral as you can) - but I guess that's not enough. CityWanderer 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

new section

You say :- the article as it currently stands (without this section) is profoundly pro-Mugabe I do not believe so. He actually managed quite well for the first 10 years of Zimbabwe - the revolutionary war period was, well, war. I think the major faults of his leadership are all mentioned in this article - there is no point in repeating them again here.

You wrote:- My comments in italics

Mugabe remains one of the most brutal dictators in Africa. His tactics and their results during his reign in power have included the following:

Starts with an inherently POV statement.

• One-quarter of the population of the country (3.4 million people) escaped the country to become refugees in South Africa alone.

  I think you are right, but it needs a reference.

• He stripped all whites of citizenship.

  I do not believe this is true.

• His currency manipulation has created an inflation rate of over 500% annually (as of 2005).

  There are much more up to date figures in Economy of Zimbabwe

• Infant mortality has doubled during his reign.

  References, please

• Life expectancy fell from 60 to 35 during his reign.

  References please

• Mugabe has eliminated all independent media. Journalists, such as those broadcasting for the Voice of the People were arrested. His Security Minister Didymus Mutasa said in January 2006 that "the net will soon close" on those remaining journalists who criticize the government.

  No - The Independent and Financial Gazette, for instance, are around. Put this in a media section for Zimbabwe

• In 1982, he destroyed the entire village of Ndebele, and used North Korean-trained militias to destroy the ZAPU opposition

  We have an entire sub-article on this - this is just repetition

• He has nationalized thousands of white farms, saying he would give them to the peasants - but giving almost none to the peasants. He has given some of the confiscated farms to Grace Mugabe, and others to his sisters, brother-in-law, and wife's nephew.

  repetition

• Enrollment in primary schools has dropped to almost nothing, with few Zimbabweans able to afford the fee of $4 per term.

  Could use mentioning, with refs.

• He was re-elected in 2002 through open fraud.

  Bald statement, better covered elsewhere

• The country has no more international credit in the financial markets.

  repetition

• The African Union's Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, in their meeting in Gambia in January 2006, criticized "the continuing violations and the deterioration of the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for the rule of law and the growing culture of impunity."

  Mentioned already, better, under elections

• Mugabe openly admits that he intervened in the war in the Congo (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) so that Mugabe could control the diamond mines. His Defense Minister Moven Mahachi said, "Instead of our army in the DRC burdening the treasury for more resources, which are not available, it embarks on viable projects for the sake of generating the necessary revenue."

  References, add by all means

  I googled for the phrase, and found a good BBC reference, and added it to the section on Second Congo War Wizzy…☎ 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Economist said of Mugabe, "Mugabe feels safer when whites and white-collar blacks leave the country; then they cannot vote. He pushes them out in various ways. Employing thugs to break their fingers is one. Confiscating private property is another. But he also uses more subtle techniques. For example, in May 2004, his government ordered the country's private schools to reduce their fees or close. Armed police were sent to enforce the edict, so most schools complied. Given rapidly rising costs, this guarantees that standards will fall, which will prompt more middle-class parents to emigrate."

