This subject is featured in the Outline of Zimbabwe, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
There is no such thing. A state exists, or it doesn't exist. This one did. It is irrelevant whether (for example) a corrupt talking shop such as the UN happened to dislike it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
That's not a CNN report, that's a post by "BitCoinSachs" on iReport, which anybody can post on. Note the message at the top of the article: "CNN PRODUCER NOTE Please note: CNN has not verified this story. - dsashin, CNN iReport producer". It also says it's "Not vetted for CNN". So no, I don't think we should mention it. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. At this point, it's still speculation. And none of my friends there have heard any mention of it. They're still using US dollars and South African rand. Icarus of old (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The text says the male life expectancy is 42; yet the actual WHO statistics sheet cited for this claim says it's 47, and another page of the WHO says it's 53 (both figures purportedly valid for 2009). The CIA factbook, too, says it's 53.79 as of 2012. Whichever number is used, 42 doesn't seem to be valid any longer.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggest we discuss here, since there's been back and forth editing already:
Edit summary from DrLewisphd: This article is about Zimbabwe not Mugabe and it sounds like an editorial opinion not sourced information about the country. No sources are cited at all.
Edit summary from Katangais: Mugabe is the first and only leader Zimbabwe's ever had. The face of Zim, if you will. Per Cuba, which mentions Castro's exceptionally long rule, and Equatorial Guinea article, which notes the human rights abuses of the entrenched strongman
The sourcing issue was dealt with. However, I do feel the current lead section (see WP:LEAD) is heavily weighted to talk on politics over other issues. Compare Angola, Botswana or Mozambique. Even the lead section on Cuba (see above) mentions the logveity of the ruling party, and one party state but, says little about Castro. Babakathy (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I feel the same way. As a page about Zimbabwe, this part of the lead sound too much like an editorial opinion not about Zimbabwe but about Robert Mugabe. There's definitely a weight issue. Maybe it could be placed elsewhere in the page as a form of compromise.DrLewisphd (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It's just two sentences. One mentions his current standing on human rights abuse, as does the Equatorial Guinea article for that country's current government. The other mentions the longevity of his regime, per the Cuba article. As the latter is simple fact (there has never been another Zimbabwean head of state but Mugabe since 1980) and the former is a widely accepted opinion (backed up by source), I can't say I agree to completely removing this information. Altering the language to make it less provocative or weighty, however, would seem to be a better compromise. --Katangais (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually RGM only head of state since 1987, head of government only 1980-1987.
Katangais' last sentence: let's try. Babakathy (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to slow edit war on this section : two policy points to EnglishEfternamn:
If you wish to change material, please do so carefully. The material dealing with deforestation and poaching is referenced to Chipika & Kowero, and it's not appropriate to simply change text cited to that source when the change edited in is not reflected in the source.
The correct approach to adding material is to use only reliably-sourced information. I would have thought this was clear from your discussion at edit-warring noticeboard. If you think that there was so much more forests and wildlife during Rhodesian times, you need to find a reliable source that shows this. Or if you think there is Zimbabwean post-independence responsibility for depletion of wildlife then find a source that shows that. But do not just add contentious material which is not cited.
That there is less wildlife now than there once was is presumably true. I suspect that here was also less wildlife by 1979 than there was in 1965 (Rhodesian depletion), and less in 1965 than in 1890 (colonial depletion). One could keep pushing that further back too but not sure what value it adds. Babakathy (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
We are losing and awful lot of material here. If removal is appropriate then the material removed should be put into the relevant articles History of Zimbabwe etc., rather than just deleting.
Some material is removed as unsourced. This is wrong - it should be tagged so editors can run around and find the sources and only removed if no-one finds a source after the tag is in place for a reasonable period of time.
I'm far from convinced that this pruning is the right approach, but would rather discuss than revert. Babakathy (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is longish. See WP:SIZERULE; the current prose size is 61kb, anything over 60 kB falls under "probably should be divided". The pre-cuts version was 71 kB.
There is already a lot of unsourced material at History of Zimbabwe, especially about the recent history, which was all I summarised (the pre-1980 years were untouched), so adding more would not improve either article.
WP:V says it pretty clearly - any unsourced material may be removed. If you look at History of Zimbabwe, there are 'citation needed' tags going back to 2007, and keeping a country-level article in those conditions for so long is inappropriate in my opinion.
Having said that, if you feel I have removed something that was important to the article, I'm willing to find sources for it and add it back, if you tell me what it is.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Further reply on your talk page, since this seems a broader issue. Babakathy (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)