Talk:Robert Mugabe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Robert Mugabe is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Zimbabwe / Rhodesia  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Robert Mugabe is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Rhodesia task force.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Cold War (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Amid the hunger, a feast for Mugabe[edit]

We do nothing, and I am ashamed.

It’s spend, spend, spend on his 85th birthday. Zimbabwe has begun a week of lavish celebrations yesterday to mark the 85th birthday of President Robert Mugabe, with a party at a luxury hotel in the capital. A crowd of 2,000 feasted on beef in sauce or roast chicken, rice and vegetables last night, with serenades from a variety of musical acts at the Rainbow Towers in Harare. Mugabe and his family are used to extravagant birthday parties.

  • The prison service, which does not provide food or clean water for political prisoners such as Jestina Mukoko, the human rights monitor who was jailed in December, spent $2,000 on an advertisement paying tribute to “the resilient and true Son of the Soil ... the force that binds us together”.
  • The grain marketing board, which cannot provide even a subsistence diet for Zimbabwe’s people, spent $1,500 praising Mugabe’s “sacrificial dedication, shrewd leadership and vision”. The defence ministry described the president, who has been in power since independence in 1980, as a “mighty crocodile” who has remained “resilient, focused and resolute” in securing the country.
  • The Zimbabwean parliament, now led by an opposition speaker, splashed out on a gushing advertisement saluting Mugabe’s “unwavering determination and commitment” to consolidate the gains of independence. The climax of the week-long celebrations will be in Chinhoyi, 63 miles northwest of Harare. Its hotels used to be filled with tourists stopping to visit nearby caves. They are now deserted. Mugabe’s party will not provide the town with any business. His guests will stay in the town’s university, conveniently empty of students who have not been allowed to resume their studies this year. Mugabe’s daughter Bona, 20, is studying for her degree in Hong Kong where the Mugabes have a £4m house.

“There has not been one piece of maintenance, nothing, for three years at the university, but now everything is being painted so Mugabe can say it’s all modern,” said a student union spokesman. “When he goes the university will close down again.” For days thugs from the 21 February Movement, a body devoted entirely to the annual birthday celebrations, have visited farms and businesses in the area demanding contributions. Even hard-pressed small-holders have been asked for a goat or a bag of maize meal.

One said: “If I don’t contribute, I know I’ll get a visit from an angry group of war veterans.” A supporter of Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party said the catering at the Chinhoyi party would be generous. “They like plenty of beef, which is very well cooked, sadza [mealie meal porridge], bread and relish. And there’s always plenty of beer and whisky, too. The whisky must be Scottish.”

As Mugabe celebrates, clouds are gathering in Hong Kong over his investments. Lawmakers called for scrutiny of his financial interests by local regulators, who are empowered to prevent money laundering by corrupt foreign leaders and their families. Police have also sent a report to the director of public prosecutions after an assault by Grace Mugabe, the president’s wife, on a Sunday Times photographer last month.

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivankinsman, 18:58, 27 February 2009.

Robert and Grace Mugabe's stolen millions[edit]

Far East Investments:

Western governments say that Mugabe runs one of Africa’s most corrupt regimes and that the president, his cronies and the first lady – known as Dis Grace, First Shopper and Grasping Grace by critics who decry her lavish shopping sprees – have siphoned millions of pounds from Zimbabwe and concealed it in bank accounts and property investments, many in the Far East. Banned from the European Union and America, the Mugabes have come to regard Asia as a haven where they can go on holiday, indulge themselves unnoticed and guard their investments. Like other members of Zimbabwe’s ruling Zanu-PF elite, they have educated their children at Asian universities. Grace’s son Russell, by her first marriage, to a Zimbabwean air force officer, has been a student in Bangkok. Bona, her daughter by Mugabe, is studying in Hong Kong. The Mugabes are said to have spent years establishing an eastern financial empire. The president boasted that his policy of building friendship with China and the Asian “tigers” was bringing new economic partnerships and opportunities to his impoverished nation. “We have turned east, where the sun rises, and given our back to the west, where the sun sets,” he has been fond of saying. His opponents rubbish this “look east” policy as, in effect, “crooks east”, largely for Mugabe’s benefit. The Mugabes have meticulously cultivated a network of partners and hangers-on across the region to nurture their interests and perform favours.