  Find the right spot for this quote

Remember, this is a [[Category:Living person]] so extra care is necessary when criticising. Why didn't I fix your comments rather than reverting ? Well, nothing is really lost, it is all here. I thought about fixing, but as you can see, it was closer to revert. You fix it, it is your addition. If you are sloppy with additions, it is not for me to un-slop it. Your section came across as a rant, not something you would read in an encyclopedia. Wizzy…☎ 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that, most of your questions are slight wording changes because my wording was biased (I don't mind if you fix up the wording! great, go for it - I don't think my wording was perfect!) or other minor quibbles (all of which you can fix yourself, very easily, and you should!) -- or the fact that most of the facts that I mentioned are not referenced (to which I want to point out to you, my comment on this discussion page in which I very explictly said that, the one reference I had at the end referred to *everything* in that section - therefore, I find if confusing that so much of your justification for deleting these was the fact that they're not referenced!). CityWanderer 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I also want to point out that I just vomited now, after reading your defense of Mugabe here, saying that during his first 10 years he "managed quite well" -- not only is that eerily reminiscint of the classic, "But Hitler wasn't that bad until he started killing the Jews, he was even the Time Magazine Man of the Year in 1933" -- but just imagine if any American (or French or whatever western country) President/Prime Minister did 1% of the things to his country that Mugabe did -- just imagine if the President just one day took the passports, citizenship, right to vote or be in elected office away from every single person who had at least one parent who was of, say, African-American descent, for no reason other than the fact that they have black skin -- what human being would be defending him by saying, "well, up until he did that, he wasn't that bad"? I don't know of any. CityWanderer 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - I find this issue intellectually interesting. In other words, when someone is living and they're being objectively destructive to everyone around them -- how do you write about it in an unbiased way? I agree that what I wrote might not have been perfect (in fact, I'm sure it's not perfect!), which is why I'm happy to have anyone edit it, or even not use it but write something better completely! I do think that the entire article suffers from a much more extreme bias. Let me give you an example. There is a section titled, "International opposition to Mugabe" that begins --- "In recent years, Mugabe has emerged as one of Africa's most controversial leaders. His critics accuse him of being a 'corrupt dictator', and an 'extremely poor role model' for the continent. Nevertheless, Mugabe retains considerable popularity throughout Africa. For example, in 2004 the monthly magazine New African had its readers vote for the "100 greatest Africans" last year, Mugabe won a third-place finish, topped only by Nelson Mandela and Ghanaian independence hero Kwame Nkrumah." --- now, if you have a section about international criticism, to begin (begin!) that section, before you even really explain any of the criticism, by defending him and pointing out how he's gotten awards from media organizations -- that is not worthy of an encycolpedia and that is clearly biased. (In the first few sentences, there are six negative words in quotes, followed by two sentences/30 words of positive! -- in the section about international criticism! Is that encyclopedia? In that same section, it implicitly denies that he's a "corrupt dictator" by saying "his criticis accuse him..." -- but, objectively, how is he anything otherwise? (His corruption and dictatorial hold on the country are both well-documented, including in the facts that I included in my new section. This section claims that he's popular around Africa -- but that is irrelevant to the fact of how destructive he's been to his own country and surely the facts speaker louder than that (such as, 25% of the country moving to South Africa since he's been in power!). Conclusion: this article is seriously problematic, and I'm just saddened that my very small and humble attempt to correct it failed and has started this flame war-like argument between us. I don't care about my additions to the article - if they're not good enough, okay, sure, I'm not a professional at this. But we need to somehow fix this article! CityWanderer 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I confess I don't have a huge amount of time for this discussion, but can I ask you to add the useful bits of your new section in to the proper sections of this article ? frontpagemag seems (at first glance) to be a somewhat partisan site, but give that reference a name, and for the pieces that need it as a reference, refer to it. I guess my main problem was the glop of a new section that repeated other stuff, badly, and just threw mud. If by fix this article you mean make it look worse for Mugabe I am afraid you are on the wrong track. Just the facts, Ma'am. We aim that both Mugabe's cadres and us are happy with the article (NPOV). That means that we are probably both unhappy with the article, but if you piss off both sides, you are probably telling the truth.. It may seem I am batting for Mugabe's cadres - I guess I am, because nobody else is. Wizzy…☎ 09:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

repressive legislation

I've put in a few lines about the Access to Information and Privacy Act and the Public Order and Security Act. I've also mentioned briefly the Gukurahundi massacres.

Little mention is given in the land reform section about the misallocation of money given to Mugabe under thatcher (I've put in a couple of lines about this too.)

Generally I feel there are alot of "western bogeyman" biases in this article that should be addressed, or at least conveyed in a more dignified manner. I would say that some text implies a conspiratorial plot against Mugabe that doesn't hold water with the arguments given.

Removal of text

I spent some time yesterday putting in some FACTUAL information about colonial legislation and some verifiable information about Gukurahundi. This was immediately deleted without consultation or query. Who ever did that is clearly interested in suppressing verifiable and documented information. Such behaviour must be reported and individuals behaving like that ought to have their edit privelidges removed. There is no hope for Wiki sites if behaviour like this prevails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flapsticker (talk • contribs)

Your edits are still there ?? Wizzy…☎ 09:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

apologies to wizzy

Sorry my bad wizi, just realised i hadn't hit the refresh button. I must say that I'm finding this site almost humerous now, it clearly looks like a battlefield between pro and against factions...perhaps all the language could be toned down a bit and then it'll be reasonably well balanced...

I just fixed your refs - please check the style. Seems I am soapboxing a bit here these days - but if you are contributing to the main article, it is not enough to throw something up and expect others to fix it. Do it properly the first time around, or it will be reverted. (not just talking to you .. :-) Enough of my b!tching. Wizzy…☎ 12:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with how to put refs in...how do you link the number of the reference to it's relevant foot note?

All well-described at Wikipedia:Footnotes. If you just use a reference once, everything is easy (magical, automatic, what I used with your refs). If you use the same ref more than once, you have to give the reference a name, and use that. Wizzy…☎ 13:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Wizzy, new users are encouraged to throw something up to be fixed by others. Not everyone understands the nuances of Wikipedia, and this allows editors less familiar with WP to contribute. Of course in a biography of a living person any edits will be held to a higher standard of verifiability. Both of you keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sally Mugabe

The article states that Sally Mugabe was RGM's first wife, though there has always been credible claims in Zimbabwe that he had a first "rural" wife before meeting Sally and that upon becoming Prime Minister he had her discreetly silenced (whatever that is supposed to mean) because poligamy, while perfectly leagal and acceptable back home has been seen unfavouably in the West. while there is little recorded evidence of such a partnership, understandable if the partnership was traditional and ultimately politically unhelpful, it does call into question Sally's claim to be his first wife. I'm not sure how the line should read, but I'm sure it shuld be at least debaated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.62.47.31 (talk • contribs) .

If there is "little recorded evidence of such a partnership," then it's beyond Wikipedia's purview to comment on. Wikipedia has some strict policies regarding sourcing material used in articles, not to mention stringent guidelines regarding biographies of living persons. Justin Eiler 14:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My arguement is that with regard the contested order of Mugabe's wives Sally should not be listed as his first wife without proof, simply a "previous" wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.47.31 (talk • contribs)

I think that without any proof of a previous wife, the article should stand as is. Wizzy…☎ 14:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo

This has an obsolete PD template, and no evidence whatever that it actually *is* PD. 86.143.51.11 05:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a "no source" tag to the photo's page over on Commons. Unless a source turns up for it in the next week, it'll be deleted. To be honest, it shouldn't be that hard to find a PD-USGov file for such a prominent head of state, should it? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 04:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference 19

The article states that Mugarbe's son Bona attends the LSE but does not state what name he is under in the directory; this is unless i am overlooking something in the text. Hon.DJP 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

An introductory paragraph for an article of this size should contain more than the date and place of birth. The current one reflects the content of the article. If 172 thinks that it can be perfected then a new introduction should be proposed. Bakersville

I agree. 172 should rafrain from unilateral reverts. Respect other people's opinions. At least discuss major changes here. --Ezeu 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Editors must remove content in articles if it is poorly sourced, poorly written, or generally unencyclopedic. How editors go about removing poor quality content, such as through "unilateral reverts," is not an issue in itself with respect to Wikipedia's goal of presenting readers with satisfactory encyclopedia articles. What I am doing on this page is no different-- and no less appropriate-- than the recent removal of poor content on another page by Bakersville. [1]