Grace Mugabe's acquisitiveness:

One of the most important roles of such fixers has been to pamper Grace Mugabe and satisfy her voracious appetite for luxury goods ranging from handbags to gems. On one trip to Paris in 2003, after finding a loophole in a European Union travel ban, she was estimated to have spent £75,000 on luxury items in a day. She was reportedly once seen with 15 trolley-loads of such treasures in the first-class lounge of Singapore airport. Her champagne lifestyle has been funded throughout by Gideon Gono, head of the central bank, who is said to have given her £64,000 for her most recent holiday. An £8,700 handbag bought in Singapore is one of her latest acquisitions. On a trip to Vietnam she purchased £55,500 worth of marble statues from Nguyen Hung, a sculptor, for the extravagant mansion she was building in Harare. Her visit in autumn 2006 is still remembered with a chuckle in Danang. Hung’s brother Nam said yesterday: “The VIP lady bought many marble statues here, lots of vases and animal statues. She stayed just one day but she had seen our website and had been communicating with us for a long time by e-mail. Some of the statues took six months to a year to complete.”

Grace Mugabe’s acquisitiveness seems to know no bounds. In Zimbabwe, where she already has several farms, she has just seized another, this one from a High Court judge who had taken it from its original white owner. She apparently wanted the property for Russell, her son.

Wherever they go they readily turn their backs on the grinding poverty of their country and spare no expense at their luxury accommodation – the Meritus Mandarin in Singapore, the Shangri-La in Hong Kong and the InterContinental in Bangkok. On some occasions two floors of a hotel have been shut off for their entourage. All the hotels are luxurious but some aspects of the Mugabes’ financial dealings are decidedly shabby. They involve the back streets of Hong Kong, dodgy paperwork and hotel bills settled with bags of cash.

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivankinsman, 19:08, 27 February 2009.

Muzorewa vs. Mugabe[edit]

Every time I visit this article, I see the following passage:

"In April 1979, 64% of the black citizens of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) lined up at the polls to vote in the first democratic election in the history of that southern African nation. Two-thirds of them supported Abel Muzorewa, a bishop in the United Methodist Church. He was the first black prime minister of a country only 4% white. Muzorewa's victory put an end to the 14-year political odyssey of outgoing prime minister Ian Smith, who had infamously announced in 1976, "I do not believe in black majority rule—not in a thousand years."

Less than a year after Muzorewa's victory, however, in February 1980, another election was held in Zimbabwe. This time, Robert Mugabe, who had fought a seven-year guerilla war against Rhodesia's white-led government, won 64% of the vote, after a campaign marked by widespread intimidation, outright violence, and Mugabe's threat to continue the civil war if he lost. Mugabe became prime minister and was toasted by the international community and media as a new sort of African leader."

I have never quite understood the point of having discussion pages and having intelligent Wikipedians surveying the page for vandalism if monstrously opinionated and deceptive statements like this can be made and can remain on the article for months if not years without any effort made to remove them. This type of stuff belongs in conservapedia, not wikipedia. Aside from the glaring absence of citations (and I believe that's a slight misquotation of Smith), the author of these paragraphs has a very clear POV and has made no attempt to disguise it, but has through careful selection and ommission of facts, attempted to convince the reader of it, rather than presenting the situation in a balanced light. I therefore suggest that these paragraphs be deleted forthwith. (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right about the mis-quote, and also right that it needs to be taken in context. And right that these two paragraphs at least need some sourcing, if not a re-write or removal. I have fixed the quote, given a source for it, and requested sources for the rest.
I suggest that instead of just complaining, you learn how to fix these sorts of things, and pitch in to help make the article better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to hear how the description above misrepresents the situation. At all. But whatever is said, it does need to be cited properly. (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Shona name?[edit]

Does he has a Shona birth name in his native tongue? If so, what is it?

Me 08:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr0koewi (talkcontribs)

Who cares? When the bastard dies he'll be just as dead, and my green and white flag will fly just as high.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So Nigerians don't like him either? But seriously, we are not here to discuss that, but how to improve the article. (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think "Mugabe" actually originated in Malawi. It'll be ironic if Ian Smith's family has lived in Zim for longer than his has. --Katangais (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, he does not have a different name in any other language. His name is Robert Gabriel Mugabe in Shona as well. It is indeed often reported that Mugabe's father was a migrant worker from Malawi; he abandoned the family when Robert was small and the President hardly ever mentions him. It seems likely that Smith's father, who arrived from Scotland in late 1890s, may well have lived in Zim before Mugabe's father, but we should not forget that Mugabe's Zezuru–Shona mother probably had local roots going back centuries. Cliftonian (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External Links and See Also[edit]