As for the introductory paragraph, it does not necessarily have to be any longer. The function of the intro is merely to introduce the article. It is not the summary of a subject's biography. It is not a summary of different perspectives on a subject. It is not a news analysis. It is not a summary of discourses on "good governance" in Africa or the meaning of "land reform." To introduce an article on a biographic entry, the lead merely has to frame who the subject is, when the subject lived, in what vocation he or she is notable, and frame where the general setting of the biography is. The one or two sentences I restored provide these basic frames. 172 | Talk 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, but editors must also respect other people's opinions. Revert blatant crap, but when several people dispute your edits, show some respect. Give us the the benefit of doubt. We are not idiots. --Ezeu 03:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the editors, but the articles. The user should be considered the readers. As for respecting editors' "opinions," what do you mean? Their political views? We must stay civil on talk pages, which does not entail keeping poor article content in deference to the political opinions of people modifying Wikipedia entries. 172 | Talk 04:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that editors opinions have a tendency to creep into this article, and should be kept out. 172 provided edit summaries. I think the addition to the intro could stay. Some of the other parts - horrible famine and extreme inflation - are, to use 172's terms, essayistic. Tatchell's photo can go. kubatana.net is not a balanced source - perhaps another reference can be found ? This is a Living Person, I do not think 172 needs to rewrite POV commentary instead of deleting it. Wizzy…☎ 14:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The photo can go (doesn't add much) and using horrible as adjective for famine is kind of redundant. The intro should stay. Bakersville

Most extensive articles on public figures have an introductory paragraph. That makes sense. A reader can have an idea of the subject without the need of reading the whole article. The edit that 172 refers I did on Kirsan's page was deleting a paragraph that was borderline blatant anon vandalism, right after it was added to the page. This is not the case of the deletions that 172 is effecting in this page. The introductory paragraph was part of this article for some time, as there were some of the other deletions. Once again, before deleting the paragraph a new one reflecting Mugabe's leadership style and idelology should be proposed. Bakersville

You did not follow through with your comments here in your edit at all. Wizzy stated, Some of the other parts - horrible famine and extreme inflation - are, to use 172's terms, essayistic. Tatchell's photo can go. kubatana.net is not a balanced source - perhaps another reference can be found ? This is a Living Person, I do not think 172 needs to rewrite POV commentary instead of deleting it. Yet you reverted my entire clean-up, rather than just restoring parts of the intro. 172 | Talk 18:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my agreement was on the photo deletion and the use of unnecessary adjectives. The deletion of the whole paragraph relating to the consequences of Mugabe's rule seems imho excessive. I have no issues with the new clean up intro Bakersville

Deletion of well source material about succession intention

Frankly I don't understand 172 position. First he deletes the paragraph because it's unsourced, when a source is added then because it doesn't have context on Mugabe's sanity and then because Mugabe contradicts himself. What's next? It is a well sourced paragraph, it is important, it should stay Bakersville

Do you think that anything that comes up in a news wire report belongs in an encyclopedia article? What Mugabe says at one place and time, what he says at another place and time, what he plans, and what he does are all distinct matters; and at his age how lucid he is when he is around reporters may vary from time to time. Do I have to introduce the concept of critically reading text? Is this no longer taught in high school social studies classes? Whether or not the claim is "well sourced" is a moot point. We are misleading readers by pointing solely to an article reporting he expressed an intent to rule Zimbabwe after he reaches age 100. Other accounts suggest he is more interested in influencing the competition for his succession. Emmerson Mnangagwa, John Nkomo, and Joice Mujuru are usually cited as leading contenders. Emphasizing facts supporting one side of the story, while ignoring facts supporting other narratives, is not what readers should expect from an encyclopedia. The need for balance on Wikipedia is articulated by the site's NPOV policy. I will remove your sentence again. Saying nothing at all is better than presenting readers with an overly simplistic account lacking context, and possibly misleading them. 172 | Talk 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've never finished preschool so I don't know much about high school. Once thing I know is that your condescending tone is as uncalled for as your biased editing. Is not POV to quote a very qualified source on his succession intentions. Please feel free to add any other sources on the succession issue, which is very important for the article. Bakersville 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not condencension to point out the standards by which encyclopedia articles are written. Yes, it is POV to quote a "very qualified source" pointing to evidence supporting one story while ignoring other 'very qualified sources,' indeed the same 'very qualified source' (The Economist has run articles mentioning Mugabe's attempts to influence the contest for his succession scheduled when his current term expires.) Editors have the prerogative to remove content violating NPOV. If you are so eager to mention the quotation in the article, the onus is on you to NPOV the coverage. I am not at all persuaded that the quotation is necessary in a basic encyclopedic overview. Still, if you NPOV the coverage, the quotation will not detract from the article, and I will not remove it. 172 | Talk 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand the big issue. I think that the content and context is relevant. If you want to add content to it please do. But deletion of relevant content is unnecessary. Bakersville 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained why the content I am removing is "relevant" by any clear standard. You say the content is "relevant" because Mugabe said it, and that the quotation was published in a "very qualified source." Yet not every comment by someone who has an encyclopedia article written about him or her, even if it happens to be quoted in a major publication, is relevant to his or her biographical entry. News media and encyclopedic biographies have different frames determining the relevance of information. News articles usually deal with short timeframes; biographies focus on entire lifetimes. Nevertheless, the content I am removing is worse than trivial. Quoting a political figure without contextualization, when it results in a one-sided depiction of a complex situation subject to legitimate scholarly and journalistic debate, is worse than irrelevant.

Since the content I am removing lacks contextualization, readers are offered no reason not to assume that Mugabe's comment was a serious expression of his true intentions, and that he plans to remain in power indefinitely. Readers will assume there must be little doubt Mugabe plans to repeat his behavior in the period leading up to his disputed victory in the 2002 presidential election during the 2010 balloting, and rule Zimbabwe for another six-year term. Yet there is doubt. Outside observers have posited that Mugabe and his ruling clique understand that he is not fit to rule for another six-year term after his current term is due to expire in 2010. To protect their wealth, status, and safety in the near future, Mugabe and his close associates, clients, friends, and family may choose the strategy of promoting the succession of a loyal follower of the current regime in 2010, rather than extending his rule as he nears his nineties. There is no shortage of published discussion about the uncertainty as to whether Mugabe intends to extend his rule past 2010. There is no shortage of discussion of similar cases in recent history outside Zimbabwe. Indeed, political scientists have noted many cases of uncertainty about succession and stability in weak and transitional states in with semi-democratic/semi-authoritarian political systems. This uncertainty often coincides with regular presidential elections, even if they are customarily rigged. A well-known example of this issue in the news today is the great volume of published discussions about uncertainty as to whether Putin and his associates plan to give up power in Russia after the 2010 election. At any rate, with more than a year before Zimbabwe’s presidential election scheduled in 2010, these discussions are currently more relevant in the Zimbabwean presidential election, 2010 article than in the Mugabe biography. For our purposes here, we are better off saying nothing at all rather than leaving readers with a possibly misleading impression about the current political situation in Zimbabwe. 172 | Talk 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It tells me and any informed reader that he intends to remain in power one way or another until he dies. It's relevant information it should stay. Bakersville 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't. I support 172's edits. Context is important, a good article can't just be a hodge-podge of factoids that make the news on a particular day. Greenman 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakersville, the content you are restoring is blantantly misleading and I will go as far as arbitration to stop you from reverting my clean up of the article. Your comment above demonstrates mind-blowing lack of knowledge about Zimbabwe. Consider the following article run by Reuters just yesterday. [2]

ANALYSIS - Mugabe expected to share power in extended term

By Reuters

Sunday January 14, 03:16 PM

By Cris Chinaka

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe's plan to extend his tenure by two years to 2010 may in fact be the start of a "dignified exit" for one of Africa's most controversial leaders, ruling party sources said.

Plans under consideration by Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF include splitting executive powers -- a move which could see the 82-year-old Mugabe emerge a ceremonial figurehead.

"There are several proposals under consideration, including the introduction of a prime minister in the government structure who will assume some of the executive authority currently being carried by the president," said one source who declined to be named.