Have just cleaned these up, using Barack Obama as a template. In external links, there were a whole series of newspaper articles and commentaries which I've removed - if they are relevant, useful, they should be cited in the text not just dumped in external links - see WP:ELNO1. Some are articles/commentaries about him, others about Zim government, others about Zim in general. In case anyone wants to use the links to improve the article, I'm posting them here:

I've also removed ZANU-PF and Gukurahundi from see also -pointless, they are linked in the article many times and actually in the lead itself.Babakathy (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - remove honorary degrees without verifiable source[edit]

Honors # 8-19 need more citations, since the original link that supported them is dead, and also a non-neutral source (the government controlled by Mugabe) Mugabe has ruled since the 1980s. ( (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to amend narrative instances of racist Eurocentric two-colour (black/white) colour-branding of people (including children)[edit]

Firstly, thank for the fabulous Wikipedia facility. {{edit semi-protected}

I question two-colour (black/white) branding of people as a guileful and racist Eurocentric continuum and I wish to amend relevant narrative instance of the words as appearing on the subject Wiki-page - Robert_Mugabe; the amending being to particular 'black' and 'white' two-colour colour-branding narrative (but not historical quotatiosns); as follows:

  1. "Indigenization & Black Economic Empowerment" to "Indigenization & African Economic Empowerment"
  2. "conflict within the black townships" to "conflict within the African townships"
  3. "Indigenization & Black Economic Empowerment" to "Indigenization
  4. "black Zimbabweans greater control" to "African Zimbabweans greater control"
  5. "Mr Mugabe says giving black Zimbabweans control" to "Mr Mugabe says giving African Zimbabweans control"
  6. "64% of the black citizens" to "64% of the African citizens"
  7. "rebel groups against white minority rule" to "groups against European minority rule"
  8. conservative white minority government of Rhodesia to conservative European minority government of Rhodesia
  9. "including white Zimbabweans" to "including European Zimbabweans"
  10. "principle that white minority rule" to "principle that European minority rule"
  11. "reserved for whites in the new Parliament" to "reserved for Europeans in the new parliament"
  12. "the 20 white seats all going to the Rhodesian Front" to "20 white seats going to Europeans of the Rhodesian Front"
  13. "south, and with the white minority" to "south, and with the European minority"
  14. "The white minority government" to "The European-minority government"
  15. "reserved for mainly white landlords" to "reserved for mainly European landlords"
  16. "racist attitude towards white people" to "racist attitude towards European people"
  17. "years after ending white-minority rule in Zimbabwe" to "years after ending European-minority rule in Zimbabwe"
  18. "promoting white imperialism and" to "promoting European imperialism and"
  19. "being allies of white imperialism" to "being allies of European imperialism"
  20. "and white farmers" to "and European farmers"
  21. "the white minority" to "the European minority"
  22. "continue paying white farmers" to "continue paying European farmers"
  23. "confiscate white-owned land for redistribution to black" to "confiscate European-owned land for redistribution to African"
  24. "invading white-owned farms" to "invading European-owned farms"
  25. "seizure of white-owned" to "seizure of European-owned"
  26. "first black prime minister of a country only 4% white" to "first African prime minister of a country only 4% Europeans"
  27. "against Rhodesia's white-led government" to "against Rhodesia's Europeans-led government"
  28. "racist against Zimbabwe's white minority" to "racist against Zimbabwe's European minority"
  29. "regan popularity with the black majority, he devised a plan to seize property of the wealthy white minority and transfer it back to black ownership" to "regain popularity with the African majority, he devised a plan to seize property of the wealthy European minority and transfer it back to African ownership"

My reasoning

I believe my editorial request is supported in terms of the context of (and in my view, appropriate use of "African", in the following extract from the subject Wiki-page:
"At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans."

I refer to reference Wiki-page - Black_people - and believe its contents validate my reasoning, and so supports my editorial request and intent. By the reference Web-page, it is evident Africans of their own volition referred to themselves as "Africans". As colour-branded people include children, it is important that such branding is clear and sufficiently unequivocal as to be clear to children in their formative years - so as not to leave children demeaned, confused or otherwise socially or mentally debilitated. Requiring a need to fathom "blackness" (as alluded to on the reference Web-page) is clearly inadmissible where children are concerned; unless their awareness and affects upon them, are deemed not to matter (and so they are not sentient human-beings) up until they become widely read adults.

I contend, and correlated facts and language in both subject and reference Wiki-pages agree, that current two-colour colour-branding of human-beings, by individuals and in national governance/academes, is as a consequence of guileful ingrained racist Eurocentrism - where 'whites equate Europeans while 'blacks' being the rest; barring where an instant person/people are cited in terms of particularly geographical root-affiliation and racial lineage.

Black-branding came into widened usage predominantly by way of 1960s campaigns originated and led by a set of people in the USA determined to submit to branding themselves as 'blacks' having declared they were no longer ashamed of being branded blacks by Europeans (who deemed themselves whites). It seems (in my view and upon the facts of the matter), a submission and state of affairs that reflect an emasculation of Africans by centuries-long enslavement - wherein a people discard terms fought for by their martyred forebears, and, submit without ashamedness, to a branding of their people, by those Europeans who, without care and heinos self-interest, shackled and grossly abused Africans' forebears both in Africa and abroad.

--Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC) }

Hi Hubert, thanks for the note and the reasoning. I appreciate the good intentions but I'm afraid I must oppose this proposed change. In my mind the really racist thing would be to define all black people as Africans and all non-black people as non-Africans, which is basically what we are proposing here. Indeed the term "Africans" was used as the primary term of self-reference by many in the black nationalist liberation movement of the last century, but this was at least partly with the intent of attempting to disassociate the white minority created during the colonial period from the continent. What about white people whose families have lived in Africa for centuries? Isn't anybody from Africa "African", just as everybody from Britain is British and everybody from the U.S. is American, regardless of his colour? And that's not even getting into the fact that the only part of Africa with a predominantly black population is that south of the Sahara.
You say above that "'whites equate Europeans while 'blacks' being the rest", but that's not true. Anybody who would describe people descended from (for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American forebears as "black" is clearly not very intelligent. (That's not even getting into how people of mixed descent should be described. Again "black" is more often that not simply wrong).
Would we really dissociate the British-born child of Jamaican immigrants from both his birth country and his parents' homeland by telling him he was "African"? Were we to apply the same principle consistently all over the world, surely huge swathes of white people in North and South America, Oceania and indeed Africa would have to be at a stroke relabelled "Europeans", regardless of their personal history and background, while black people worldwide would be redesignated "Africans". In my view that is far more racist than simply describing black people as black and white people as white. Cliftonian (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cliftonian, thank you for responding but regret to say the response appears muddled, contextually incoherent, and addresses points contrary to those given in my request to amend the subject Web-page.
In the circumstances I ask, please, that if available, another appropriate member of the Wikipedia Information, attends my request-to-amend the subject Wiki-page. If an alternative person is not available, please indicate your standing in the Wikipeda Information Team coordination/editroial heirarchy, in terms of the matter of my request-to-amend.
At this stage, I list a few outline-points, to support my questioning of the substance of the response, as follows:
  • The response confuses and conflates race with nationality - in terms as
    "Would we really dissociate the British-born child of Jamaican immigrants from both his birth country and his parents' homeland by telling him he was "African"?""
  • implies that person's race changes with country of residence
    "white people in North and South America, Oceania and indeed Africa would have to be at a stroke relabelled "Europeans""
  • implies on the one hand that Zimbabweans are either "black" or "white" while on another hand, acknowledge that there are in the world "(for example) Chinese, Indian,...".
  • The response refers to "(for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American ..." and imply they should not be termed black, and I agree (and your point serves to the arrant Eurocentrism in two-colour colour-branding). Yet, in a the two-colour colour-branding scheme adopted in the subject Wiki-page, those "(for example) Chinese, Indian, Native American ..." would indeed be either "black" or "white"; unless colour-branding is to be applied to some people and geographical-root to others. Of course in the Americas, European emigres guilefully branded resident Americans are red Indians.
  • It is significant that no where in the response is there a reference to Europeans so reasonably, it can be assumed they are the whites; unless guilefully, Europeans do not exist as emigres outside Europe, but the response does appear to note that there "Chinese" people.
  • Clearly, people who live in "Africa" will either merely be resident in or a citizen (eg Zimbabwean) of the residence country, but, they will not necessarily be "African"; in fact the person could be of any race. Similarly, a person who reside in "Britain" may be a "British" citizen but the person can be of any race (eg African, Asian, &c).
  •  :* If, as the response notes, "the only part of Africa with a predominantly black population is that south of the Sahara", what colour is to be attributed to people resident in an Africa country 'north of the Sahara' in the two-colour-branding scheme which (per the response), Wikipeadia seeks to sustain?
All-in-all it seems the matter needs be dealt with by a member of the Wikipedia Information Team who understand and can separate and reason upon the matter person's race and nationality, and (skin) colour-branding.

--Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Hubert.taylor, I've edited this article in the past and I don't really see the problem here. The name of the official policy in Zimbabwe is in fact Black Economic Empowerment, not African Economic Empowerment, so we can't really change that text in the article. Take that one up with Mr. Mugabe himself, not Wikipedia.
I understand your reasoning in changing "white Zimbabwean" to "European". However, in articles concerning Zimbabwe or other African states where white communities have lived in disproportionate numbers the term "white" is more appropriate since most of them do not appreciate being called "Europeans" if they've lived there for six generations and hold African citizenship. Some groups like Afrikaners even find it offensive.
You're used to the American context, where Wikipedia is likely to refer to "African Americans" rather than "black". But you have to understand that in the Zimbabwean context things are inverted. It's a cultural thing. --Katangais (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello User:Katangis :: thank you for responding to me (particularly as it is likely, as task taken-on as a volunteer).
As indicated at the head of my originating request-to-amend, and here recited, I agree with you that we cannot "change ... text" of historical facts or Zimbabwe's governance-documents - that surely would be preposterous. As there is no intent to rewrite history, I trust we may put aside your redirection to "Mr Mugabe". In this instance the issue addressed, is the colour-branding elements of editorial narrative in the subject Wikipedia document; which reasonably, is a matter rightly addressed to Wikipedia, and in turn, I am grateful to you for your kind attendance.
In terms of editorial narratives, adopting 'African' instead "black", or, 'European' instead of "white", is available to the author because African and European are terms understood as of race; in the same geographical guise as, eg, Asian - per reference to South Africa citizen and international cricketer, Hashim Amla, in a UK BBC article headed South Africa tap in Asian talent.
I believe we may agree that where a person (and so people) move to live during a our era of recorded history, does not and cannot change the person (and so people's. Thus a European does not and cannot become African merely by moving to reside in Africa - regardless of how much time passes within the continuing era. Of course where provided in applicable law, a person can acquire nationality by way of a change of domicile. In the event of nationality acquired by way of Maxim-gun conquest, we may both acknowledge that there maybe guileful attempt racial and social-engineering. For example, adoption and ingraining Eurocentric colour-branding euphemisms is social engineering that masks the reality of Europe's emigres being immigrants in Africa, Americas and other regions of the world. Where people live may, of course influence way of life but certainly does not transform race - we may agree that one's race is beyond human control (smile). However, the terminology used to note a race, is wholly within human control and ought to be need be consistent and common; not predominantly to the guileful or other convenience of the dominant people of the day by way of the institutions they dominate.
To avoid misunderstanding, please that no where and at no time in my request-to-amend the subject Wiki-page, have I asked for "white Zimbabwean" be amended and rewritten as "European" as you state. I ask that in editorial narrative "white Zimbabwean" be amended and rewritten as "European Zimbabwean". It is likely that your point was taken not from my request-to-amend but rather, from words introduced your colleague User:Cliftonian.
Please reflect upon your words "the term "white" is more appropriate since most of them do not appreciate being called "Europeans" if they've lived there for six generations". Your point marks my claim as to the very guileful aspect of colour-branding - it Eurocentric euphemism aimed to provide what the Europeans like and "appreciate" regardless of fact and history. In the case of an Asian who is a South Africa citizen and cricketer the related person-profile at Wiki-page Hashim_Amla does not colour-brand Mr Amla, but refers minded to note him being of "a South African Indian family, which has roots in Gujarat, India" and note also that Mr Amla is "South African of Indian descent". To avoid charge of connivance in guileful Eurocentrism, Wikipedia ought to examine the fact that it eschews (or avoid) or challenges referring to any of Zimbabwe's citizens as who are Europeans as Europeans in the subject Wiki-page. Wikipedia will know that two-colour colour-branding is inappropriate and or guileful, as Wikipedia acknowledges more than a mere two races of people; including - for example - African, Arab, Asian, European. It is relevant that, for example, Wikipedia readily acknowledges Asian wheresoever they may be domiciled around the world.
Please reflect also upon "the term "white" is more appropriate since ... they've lived there for six generations and hold African citizenship". Every resident in a country in Africa may hold citizenship of that country in Africa; but of course, they person race does not change (as of God) such that the person becomes "African". Just as an "African" living in Europe might have citizenship in a country in Europe does not become of European race - even after centuries of having so lived.
You suggest too that some "groups like Afrikaners even find it offensive" to be referred to as Europeans - which, in terms of race, is precisely what they are. I refer to the following extract from Wiki-page Afrikaaner
"According to the South African National Census of 2011, Afrikaners made up an estimated 5.2% of the total South African populace, and form the country's largest European ancestry group.".
Upon reflection we can agree that I am aware that as does Wikipedia, in the USA, there is adoption of colour-branding but "used to the American context" .... [I myself do not use colour-branding; two-colour black/white colour-branding Eurocentric euphemisms]. The racist-Eurocentric regimes that ingrained colour-branding in southern-Africa were led by people akin to the west-Europe emigres who did similar in the USA and that European-lineage comprise now, 80% USA populace. In this current European-dominated era the ingraining is within us all - but it can and ought to be managed by reasoned view rather than be sustained for Eurocentric of convenience , eg, of Europeans in southern-Africa as your implied by your reference above to "Afrikaans" [ie. European] sensitivities.
Please review your note that in the "American context ... Wikipedia is likely to refer to "African Americans" rather than "black". But you have to understand that in the Zimbabwean context things are inverted. It's a cultural thing.". It marks the great depth of our ingrained Eurocentric state of affairs that your will have so written. In your review, please co-relate your replies to the following pointed questions aimed to highlight evident (global/guileful/ingrained) Eurocentrism:
  • Alongside referring to some USA citizens as "African Americans", what consistent equivalent term does Wikipedia use to refer to Europeans who are USA citizens.
  • If people are colour-branded so are children, so please consider children in USA whom Wikipedia may note as "African American", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in Zimbabwe?
  • Please consider children in Zimbabwe whom Wikipedia will note as "white", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in USA?
  • Please consider children in Zimbabwe whom Wikipedia will note as "black", what term might Wikipedia use for same set of children resident in USA?
Finally, I note that you "don't really see the problem" with the issue I raise regarding colour-branding, to support my request-to-amend to subject Wiki-page. However, I ask you to review your position with open-minded consideration of the points I note to you and previous - especially with a view of the consequent upon the minds of our children in the most delicate formative years. Thank you again, for your time in attending my request to amend the narrative instances of colour-branding in the subject article - without change to reference documents or other proven historical facts. --Hubert.taylor (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You will remember to tell those children in their delicate formative years that Africans enslaved and oppressed their own people for centuries before the euros showed up? And that the Great Zimbabwe was built by slave labour (like the pyramids to the north)? Somehow, I think you will forget to do that.

As a resident of the USA I can tell you; white children are called 'white', and so on for all groups. There is color branding because people are color branded. Do you see? It is just a fact.

The term 'African American' is being objected to as too confusing for black Americans, as it can include Arabs from North Africa and people from the Carib. Islands also have been known to object to it. I know of several Hatians in Miami who on being naturalized object to being called 'African' anything; they say their families have lived in the New World for generations.

I mention all this just so you will understand why your request will prob be denied. It will not be because WikiPedia is haunted by inveterate racists. (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

The article says Robert Mugabe was preceded by Zail Singh which is incorrect. Zail Singh was a President of India and had nothing to do with Zimbabwe Milindind (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Singh preceded him as Chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement. Cannolis (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IPA for English[edit]

What is the point of having the IPA for how Enlish speakers pronounce the name? The whole point of having the IPA is so people can see/ hear/ learn how it is pronounced, NOT to transcribe into the phonetic alphabet how they already (mis)pronounce it. It is not (/mˈɡɑːb/ moo-GAH-bee, it is (/mˈɡɑːbɛ/ moo-GAH-beh. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Category section inconsistent with article.[edit]

I notice that the Category section at the bottom of this article includes "Zimbabwean Marxists", however the article itself doesn't mention any Marxist association that I can see. I don't actually know whether Robert Mugabe claims to be a Marxist or not but it seems to me that the Category section and the article should be consistent. If he is a Marxist then that should be mentioned in the text and if not then the Category entry should presumably be removed.

Gmwinn (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014[edit]

Michigan State University revoked Mugabe's degree:

Please update to longer state that it is under consideration. (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Cannolis (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)