An annual ZANU-PF conference last month "noted and adopted" a motion approving a plan to move presidential polls from 2008 to 2010 to coincide with parliamentary elections.

The opposition has condemned the proposal, which would effectively give Mugabe two more years as president, as a step toward dictatorship but looks too weak to stop the process.

Although the resolution must still be approved by ZANU-PF's policy-making central committee and by parliament, analysts say this will be a formality as Mugabe allies have control over both institutions.

But some senior party officials say that while the move gives the appearance of Mugabe consolidating his hold, the transition could see the veteran Zimbabwean leader sharing power as a stepping stone towards retirement.

"Far from being a consolidation, I think you are going to find a process of devolution of power, that some of the executive powers are going to be shared and that this is a gentle disengagement process by the president," the source said.

Another official said: "Although the issue has not been finalised, I think we are going to see a system in which the president (Mugabe) is more of a ceremonial government leader, a kind of father figure, with the day-to-day running of the state falling into the hands of a prime minister."

Others said that while the government could use the election changes to give Mugabe a "dignified exit" from power, Mugabe was likely to remain head of ZANU-PF until he has sorted out a bitter succession battle gripping the ruling party.

Mugabe's record of punishing ZANU-PF officials who cross him has left party members more reluctant than ever to speak publicly about the party's internal political debates.

OPPOSITION ALARMED

The ruling party's lawyers are drafting constitutional amendments which are expected to be presented to parliament by mid-year, but the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) says it will fight the plan.

Some critics say Mugabe is probably hanging onto power because of fears he could be dragged before an international court on rights abuse charges if he left office.

Mugabe assumed power in 1980 as a prime minister but later became an executive president. ZANU-PF officials say he would still enjoy immunity from prosecution if he became a ceremonial state president.

The MDC says any plans by the government that circumvented popular elections would be tantamount to a constitutional coup and should be resisted.

"We are hearing about all kinds of proposals, but our position remains that we can still offer Mugabe a dignified exit through elections and that he can retire in 2008 instead of trying to hang on," said MDC spokesman Nelson Chamisa.

Political commentators say prolonging Mugabe's stay in power would hurt Zimbabwe's chances of turning around an economy in recession for eight years, a crisis many blame on his policies.

Mugabe, who turns 83 next month, has ruled the southern African state since independence from Britain and in the process turned what was once southern Africa's bread basket into the region's worst basket case.

International donors -- including the World Bank and the IMF -- have frozen aid to Zimbabwe in the last few years over policy differences with Mugabe, including his seizures of white-owned farms for redistribution to landless blacks.

Western powers, including the United States and the EU, have also imposed travel sanctions on Mugabe and his ZANU-PF officials over vote-rigging and rights abuse charges.

172 | Talk 12:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakersville continues to insert the misleading quotation. [3] His last reversion took place after (1) my clear and lengthy explanation on talk as to why the content is misleading (see my post signed at 08:02, 14 January); (2) after Wizzy stated his objection to the content in an edit summary (see his edit summary here); (3) after Greenman stated his objection to his edits on talk (see his talk post signed at 12:03, 15 January); and (4) after I reproduced an entire Reuters article demonstrating that the issue is far more complicated than the Mugabe comment suggests, according to a number of high ranking ZANU-PF members and international observers (see my talk post signed at 12:22, 15 January). Bakersville's edit was later reverted by 69.112.236.99 [4]. I don't know who 69.112.236.99 is, but his/her roll back of Bakersville's edit is clearly in line with encyclopedic imperatives and the consensus on talk. Bakersville's continued revert warring suggests a disregard for these imperatives and consensus, which falls under the category Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and blocking policy [5] If the reversions continue, I will suggest reporting the disruption to WP:ANI, as a block may be in order. 172 | Talk 05:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is "Mugabe" pronounced? I always pronounced it as moo-gah-bay. Is this correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MinnesotanConfederacy (talk • contribs) 07:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC).