Talk:Robert Mugabe

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.166 02:40:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)2006-02-11T02:40:26

A True Hero?

No wonder pathetic racists like Bush talk crap about this great man. He reminds me of Mossadegh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.243.192 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Each to their own. SGGH ^speak! 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why a person from Sweden would think that.Grand Moff Tanner (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article talk page. Its purpose is to improve the article. It is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please refrain from making personal comments, and limit your contributions to suggestions on how to improve the article. Aridd (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be best if the political band-standing was left of off this talk page.--86.25.55.168 (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no way Mugabe is a great man. He killed numerous civillians because they didn't vote for him, he has refused to give the people aid and he is letting his country rot. He even described himself as a modern day Hitler. What an utter bastard. He is a tyrant a killer and a monster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.133.65 (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe: President or de facto president?

There's an interesting entry on the Mugabe talk page which refers to a legal opinion which claims that Mugabe's election was invalid, due to the run-off being held after June 21st; the extension which was granted by the electoral commission appears to be unsafe, since it should have been granted by Parliament. If this were to be the case, Tsvangirai would be the legal president and Mugabe the de facto president. The action would need to be brought in Zimbabwe, of course, and would most likely not receive a fair hearing. --TraceyR (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, If this is true, the Zimbabwean government would realize that and would change the laws to make Mugabe the president. However, due to the Zimbabwean government not realizing and not changing the law, it makes Tsvangirai the de jure President and Mugabe the de facto president. --[[::User:MacMad|MacMad]] ([[::User talk:MacMad|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/MacMad|contribs]])  06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TraceyR. He is the President but arguably not the de jure President. De facto President sums it up nicely. simonthebold (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure how any of this would make Tsvangirai the legal President - the legally declared first round results did not produce an outright winner so it would go to a run-off. And if the legality of Mugabe's position is challenged over and above rigged elections, which are far from unique in world history, then a) are the other cases also POV tagged in this way and b) why is it not a mainstream point of contention in sources? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time that Wikipedia editors recognize that they do not have the authority to re-name nations, or proclaim regime change in nations. Those are prerogatives of the respective nations' sovereign governments only. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is "proclaiming regime change" here. This is a discussion about the election. It has nothing to do with rigged elections either. In spite of all its efforts, the governing party was unable to prevent Tsvangirai from getting the most votes in the presidential election. Since the run-off election was held too late, the candidate with the most votes in the election should have become president. The unseemly haste in which Mugabe was 'enthroned' after this illegal run-off indicates that those concerned were aware of the situation.The point is that, according to legal opinion based on Zimbabwe's constitution and its electoral regulations, Mugabe was not elected president in 2008. According to its own laws and in spite of the actions of the ruling elite, Zimbabwe's de jure president is Tsvangirai. Obviously Mugabe is the de facto president. --TraceyR (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with that statement (not that I necessarily disagree with it per se) is that it's the opinion of a person who hasn't published it in a reputable source. If an external source says Mugabe is only the de facto president and Tsvangirai is the de jure president, we could report that. Otherwise, to state it in the article would be OR. Do we have the opinion of a learned constitutional lawyer to support this statement, or is just your lawyering based on what you know of the Zimbabwean legal and constitutional system? By the way, this page shouldn't be used for general discusssions of Zimbabwean elections, but specifically about the content of the article. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The source was cited in the original entry above, which I quote here:

Strictly legally speaking, the boycott and the technical result of the June 27 election are meaningless for whether Mr Mugabe has a claim to the presidency, because under Zimbabwean laws the run-off had to take place within 21 days of the initial election. Since it didn't, the highest placed candidate in the March 29 election (Mr. Tsvangirai) won by default. Joewein

So IMO it isn't OR and is relevant to this article about Mugabe. --TraceyR (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is reputable, authoritative and regional. The law is the law and the source says that Mugabe is not the de jure President therefore he is the de facto President. I would go as far as to say he is the head of a junta. However, that could be considered POV, so for now lets just agree that de facto is a point of fact not a POV issue. simonthebold (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But who is competent to interpret Zimbabwean laws? I'm certainly not. Are you? And who wrote those words quoted? Was it a journalist, a lawyer, a constitutional expert ... who? It talks of "strictly legal speaking", but what are their qualifications for making such pronouncements as if their interpretation was incontrovertible gospel truth? Sure, we can all have opinions about this, and I certainly hold no brief for Mugabe. I wish he was gone as much as anyone. But that's not what's at issue here. I'm still very uncomfortable with unilaterally declaring in a WP article ... well, OK, with the support of a questionable source ... that Mugabe is de facto and not de jure. I would resent very much anyone from outside Australia deigning to "interpret" Australian law and deciding that, for example, Kevin Rudd is not the legitimate PM of Australia. We have a High Court for that job. Australian institutions alone decide what's the law in this country, and other sovereign nations have exactly the same right. However, I'm not a totally naive idealistic lunatic, and I'm fully aware of world opinion about Mugabe's horrendous regime. My suggestion would be to make some statements in the body of the article about world opinion about the legitimacy of his regime, based on external sources. That's a perfectly OK thing to do, and it reflects the reality of the situation. But simply declaring that he is the de facto but not the de jure president is not the way to go. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The source which is apparently being cited here is the Southern Africa Litigation Centre[1], which is one of those George Soros-affiliated groups which seem to permeate the opposition to Mugabe. It is hardly a neutral or authoritative source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unsatisfactory that he is still listed as the president after the world wide condemnation of the "elections". The EU and US have refused to recognise him. I dont know what he should be called but president is not accurate.

CaptinJohn (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with the Australian system is relevant, in that (as far as I am aware) the Australian legal system functions according to accepted standards. This cannot be said of the Zimbabwean system - Tsvangirai can expect no due process there. What is the problem with describing Mugabe as "de facto" president? This is more accurate than referring to him simply as president and it befits an encylopaedia to be as accurate as possible. --TraceyR (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of accuracy, it is a question of highlighting fringe subjective opinions. People are disputing the election not the outcome - how many people are talking of "anti-Presidents", governments in exile and the like which would come with a "de facto" situation. And you'll note we don't put "de facto" on Than Shwe, the head of state of Myanmar, another country whose systems are not anywhere near as great as Australia's. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is a "fringe subjective opinion", since it is held by the lawyers cited as well as by many democratically elected governments worldwide. If you are likening the current Zimbabwean regime to that in power in Burma, then you would appear to share this opinion. One could argue that George W. Bush should be referred to as the "de facto" president of the USA, because of the dubious way in which the election was conducted e.g. in Florida, but since his election was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court of that country this would be incorrect, since due process (whatever one may think of the process) ran its course. This is not what has (yet) happened in Zimbabwe. In removing "de facto" qualification and the appropriate references source from the Mugabe article, you are placing your own POV above the need for encyclopaedic accuracy. --TraceyR (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you have now reverted the "de facto" edit three times. --TraceyR (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to encyclopedia editors, or even big foreign governments such as the US and EU, to decide whether the president of Zimbabwe is "de facto." That is solely the province of the government of Zimbabwe. The opinion of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre may be cited (with attribution) in the body of the article, but it would be ridiculous to present its opinion as fact, particularly in the lede. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's half right. It's not up to us to make the decision. Our task, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. The government of Zimbabwe obviously has a viewpoint in this issue, but it isn't necessarily the only significant viewpoint. Forexample, if the U.S. State Department says they don't recognize the legitimacy of an election, that's a viewpoint we should probably cover. If the UN Security Council deems a government illegitimate that's so significant that it would deserve the greatest weight. In this matter I don't see anyone quoting sources that call Mugabe a "de facto president". If we had good sources for it we could add it but what we can't do is make our own reading of the Zimbabwean election laws and our own decision about the status of the president. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. There's a big difference between reporting that some persons or bodies are now describing Mugabe as de facto president (OK), and Wikipedia itself asserting that he is de facto president (not OK). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about this as a source: South African Council of Churches

The South African Council of Churches has called on the international community not to recognise the presidency of Zimbabwe's longtime ruler, Robert Mugabe, who was sworn in for a sixth term after a runoff election in which he was the only candidate.

The June 27 election was "neither free nor fair, therefore this presidency is illegitimate," the council said in a statement released on June 30 by general secretary Eddie Makue in Johannesburg.

"We call on African and other states of the world not to recognise the de facto presidency" of Mugabe, the council said.

The council, of which the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference is a member, also called for sanctions against Zimbabwe.

Or this, from Sudan Sudan Tribune:

July 1, 2008 — I was not surprised but a little shocked to watch on CNN Zimbabwe’s de facto president, Robert G. Mugabe, hurling insults at journalists, who were trying to interview him at the African Union Summit in Egypt.

Or this, from the chairperson of the Zimbabwean National Constitutional Assembly The Zimbabwe Independent:

But National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) chairperson Lovemore Madhuku said it would be premature for any analyst to comment on the extent of the Mbeki initiative because it was secretive and only privy to Zanu PF and the MDC.

"People do not know much about the Mbeki initiative save for statements from politicians on both sides of the political divide," Madhuku said. "We have only been told the mediation continues. It would be misleading to comment on statements made by politicians at the moment up until we see the direction that these talks are taking."

...

He added that although Mugabe was regarded as an illegitimate president, it was incumbent upon the MDC to realise that they needed to exert pressure on him to accept reforms that would guarantee Zimbabwe a better future.

"Mugabe is there for now. Illegitimate or legitimate, he is the de facto president of Zimbabwe. The MDC has to partner civic society and the international community in ensuring that pressure is mounted on Mugabe to yield to constitutional reforms that will guarantee Zimbabweans a future that is better for them and one they deserve," Madhuku said. (my emphahsis)

Or this, from the South African Cape Argus

The MDC won the parliamentary elections, and Tsvangirai won the presidential election. Even if he did not get the necessary 50% plus 1, which we don't know for sure, then there had to be a free and fair run-off election within a prescribed period of time. It didn't happen, and the best constitutional minds in SA believe that makes Tsvangirai the de jure president of Zimbabwe.

So perhaps we need some wording to say that democratic governments, some African legal opinion and other bodies, both in Africa and worldwide, have not recognised the election of R.G.Mugabe as president, referring to him instead as the "de facto president"? If Wikipedia needs a Zimbabwean court to pronounce that Mugabe is only "de facto" president before using this description directly, then I for one am not holding my breath! --TraceyR (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This material is perfectly acceptable in the body of the article, with proper attribution. What is unacceptable is presenting "de facto" in the lede as undisputed fact. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest; What would editors consider sufficient grounds for describing Mugabe as "de facto" president? If neighbouring heads of state described him as such? Or the African Union ? Or the United Nations? Thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking what would be the grounds for an unattributed use of the term? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --TraceyR (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to solicit the views of someone with expertise in international law. Off the cuff, I would say that if the majority of the nations in the international community withdrew diplomatic recognition from the current Zimbabwean government, then it might be appropriate. I know of no precendent for such an action. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless there were legal actions, such as by the high court or the legislature, from within the country or by the UN Security Council it's hard to see how Wikipedia could side with a particular POV by describing a national leader's rule as illegitimate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I see that it is possible to argue that the use of de facto implies illegitamacy and therefore POV, it is certainly the case that his current tenure is disputed. Maybe a compromise would to use disputed in place of de facto.

The current revision is better than before as is doen't state he is President in the opening lines; however, the info box implies this is an undisputed fact and implies that this possition has continued legitamately since 1987. My concern is that any casual reader should be aware that his postion as President is not necessarily a legitamate one, i.e. this should be clearly reflected in the opening paragraph. The crux of this position is that Mugabe manipulated events, had people killed and tortured to maintain his grip on power. If we allow the article to imply that his Presidency is democraticly supported, as we migh assume it was from previous elections, then we are tacitly supporting Mugabes own POV position. simonthebold (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush is also disputed. (Some might even say he "manipulated events, had people killed and tortured to maintain his grip on power") The legitimacy of Abraham Lincoln was disputed. Everything is disputed. Of course we have to report significant disputes, not pick between them. ("When you come to a fork in the road, take it.") But no matter which way we look at it Mugabe is the president of Zimbabwe. Some claim that he is merely the de facto president and that deserves its appropriate weight. Anyway, this is pretty much hypothetical. Let's allow events to unfold and restrict ourselves to summarizing verifiable information using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying that this is not a significant issue? You say "no matter how we look at it", I disagree. Zimbabwean Presidents are supposed to be elected. Mugabe has manipulated events and has taken (stolen) the presidency against the peoples choice. If we do not adequately reflect this we are guilty of POV. Calling him President without qualification is POV. simonthebold (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a significant viewpoint, but it is not the overwhelming consensus. As I say, the current U.S. president has had his election disputed too. Why should we treat them differently? We shouldnn't. In each case the dispute deserves a certain amount of space. Many things are "supposed" to happen in this world that never do. We don't go around deciding which kings, emperors, popes, presidents, or other rulers were de facto versus de jure. The bias throughout Wikipedia is in favor of the subject. If he says he's the president, lives in the presidential palace, sits in the presidential office, and rides in the presidential limo then who are we to say differently? Sure, if notable people or groups have other viewpoints we report them but viewpoints alone don't depose presidents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this debate is silly. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reports both facts and opinions, and opinions must be attributed so that the reader can assess where they came from. The view that Mugabe's rule is illegitimate is an opinion, an opinion held by notable people. It may be reported in the article as such. However, some editors are lobbying that it be reported as fact. This is a classic example of pushing a POV. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to depose anyone: However seriously WP editors take themselves, it takes than more than a few edits to bring about regime change (as another president has found to his country's cost). The terms "de facto" and "de jure" are not, per se, mutually exclusive. In fact, the question posed by Will Beback above ("If he says he's the president, lives in the presidential palace, sits in the presidential office, and rides in the presidential limo then who are we to say differently?") is an excellent description of a "de facto" situation; this is therefore not simply 'opinion'. Of course, the reader might infer from "de facto" that there is an element of doubt in the situation thus described, but doesn't this also fit fairly well with the situation? If the article stated explicitly '"Mugabe is the de facto but not the de jure president", then much of what has been written above would be fair comment. I think the current article hits the nail on the head pretty well.

An interesting point is also made by Will : "The bias throughout Wikipedia is in favor of the subject". Is this really the case? I thought it was supposed to be neutral. Where is this policy stated? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the policy, but other policies modify it slightly. WP:BLP disfavors negative material, and WP:RS allows editors to use materials published by the subject as a source for themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to use materials published by the subject as a source for themselves, true, but if "and only if" the material "is not contentious" and "is not unduly self-serving" (WP:SELFPUB). PubliusFL (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe says he is lawfully the president of Zimbabwe -- a claim that has been disputed by a number of independent sources. Doesn't this seem like a self-published claim that is "contentious" and "self-serving"? PubliusFL (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If I claimed to be president of Zimbabwe that assertion would be contentious and self-serving. Since Mugabe holds the reins of power in Zimbabwe, the same assertion about him isn't. If he claimed to rule by divine right that might count as self-serving (though it'd probably be worth reporting just the same). Paradoxically, while the Herald and other government media might be broadly considered self-published sources that would only be true if Mubgabe were the head of government. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Under international law, Mugabe is the president. There may be many notable people who are unhappy about this, and their objections may be noted in the article, with attribution, so that the reader may evaluate who is doing the objecting. There may be many Wikipedia editors who are also unhappy about this, and may wish to register their objections by calling Mugabe something other than "president" in the article. However, this is a form of original research, a polite way of saying that some editors like to include their own opinions in articles, and that is not permitted at Wikipedia. Please re-read WP:NPOV -- it states that all major viewpoints must be presents, as viewpoints, not as undisputed fact. It would be perfectly fine, under Wikipedia policy, to include a section, in the body of the article, that cites notable sources who maintain that Mugabe is the "de facto" president. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marvin - that's quite helpful, but can you provide us with a reference for your assertion that "under international law, Mugabe is the president"? If so, the reference might be worth including in the article. Twilde (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, this is a case where it would be helpful to have input from an actual expert. I have been doing web searches, trying to get some insights. The Encarta definition of "de facto"[2] suggests to me that diplomatic recognition of Zimbabwe confers upon its president "de jure" status. I found articles in Peoples Daily[3][4] that indicate that Norway, Kenya, Liberia, Botswana and Rwanda have refused to recognize the legitimacy of the election, but I don't think that means a withdrawal of diplomatic recognition. So, as you can see, this is a very subtle point. At any rate, these 5 countries are a minority of the community of nations. The fact that they don't recognize the election may be noted in the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marvin. I've been Googling too, and like you have been unable to find anything about international law ruling on who is or isn't president of any given country. All I've seen are vague claims that international law is in a state of flux when it comes to the recognition of governments, and also that international law in some ways remains anchored in the law of sovereign states. I agree that expert input would be valuable here, but until then I don't think we can say that Mugabe is president 'according to international law'. As regards the opening sentence of the article, I suggest we can simply avoid controversy by following the model of the article about the current (and undisputed!) Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa. On this model, the first sentence states that he is a politician of the country in question, before the second goes on to describe the posts he holds or has held, and his name above the infobox on the right is in bold without a title. If it is good enough for Mwanawasa, surely it is good enough for Mugabe? On these grounds I'll tweak the article accordingly but hope this meets with your approval. Twilde (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I havn't read the whole of this discussion but remember, Zimbabwe doesn't really have a government as the parliament should have sat by 17 July but never did... Mangwanani ^(talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many instances where questions have been raised about the legitimacy of governments, including, as Will Beback points out, that of the US. As an encyclopedia, we should take the safest course of action, which is to avoid drawing conclusions in our articles which are not universally recognized to be true. On the other hand, notable opinions may always be included (with attribution.) What puzzles me about this debate is the reluctance of some editors to simply attribute their favorite conclusion to the appropriate source, rather than seeking to present it as undisputed fact. --Marvin Diode (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of what you say, I think we all need to look at our own actions before blaming others. Calling Mugabe "president", as Marvin Diode has done repeatedly through edits, is ultimately another notable opinion. Let's work together rather than in opposition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the latest Google news, I find Mugabe referred to as "President Robert Mugabe" in the Voice of America, the London Independent and the BBC. If leading press in the countries which most oppose Mugabe continue to refer to him as "President," I think it's a bit silly to call him anything else. What did you have in mind? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• All through the article you've made a point of attributing any reporting from the British sources. To be consistent perhaps we should say, "According to the British press..." More seriously, all I suggest is that you don't compain about other editors doing the same thing that you're doing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an article about Mugabe, referring to him as a Zimbabwean politician, while noting that his election as president is disputed by many reputable players (local and international), seems accurate. Would it not be inaccurate for Wikipedia, in view of existing regional legal opinion, to prejudge the outcome of a possible legal challenge to his election by referring to him as (undisputed) president? In the meantime, 'de facto' but not yet 'de jure' accurately sums up his status. --TraceyR (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow down

This is a very controversial topic and many editors have strongly held views. It is therefore all the more important to take a step back and remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Please read WP:SOAP. I just removed the statement from the lede that the G-8 "branded Mugabe's regime as illegitimate." The full text of the G-8 document is available here. The sentence that the BBC focussed on is the following: "We do not accept the legitimacy of any government that does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people." As is the case with any diplomatic utterance, the wording is chosen with utmost care. It does not name Mugabe. Is it intended to put pressure on Mugabe? Without a doubt. Does the BBC wish to imply that it means Mugabe? That's a rhetorical question. But this being an encyclopedia, we are not at liberty to interpret such statements. We must err on the side of caution, particularly when reporting something like a G-8 statement. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I added back the bit, but put in the careful wording of the G8 in place of our own summary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is Mugabe the President of Zimbabwe?

Several editors argue that since the outcome of the recent election is disputed, Mugabe should be referred to as "de facto president" or "Zimbabwean politician." Should one of these terms be used in place of "President"? Or, should "President" be used, with alternate interpretations included as sourced commentary?

As Marvin points out, we are not in a position to judge if an election was correct or not. Presidency is a term defined by the government of the country in question. In this case, Mugabe is, because he never was replaced or resigned from office, still president. So that is the term to use in this article. Of course the doubts about the election have to be included as well but phrased as such in the corresponding section. But, to answer to the RFC, I'd advise against using terms like "de-facto president". So#Why ^{review me!} 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating that Mugabe was "never replaced" is actually begging the question. He called for an election, was not re-elected, failed to accept the result, called for a run-off, which (according to some legal opinion) was held too late to be constitutionally valid, leaving Tsvangirai as the 'de jure' president. How does that make Mugabe "still president" in any sense other than 'de facto'?

There is a De facto article here, with a section "Politics":

"A de facto government is a government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do really act in their stead. (ref. to 30 Am Jur 181. Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.)

"In politics, a de facto leader of a country or region is one who has assumed authority, regardless of whether by lawful, constitutional, or legitimate means; very frequently the term is reserved for those whose power is thought by some faction to be held by unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise illegitimate means, often by deposing a previous leader or undermining the rule of a current one. De facto leaders need not hold a constitutional office, and may exercise power in an informal manner."

The Zimbabwean constitution provided for the situation in which the election left the country, but it has been ignored. --TraceyR (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But, your source for this assessment appears to be yourself. This would be an example of WP:SYNTH. Conclusions of this sort, particularly when they are not universally held, must be attributed in Wikipedia articles. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The source for this assessment is already attributed in the article - but you seem not to accept it. --TraceyR (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, I have no problem whatsoever with any opinion that is attributed to a notable source. I do, however, have a problem with unattributed opinion presented as fact, and I continue to be mystified as to why some editors are anxious to have this issue framed in that way. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I personally believe Mugabe has run his country into the ground, I believe he should be refered to as "President," simply because he "won" the election and is considered to be such by his country. Immediately following that statement though, a sentence or two can be added detailing the states and people who have refused to recognize his presidency.Ngchen (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you consider (a) why you wrote "won" in quotes (indicating doubt?) and (b) which factions in his country consider him to have "won" (a minority of the electorate), we would get a bit further. It has nothing to do with how he has run the country and everything to do with Zimbabwean electoral law and its constitution. These are the basis for the legal opinion cited in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with calling him anything other than "President," in spite of all the irregularities, is twofold. First, he (rightly or wrongly) controls Zimbabwe, and considers himself President both de facto and de jure. To qualify "President" violates NPOV. Second, even if there is a disputed election where someone wins under a cloud, the winner is still termed "President." Consider George W. Bush of the United States, in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election for instance. Of course his lack of perceived legitimacy can and should be noted; however, unless he's overthrown or somehow loses his seat, he is still "President."Ngchen (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bush's election was disputed and the issue was resolved through the courts, making him the 'de jure' president of the USA. Mugabe's election is disputed but due process has not been followed. Until this happens he cannot be considered 'de jure' president. His opinion on the matter is irrelevant. He is acting as president - which make him 'de facto' - but not yet 'de jure', according to the attributed source. Qualifying 'president' does not violate NPOV any more than calling him president would do. --TraceyR (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to reitterate. - Mugabe was undisputed president until the elections this year. The election result when eventually announced showed he lost. He chose not to accept this and manipulated events to ensure he remained in office. This was a fundamental change. He retained office against the will of the people and brutally dispatched opposition using the military. We as editors must reflect the change of position form de jure president to disputed and de facto president. To state he is President without qualification is a breach of NPOV. simonthebold (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with NPOV? To state that he is something other than President, when the vast majority of reliable sources refer to him as President, is a breach of WP:NOR. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course Mugabe is President, we do not demand that people are democratically elected in order to be President, what we demand is that they are in the position of power and leadership. This is the same kind of extremist POV pushing that we also find in the renaming of Myanmar to Burma and really should be nipped in the bud with the strongest possible prejudice as it is not for wikipedia editors to decide who is what based on their own political prejudices. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For those just joining this debate and others, the question is not "does he call himself president and act as president and enjoy all the trappings of office?"; obviously the answer is to all of the above is yes. The question here however is about the legal status of his (claimed) presidency. While he is obviously the 'de facto' president, he is equally obviously not the 'de jure' president. To call him 'de jure' president when his legal status is uncertain is less accurate (i.e. less encyclopaedic) and more POV than to mention the uncertainty of his status in the eyes of the world and to qualify it as 'de facto' (i.e. Neutral POV). --TraceyR (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All this can and indeed must be discussed in the bulk of the article, but not in the infobox and opening where he is described as President. President is the correct term in these places and to try to bring these points up there is not correct or NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But surely the opening and the infobox are what people will read first (and perhaps read no more than these), so it is essential that this information is made available there. --TraceyR (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede and infobox is to present an authoritative, undisputed summary of what is known about the subject. The sources you are citing to support your POV, such as the South African Cape Argus, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, and the South African Council of Churches, represent minority views. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that the opinion that Mugabe is de jure president of Zimbabwe is authoritative and undisputed? Or that those who dispute it are in the minority? I have yet to see the authoritative, undisputed sources to back up these opinions. Could you please provide them? Certainly there is no majority in the Zimbabwean parliament for these opinions. --TraceyR (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the basis of featuring views which have already been published in what are classified by policy as reliable sources. The vast majority of available reliable sources refer to Mugabe as President. The sources which do not, i.e., the ones you cite in support of your POV, are minor sources. Please review WP:NOR. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Other sources include Ban Ki-Moon ("Mugabe election deemed not legitimate") and Condoleeza Rice ("Mugabe regime cannot be considered legitimate"), this comment also coming from the French government (here) and the EU Commission ("The European Commission, like the UN, does not consider this election legitimate or valid" here). In addition, many African governments have issued similar statements[e.g. Botswana here). These are not minor sources nor just my view but represent a fair consensus of democratic opinion world-wide. If wikipedia fails to take these views into account it is failing its readership. I suspect that many of those "reliable sources" you refer to are bound by political constraints that prevent them from describing his position openly - at least one African leader at the recent conference expressed such views but requested for them not to be attributed to him by name. --TraceyR (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

These new sources do not use "ad hoc." Ironically, the first of the new batch of sources has the headline UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has deemed "not legitimate" the re-election of President Robert Mugabe, who was sworn in on Sunday following a long, contentious election. Note "President Robert Mugabe," not "ad hoc president," a pattern repeated throughout this group of sources. The lede to the article presently notes that the legitimacy of the election of Mugabe is disputed, so I don't see any basis for complaint there. You are also not permitted, under Wikipedia policy, to extrapolate from these sources that Mugabe should be referred to as "ad hoc president" (please review WP:SYNTH.) --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Marvin, you seem to be on a crusade here; your opinion seems to be entrenched and intolerant of any other opinions. You continually impose your opinions against other editors by reverting all you disagree with by assuming yours is the majority viewpoint. You are not the God of Wikipedia and neither are you His chosen messenger to interpret Wikipedia policy. Tracey and I both oppose your viewpoint and given plenty of evidence to support our position. Please stop reverting edits of the majority viewpoint. simonthebold (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

De facto and similar titles belong to the realm of law and justice. There is no need to transplant these notions to (present-day) Zimbabwe - the dictator can call himself and rewrite the "law" as he pleases, and the rest of the world will take the title as such. If he had oil, things could be different, but he does not. Keep it president as long as he, in fact, is. NVO (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No-one disputes that Mugabe calls himself president. As far as the article is concerned, surely the "realm of law and justice" is just what needs to be considered, since this is what determines whether Mugabe is 'de jure' or simply 'de facto' president. Someone looking up "Mugabe" on the web will find the Wikipedia article and should find an objective statement, not one which reflects Mugabe's view or that of his supporters. It should not therefore refer to him as "President Mugabe" when so many authoritative voices world-wide dispute this position. The introduction does make this clear, but the infobox does not and, IMO, should. I'm not sure what speaks against adding a footnote to the infobox title "President of Mugabe", since this is the contentious issue. At present it creates the false impression that his position is undisputed. --TraceyR (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Tracey. The impression given is that situation remains as it has been since 1987; this doesn't allow for the fundemental change in position since the last elections. simonthebold (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What speaks against it is Wikipedia policy. I don't make the policy, but I do take the time to read the relevant pages. If everyone would do that, these debates would not drag on quite so long. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So many WP policies have been mentioned here (NPOV, POV, SYNTH, BLP, NOR to name a few) but none of these would appear to prevent statements of fact based upon available sources. Which specific policy do you think applies here? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

None of them prevent "statements of fact based upon reliable sources." However, WP:SYNTH (in particular) prevents what you are seeking to do. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We are now in the realm of your interpretation of WP policy. It would be best if you explained why you think that what I am "seeking to do" contravenes this policy. I believe that the article should reflect the current situation accurately, so that the reader is made aware of it. Concealing the fact that Mugabe's presidency is disputed since the election does not serve this end. --TraceyR (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, this is a big debate for 5 words (de jure, de facto, president). Commenting on just a few of the issues raised, Mugabe did not "manipulate the laws" to have a run-off. He did not "lose" the election, as the constitution always stated that if no party received a majority a run-off would occur. Whether the run-off was held too late, or whether election violence got out of hand is another issue. Yes, Mugabe has not done anything to verify his presidency, but neither has Tsvangirai. If Tsvangirai had gone to the court, the issue would have been adressed. He is however, yet to appeal the run-off vote. There is a serious problem, I would say, of the polarization of the media on the subject of Zimbabwe. Even Wikipedia itself has been greatly effected by the anti-Mugabe Media which is in no way neutral. The pro-Mugabe media within Zimbabwe, such as the Herald, and ZBC, is also a problem. Mugabe is the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, as he won the election. Calling him "de facto" is possibly reasonable, although it shouldn't be in the infobox. There should be a note of the fact that many beleive he was elected through violence and intimidation and vote rigging, although there is evidence of violence on both sides. The Zimbabwe situation is a very complex issue, and saying that he is not the legal president is not for Wikipedians to do. As wikipedians, we must state both sides of the argument. However, what ever the international community say, it is the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission which have decided to make Mugabe president. At the moment, talks are already in process, and soon it is likely this debate will become irrelevant. I urge wikipedians to remember that he IS the president, whether legally or not. It is not us to say who should be president.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be difficult for editors to recognise the point of this discussion. No-one here can say who should be president. The issue of who is the legal president can only be determined by the Zimbabwean courts, and before this can happen someone needs to ask them to rule on the issue. Whether the Zimbabwean legal system can produce an impartial ruling is another matter. However, an encyclopedia which aspires to be accurate cannot merely accept the opinions of the interested parties, but must attempt to state the facts. What are the simple facts? Mugabe is the de facto president, pending a definitive ruling. Whatever the situation, he cannot accurately be describe as the de jure president. An interested reader will be misled by an article (including an infobox) which states, without qualification, that Mugabe is the president. In the interests of an accurate article, the term "president" must be qualified (whether by "de facto" or other words to this effect); IMO this ought to be done both in the intro and in the infobox. As for the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission, its competence to rule on the electoral process and the results is clearly defined in the constitution; it would appear to have exceeded its powers in the decisions relating to the run-off election. This also needs to be clarified in the article --TraceyR (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The convention which is followed by Wikipedia, as well as by all of the notable figures whom you yourself cited earlier in the discussion, is to use the term "President" for whoever is in charge. In the case where a president's legitimacy is disputed, we say so, and we say by whom, so the reader can draw his own conclusions. These matters are discussed in the body of the article, not in the lede or infoboxes. What you have been arguing for is that we should present Mugabe's presidency as illegitimate, as if it were undisputed fact. Wikipedia policy does not permit this, and with good reason. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

1/2 the world is ruled illegitimately. There's nothing unusual about Zimbabwe. It just happens to have got in the news a lot lately, for whatever reasons. I'm not sure whether WP has an entirely consistent policy, tho'. After all, N Cyprus & other places exist as de facto states, & their rulers are de facto Presidents or whatever. Does WP treat them the same way? If not, why not? Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Third party opinion as per RfC. For starters the NPOV template doesn't say that the article is biased. It just says that there is a dispute over it's neutrality. If there wasn't a dispute there wouldn't be an edit was or a RfC. So, please leave the NPOV template in place until consensus is achieved that the article is neutral. As per official policy.

Now to get to the issue at hand. Unfortunately there are lots of presidents in the world who are not democratically elected and who fix elections. As it happens Mugabe still turns up to UN and AU summits and not so long ago he officially opened the opposition dominated parliament. So we kind of have to say he is the "President of Zimbabwe" even with a finger over our noses.

This having been said, to reflect NPOV, we can say something more like: "Robert Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe although many (NGOs, countries etc) dispute the legitimacy of the recent elections and instead recognise Morgan Tsvangirai as ..." (or such like, obviously giving more details). Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we already have that information later in the article. We may include the fact that he is illegitimate, whilst also including the many countries which see him as legitimate, such as Russia, China etc. About the NPOV template, I agree we should not be getting rid of that. The article is overwhelmingly one-sided and whoever has been doing this clearly has his own agendas or does not know what an encyclopedia is. Here at wikipedia we have to try to get away from the normal prejudices and anti-Mugabe propaganda which has become commonplace, and look at both sides. This may be difficult because of the current media situation, whereby there are very few "unbiased" sources as they are either blatant MDC or blatant Zanu-PF. Still, it is important that we remember there is ALWAYS more than one opinion. Neutrality in the Zimbabwe political articles is a growing problem, but we need to overcome it if this site is to be any better than other news sources.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove POV

Someone who can edit this article, correct the sentence "Ian Smith, the stubborn World War II veteran" (189.148.80.217 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Its not there anymore. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, while we are waging a war about what title Robert Mugabe should hold, I would like to inform people that the rest of the article is heavily biased, especially the "elections" section. If we are to escape the heavily polarized international and internal media reporting on Zimbabwe, we must accept use sources from both sides. I realize this can be difficult with the current media situation on Zimbabwe and Mugabe, who we love to hate, but it must be done for the sake of a neutral point of view. The elections section argues strongly on several occasions that international reaction is against it. It does not explain why Tsvangirai's campaigns were stopped, according to police, and apart from one quotation, probably to imply that Mugabe is a savage dictator, it might as well say "Mugabe is illegitimate." It is not a mark of good editing to simply say exactly what the E.U and the U.S.A, as well as MDC tell us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but when opinion on a subject is overwhelming in one direction this must also be clear in the article. NPOV doesn't insist that all points of view are equally valid. Both sides must be represented (and supported by sources) but it must also be clear in the article which view is held by whom. It is to be hoped that the reader will be aware that the views of the UN, the EU and the USA etc. are likely to be more neutral than those of e.g. the Zimbabwean police. --TraceyR (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the opinions of the EU and the USA are NOT neutral. If we look into the sources at the bottom of the page we can see names such as "BBC", "Zimbabwe metro" etc, but NO sources in favour of Mugabe. The point is that Mugabe's side isn't represented, and some of the things stated in the article are actually libellous and poorly sourced, such as namecalling "marxist one-party rule". There is no evidence that Mugabe FIRST got into power through violence and intimidation. The point is that any reader looking at this article will see exactly the same as the polarized media they are probably used to, in fact probably worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No claim was made that the EU and the USA are neutral wrt Mugabe. The comparison was between the UN, USA and EU on one side and the Zimbabwean police on the other. I doubt that there are many neutral points of view about Mugabe, but the article just needs to state the different points of view and cite the sources. Perhaps there just aren't many pro-Mugabe POVs available. --TraceyR (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of pro-Mugabe POVs available. How about Mugabe himself?:). Also, there are plenty of state-run newspapers in Zimbabwe, as well as plenty of people who claim that they were attacked or their property was damaged BY MDC SUPPORTERS. The truth is very difficult to find out when talking about a topic like this. However, it is still important to give both sides. Even if you don't agree with this, surely we should delete such content as "one party marxist regime". --HandGrenadePins (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)--HandGrenadePins (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC) --HandGrenadePins (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Titiles / honorifics applied to the president?

There has been a to and fro (an edit 'skirmish', perhaps, rather than ourright war!) about whether the terms His Excellency and The Honourable apply to the person who holds the office of Zimbabwean President. I can't remember whether a reliable source has been cited one way or the other, but it would be good if this argument could be settled, since they currently appear in the infobox. I have searched the text of the constitution without finding mention of such titles. Are they defined elsewhere? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometime ago I looked at the Zim constitution as well and there are no mention of any honorific titles given to the president, (or anybody for that matter). So I have removed them until someone can give us a reliable quote. FFMG (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Excellency describes this honorific as follows:

"It is sometimes misinterpreted as a title of office in itself, but in fact it is an honorific which goes with and is used before various such titles (such as Mr. President, and so on), both in speech and in writing. In reference to such an official, it takes the form "His/Her Excellency"; in direct address, "Your Excellency", or, less formally, simply "Excellency"."

Since it is not a title, it should not be mentioned in the Infobox (it isn't used in WP for George W. Bush or other heads of state). By the same token, it would be (diplomatically) correct to address Mugabe in writing or in person as "Your Excellency". --TraceyR (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahowell mentions that articles on British politicians have such honorifics. Articles on other people in similar positions in near-by African states do not include such titles e.g. Thabo Mbeki, Mwai Kibaki, Yoweri Museveni, to name but three. Is Rahowell going to add "His Excellency the Honourable etc." to all such articles? Since they are applicable to all heads of state ex officio when they are being addressed (which does not apply here) it is superfluous to mention them - they go without saying. There is another possibility here: Following the example of the article on Elizabeth Windsor, which links to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II, why not create a similar List of titles and honours of Robert Gabriel Mugabe? --TraceyR (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very true, but this article is not addressing him directly, and as an encyclopedia we must only use facts. So if the Zimbabwean government had a special title for their president then we must use it, but as they don't we cannot.

Adding titles because some website, (somehow loosely related to the Zim gov), letterhead or others do should be used as a reference very carefully. FFMG (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because there isn't a provision in the constitution for a specific title doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I challenge anyone to find any enactment in the United Kingdom which regulates the use of honorific prefixes; yet ever Privy Counsellor is entitled to the style of the Right Honourable. It is my suspicion that the continual removal of President Mugabe titles from this website are based on personal antipathy to the man rather than objective reasoning. [5] is the official website of the Zimbabwean Government so I will add President Mugabe's titles once again.Rahowell (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No we are looking for facts, please don't accuse me or others because we might not agree with you, if gta.gov.zw is really a government website then what it is for, (what department/ministry)? and who is in charge of it, (because it is extremely poorly designed, IMHO).

None of those Honorific titles are valid because the country itself does not use them.

You might find some reference to some title others might have given him because they don't know any better but that does not make it official, (unlike the Queen for example).

I wish you would use the talk page first so we can discuss you references. None of the ones you have given are valid. FFMG (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rahowell would care to check the infoboxes of other heads of state in Wikipedia. None that I have looked at use these titles. The circumstances in which such honorifics are used have been discussed already in this thread. --TraceyR (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Zimbabwean government have bigger problems than designing an attractive webpage. I find little evidence that these titles are not in use in Zimbabwe. All heads of state are entitled to use both His Excellency and The Honourable; and the latter is common in common law jurisdictions and former british colonies. I also think that the website of the Zimbabwean Parliament is a valid source; I have never once seen the reputation of websites of other Parliaments being questioned in this strange way. Rahowell (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Zimbabwean constitution offers no such titles so they do not exist. You claim that All heads of state are entitled to use both His Excellency and The Honourable; and the latter is common in common law jurisdictions and former british colonies. but where is the source of such claims? the constitution of Zimbabwe does not offer him such titles, and the fact that some webmasters do not know that does not make them reliable sources. FFMG (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of the United States mentions nothing about the Environmental Protection Agency, does that mean it doesn't exist and it is all just a conspiracy. There is no law which entitles Privy Counsellors in the UK to use the prefix the Right Honourable, or sons or daughters of peers to use the prefix The Honourable. Do you deny the existance of these titles. The reality is that some titles do not arise from any legal document, but from various different precedents and traditions such as the ones that I have already noted. But the idea that just because a title doesn't exist in a country's constitution, it doesn't exist at all is absurd. Rahowell (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Rahowell now be adding these honorifics to the Wikipedia articles of all other heads of state? What makes Mugabe so special that he alone should have them? The persistent reinstatement of these titles to this article, in spite of reasoned argument against them, is out of line with WP practice and is getting tiresome. --TraceyR (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) TraceyR is right - surely Wikipedia should try to be consistent in these stylistic matters, so if Mugabe is to have a string of honorfics in front of his name in the infobox, then consistency means that all other articles dealing with past or present heads of state should also have them. (2) If Rahowell added all titles which are unofficial but which reflect precedent, tradition and daily usage within Zimbabwe, then I'm sure that Mugabe would actually have a much longer string of descriptors in the infobox, some of them very unflattering indeed. Let's not even go there! Dodo64 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I think we can all agree that Mugabe is both President of Zimbabwe and General Secretary of ZANU-PF. The title Comrade is obviously from the liberation struggle. These titles as I'm sure you will all agree are unique to Mugabe and therefore surely deserve inclusion? I also think that honorific titles should always be displayed; they are displayed for all British politicians whose number in terms of articles far outwieghs those of Heads of State. Thus the convention also not applied throughout the whole of Wikipedia (yet) is to display such honorific titles. I'm glad that we have all now accepted that simply because there is no provision in the Constitution for these titles, they don't exist is wrong. However, Dodo64, we are talking about official traditions and customs, and not general public opinion. After all if we were applying that principle to Wikipedia, then the concept of partiality would have been destroyed long ago. Rahowell (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion page above, or indeed any news report on Zimbabwe from the last few months, you will see that many people including African heads of state and whole governments do in fact disagree that Mugabe is President of Zimbabwe. Therefore if we keep your list of honorifics in the info box it should avoid partiality by including those bestowed by Mugabe's many internal opponents. In this spirit I will now add one (referenced), but I am sure we could find reliable references to many more if required. (Seriously, I think the whole idea of the list of honorifics is misguided and suggest a vote here on whether to retain it.) Dodo64 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Dodo64 has misunderstood the purpose of the infobox. The description of Mugabe as a "female reproductive organ" (in Shona, as mentioned in the reference) does not warrant assigning this honorific to him, since it is just opinion and not mentioned in the constitution. It could be mentioned in the body of the article (along with the reference) as opinion, rather than a statement of fact. --TraceyR (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO the attempt to include these honorifics in the infobox is a not-so-subtle attempt by Mugabe detractors to make him look ridiculous. No other such WP article that I have looked up includes them, so the impression is given that he is the sort of tin-pot banana-republic dictator who revels in having such pretentious titles before his name. They should be removed to bring this article in line with other similar WP articles. As for the titles being unique to Mugabe, this is simply not the case. ---TraceyR (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahowell mentions that articles on British politicians have such honorifics. Articles on other people in similar positions in near-by African states do not include such titles e.g. Thabo Mbeki, Mwai Kibaki, Yoweri Museveni, to name but three. Is Rahowell going to add "His Excellency the Honourable etc." to all such articles? Since they are applicable to all heads of state ex officio when they are being addressed (which does not apply here) it is superfluous to mention them - i.e. they go without saying. There is a possible compromise solution: Following the example of the article on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which links to List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II, why not create a similar List of titles and honours of Robert Gabriel Mugabe and link to it from the article? This would allow more space for all of his titles without messing up the infobox. It would also allow for a tabular presentation, e.g. columns for title, awarding body/person, date awarded, date revoked, reason for revocation etc. --TraceyR (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TraceyR, I thought we had progressed beyond the obstinate and irrational position that all honorific titles must be derived from a country's constitution. I'm not trying to ridicule Mugabe; merely trying to add the titles which are bestowed upon him due to his positions. The only person who made Mugabe look akin to the description which you gave is Mugabe when he assumed (some of) these titles. I note that you have made no attempt to engage with a single of my arguments which I have repeated on several occasions in this discussion. The sheer volume of honorific titles does not mess up the infobox, Margaret Thatcher's page has a similar number and it is in a perfectly respectable state. Would you please end this tedious war game against accurate information which has been sourced twice.Rahowell (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahowell, There are a few problems as I see it, 1) the titles given to Margaret Thatcher, (for example), can all be traced to a group3/constitution/law that entitles them to give such title. None of the titles you have given Mugabe can be verified.

2) You are repeatedly going against editors who argue that none of the references you are giving are not valid once. You are also going against all other articles for heads of states by making up titles, (maybe your intention is indeed to ridicule Mugabe).

3) You are going against the country of Zimbabwe itself, for example when he was sworn in as president he was not introduced with any of the honorific titles you are giving him.

But, my main concern is the references, none of them are valid. otherwise you must agree with Dodo64 and include the title that was also given to him by a newspaper, (you cannot pick and choose).

Rahowell, it really would be helpful if you would read and engage with the arguments expressed here, rather than just ignoring them and reinstating these ex officio titles (see several entries in this thread). If you had, you would have seen and perhaps understood the reference to the constitution (a hint: it was a joke!). Also, it simply is not true that your arguments have been ignored: please check for yourself. Here's one to engage with: You state: "The only person who made Mugabe look akin to the description which you gave is Mugabe when he assumed (some of) these titles". Of course he didn't "assume" these titles, as has been pointed out several times above; "His Excellency" and "The Honourable" are modes of address used for heads of state (even, it appears, de facto ones). He didn't assume them. Furthermore, "Comrade" is a mode of address which was (is?) used in communist states in place of such terms as "Your Excellency"; if used wrt Mugabe it would be "Comrade President", so it makes even less sense to include it in a list of 'bourgeois' titles. Perhaps you would summarise your arguments for the inclusion of these titles, so that (1) they can be answered once and for all and (2) we can get on with improving the rest of WP. --TraceyR (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is all discussed in the MoS > see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes. Overuse of honorifics is ugly and unencyclopedic. They can be discussed in the article but not promonantly displayed in the lead or infobox. simonthebold (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken simonthebold. I think President Robert Mugabe will do fine in the infobox; however the other titles shall remain in the article body proper.Rahowell (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahowell, the title "President" is already in the infobox, in the section headed "President of Zimbabwe"; there is therefore no need for it to precede Mugabe's name. If you insist on adding all of these titles to the article, ex officio or not, and the idea of a linked List of titles and honours of Robert Gabriel Mugabe doesn't appeal to you, why not create a paragraph "Titles" along the lines of "Honours and revocations"? There you can list all the titles you like (properly sourced, of course) without making the article look like a dog's dinner. There's more than one way to skin a cat (sticking to the animal metaphors). --TraceyR (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

TraceyR, I repeat that the Government and Parliament of Zimbabwe website's are reputable sources.AS Mugabe is Gen-Sec of Zanu PF that ought to be included. As should his position of President. As for his excellency, comrade and the honourable, they are all legitimate well-sourced honorifics which deserve notation.Rahowell (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rahowell seems to be confused: I have not disputed the websites he/she refers to. I do think that it is time that an admin step in here to protect this article from Rahowell's persistent refusal to accept WP norms and the consensus view. How does one call on such help? --TraceyR (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who disagrees with the sources given, the site gta.gov.zw does not belong to any department as far as I can tell. I am not familiar with the procedures to check who owns the site but I very much doubt that it belongs to any ministry in Zimbabwe. A very basic search reveals that the site itself is not used by any ministry/media/announcements, it seems to be used by an ISP, (that might explain how they got hold of a .gov.zw site).

The Parliament website parlzim.gov.zw is a much more reliable source, but it calls Mugabe by various names. On all the acts, Mugabe is simply referred to as 'president'[6], (as per the constitution), on other pages he is 'His Excellency'[7] while on the home page and one article[8][9] the title Comrade, (Cde), has been added after his name, (I least I think that's what it stands for).

The Parliament referring to the president as 'Comrade' is very questionable in itself. FFMG (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed, once again, the non existent titles bestowed on Mugabe. FFMG (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This situation has become intolerable. One would have thought that ordinary decent god-fearing people would have seen sense by now and would have fairly and accurately reported Mr Muagabe's honorific titles. My information is well sourced and of an official nature. There is a grand conspiracy to decieve people; to degrade Mr Mugabe reputation based on personal antipathy rather than objective encyclopedic reasoning. This repeated censorship by FFMG and by TraceyR runs contrary to the objectives and principles that Wikipedia stands for. This tragic and intractable phenomenon which I watch with horror on this article but which here is interwoven with the history and editors of the article itself, is coming upon the rest of wikipedia by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal of all. Therefore; as my time and resources are limited, I shall revert the article to its correct state one final time, but I have no realistic hope that my valid contribution will not be censored in the fashion it has been for the last few weeks. Rahowell (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside Rahowell's histrionics and obvious feeling of frustration at being unable to force his opinion upon other editors, I would ask him to retract his accusations of censorship as far as I am concerned. Had he taken the trouble to check the facts, he would have found that I have made only one edit of the article with respect to the 'honorifics' subject over the past month, excluding today's 'final (?)' edit (out of a total of 4 edits over this period). My activity has been here, arguing for the removal of the contentious titles he wishes to foist upon the article in contravention of WP norms and the prevailing consensus. Over the same time he has made some 21 edits, most of them on this subject. The facts speak for themselves. --TraceyR (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My "histrionics" have attempted to defend the upstanding morality of the principles on which wikipedia is based. I will not retract my accusation; fortunately you can't censor my talk page contributions. What has occured is what I have said above.Rahowell (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of titles other than President (or some variation). I am not 'god-fearing', nor do I think that wikipedia will fall over after this step, and I do not think 'resolute and urgent action' is appropriate. Wizzy…☎ 07:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"particularly contentious"

Copied from user talk:Will Beback

You placed a "citation needed" template after the statement "His relationship with the former colonial power, the United Kingdom, has been particularly contentious" in Robert Mugabe. As you may recall, the lede is intended to be a summary of the article. If you will take a few minutes to read the article you will find, for example, that Mugabe accuses the United Kingdom of promoting white imperialism and regularly accuses opposition figures to his government of being allies of white imperialism; that Mugabe withdrew Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth to protest a prolonged suspension by the Commonwealth; that When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown attempted to intervene into the election controversy, Mugabe dismissed him as "a little tiny dot on this planet"; and that the "Criticism and Opposition" section is dominated by commentary in British media. These are only a few examples. I might add that Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia, was at one time a British colony, but later rebelled. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed the citation request because we appear to be making a POV remark. Do we have any sources that highlight the relationship between Mugabe and the U.K. as being "particularly" contentious? He appears to have had contentious relationships with many other nations and individuals. Why are we devoting a paragraph in the lead to this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no response or source for why this should be mentioned in the lead, I'm going to delete it. (note: This material was added by Marvin Diode in June, [10], deleted by Jan Hofmann soon after,[11], restored again by MD. [12] Then it was deleted by Tpbradbury,[13] then restored again by MD the same day.[14] It was recently deleted by Jan Hofmann,[15] and then restored by Marvin Diode.[16]). If editors wish to restore it they should provide sources for each of the assertions made in it, rather than simply claiming that it is a summary of assertions made elsewhere in the article, and they should have an argument for why it is important enough for inclusion in the intro. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal life: First wife?

On the National Archives page (here) dated "1969 Jan 01-1970 Dec 31" there is the following entry:

"Registered file concerning application to reside and work in the United Kingdom: Mrs Sarah Francesca Mugabe, Ghanaian-born wife of Robert Mugabe (detained in Rhodesia), residing in London following completion of her studies."

There is a further entry here documenting the refusal of the application:

"Entry into United Kingdom: Mrs Sarah Mugabe´s application to stay in UK while her husband, Robert Mugabe, was imprisoned in Rhodesia. Home Office refused to grant Mugabe permission to stay on grounds that she had already been residing in the United Kingdom as a student. Had she been a Rhodesian citizen she would have had the automatic right to stay but as a Ghanaian, she did not, and would be deported. Contains a letter and telegram from Robert Mugabe to Harold Wilson."

Another source (here) throws more light on this chapter:

"As Timothy Scarnecchia’s archival work has shown, however, Mugabe has long known the need for foreign funding and other sorts of assistance: in a discussion in the early days of nationalism with an American consular official in Salisbury he said that no African nationalist party could do without foreign funding: the question was to “ride the tiger without ending up inside”.[56] As Moore has found in the British National Archives, the British Ariel Foundation funded Mrs. Sarah Mugabe’s stay in London in the late 1960s.[57] When the British Home Secretary decided that her time was up, on the 8th of June 1970 Robert Mugabe sent a telegram and a handwritten letter from Salisbury’s prisons note directly to Prime Minister Harold Wilson asking that she be allowed to stay.

The letter ends thus:

“May I request, Sir, that you personally exercise your mind on the case I have placed before you so that justice is done to my wife and myself”. The post-script read: “I regret that the consequence of my writing this letter to you will inevitably be a surcharge on you, Sir.” Mrs. Mugabe wrote a few too. The Ariel Foundation lobbied on her behalf (she was employed by the foundation at one time; as was she at the Africa Centre): it was so effective that 389 MPs signed a petition on her behalf, and she was allowed to stay.[58] The point of this archival evidence is to indicate that the party that was devoted to ‘liberating ourselves’ was in fact dependent to a great degree on well-meaning foreigners and indeed the British state.[59] So it would hardly be surprising that the new generation of opposition would utilize such support too, given that the contemporary state is hardly more well-disposed to the idea of a vibrant opposition than was Ian Smith’s."

A footnote to the last source gives some information on the British Ariel Foundation:

"[57] David Moore, ‘ZANU-PF and the Ghosts of Foreign Funding,’ Review of African Political Economy, 103, March 2005, pp. 156-162. Moore relied too much on a ‘spy-scandal’ book and web-site in the ROAPE article, and accepted their claims that the Ariel Foundation was a CIA front. In an August 2007 interview with the Ariel Foundation’s founder, Dennis Grennan, he discovered his mistake. In response to the query about the CIA funding, Grennan replied that the foundation did not need the CIA because it had some of the richest people in England and the United States funding it."

The article currently omits reference to the Mrs Sarah Francesca Mugabe, stating instead that Sally Hayfron was his first wife. Can anyone shed more light on this stage of Mugabe's life? --TraceyR (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved! Sally Hayfron and Sarah Francesca Mugabe are one and the same person - the link is here. --TraceyR (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This is a very strange article! It doesn't seem to bear any realtion to what is going on in Zimbabwe at the the moment. It also doesn't deal with the atrocities committed by the terrorist in the Rhodesian bush war. I think refrences to the "Zimbabwe Liberation struggle" are a bit weird considering it led to the truimph of the communist backed African-communists! The land-seizure section seems to blame the British goverment for the land-grabs when this is what all Afican communist and communist regiemes have done. What about some info on the attacks on the white farmers and black workers who often are of a different tribal group to Mugabe's thugs. He is a dictator and an interantional pariah but the article doesn't seem to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.243.150 (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there is a fairly significant cadre of people who feel compelled to defend Mugabe on the basis the earlier successes of his regime; for the article to be objective, it has to reflect that. Mugabe's an easy target for a hack job, but the fact remains he has a much more mixed record than say, Kim Jong Il. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.251.232 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, a fairly significant cadre of people who feel compelled to defend Mugabe is the definition of bias. No one should feel compelled to defend anything, the truth should speak for itself. Both accomplishments and detractions should be clearly stated and explained. That is if the article is to remain objective and not merely reflective of opinion.--68.36.99.29 (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It specifically says in NPOV that the encyclopedia is not meant to be "objective". NPOV stands for "Neutral point of view" not "no point of view". At the moment, there is a heavy one sided opinion in the Elections section which calls him a "marxist", as well as saying he used wide-spread violence and intimidation to win his election, while not giving the other side of the story. The section is overwhelmingly biased against Mugabe and Zanu-PF. The NPOV policy states that both sides of the story should be presented in an even way. Calling him "Marxist" is not in any way balanced. This is a clear attempt at vandalism and will be removed immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandGrenadePins (talk • contribs) 10:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In no way does Robert Mugabe lead a "marxist one party regime". He is social democratic but not marxist. If he was officially marxist would he be leading a parliamentary democracy? (as far as we are concerned the fact that it his legitimacy is in question is irrelevent) Mugabe has not declared himself as in any way communist and follows democratic practices. Some seem to suggest that I will not be using "RELIABLE sources for my arguments. What do they quite mean by this word "reliable". (yes I have read the page, before they start saying I'm a newbie with no brains.) Do they mean anti-Mugabe? I think they do:(. [17] This quite clearly illustrates that the media bias around Zimbabwe is being purpotrated by Western media as well as the state-run media. The problem is that we do not read the state-owned media because we see it as "propaganda", whilst we read gladly the media which told us that Native Americans were savages, Blacks should always be slaves, the Golf of Tonkin incident, and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If they read the article you would notice that it talks about "international" (i.e. Western) reaction to Mugabe's actions, while never ever giving a reply from Mugabe sympathizers. The only reply I can find is one which says that Tsvangirai deserved to be beaten, perhaps to portray them as brutal.

By the way, I am not the only person on the discussion page who wishes to have a NPOV tag, check lower down. As I said, this marks a DISPUTE, and there is quite clearly a dispute since before I placed a NPOV tag there.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article has a neutrality problem. As I see it, the problem lies in the fact that the article is written primarily from the British POV, relying on British media for much of the sourcing, especially the criticism. This could be remedied by adding more citations from other parts of the world. It could also be noted in the lede that there is a long-standing conflict between pro-Mugabe sources and the former colonial power. However, one editor has strenuously objected to this approach (see Talk:Robert Mugabe#"particularly contentious".) --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"One editor" doesn't object to sourced material. Unsourced opinion doesn't belong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"subversive speech"

"In 1964 Mugabe was arrested for “subversive speech” and spent the next 10 years in Salisbury prison, which helps to explain why his hatred of European hegemony in Africa is so strong."

I guess the people that were responsible for arresting him were European hegemonics[sic]?????? I do not understand why the aforementioned conclusion is drawn...maybe its just me...best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.43.148 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"He was re-elected in 1990 and 1996, and in 2002 amid claims of widespread vote-rigging and intimidation." So the claims were in 2002 or in all 3 elections???

"Mugabe is said to fear prosecution for this massacre, with bills calling for inquiries into the incident sometimes introduced into Parliament." --maybe its just me, but the sentence does not apppear to be grammatically correct 66.234.43.148 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

The Zimbabwe Times here has a report which includes the following allegation:

"But Mugabe himself had an extra-marital affair with his married secretary, Grace Marufu, now the First Lady, and made her pregnant while she was married to another man, Stanley Goreraza, now a diplomat in China. Meanwhile, his first wife, Sarah Hayfron Mugabe, was wasting away on her death bed, suffering from a life-threatening kidney ailment."

In another (unattributed) article a similar claim is made:

"Sally Mugabe died of kidney failure in 1992. Sally was popular in Zimbabwe, establishing a major children’s charity and working tirelessly for women’s rights. There was great sympathy for her grieving husband, until details emerged of a relationship with his secretary Grace Marufu – 40 years his junior. The liaison had started several years before Sally’s death, and had already produced two children. The editor who broke the story was arrested, tortured and charged with defamation. He never fully recovered from his ordeal and died several years later from complications resulting from his torture. In 1996 Mugabe married Grace at a lavish Catholic ceremony attended by many important African leaders, including Nelson Mandela. Both children attended the ceremony, and the following year Grace gave birth to their third child. Grace is an extremely unpopular woman in Zimbabwe, renowned all over the world for her expensive tastes and penchant for shopping at stores such as Harrods."

Can anyone verify/contradict these claims? Would it be in line with WP policy of biographies of living persons to include this information in the article on the basis of these reports? Presumably the attendance of the children at the wedding, for example, is a matter of publc record? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Small Change

In the introduction it says "For many years in the 60s and 70s". For brevity, and to avoid tautology, could we change it to "Throughout the 60s and 70s" or "During the 60s and 70s" or "for much of the 60s and 70s"? (Captain hoek (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Title discussion irrelevent

On Wednesday a deal will probably be signed that ends this useless and pointless debate (since the article is already written in a anti-Mugabe pro Tsvangirai stance). When this deal is made, he will be regarded as the legitimate president of Zimbabwe.[18]

By the way, please stop removing the neutrality tag that I added.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a neutrality tag should just be welded to the title, given the nature of this article... SGGH ^speak! 13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is negative about Mugabe, then this could be due to the predominance of negative sources. WP articles are required to be based on sources. Controversial subjects are difficult to present in a way which is satisfactory to both sides of polarised opinion. If there are 'weasle-words' and such like in the article, these should be replaced by objective alternatives, but facts tend to speak for themselves, regardless of how they are packaged. --TraceyR (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Race

Seems kinda irrelevent. We don't really know what is true and not true when it comes to this because Britain and Mugabe have been making false accusations at each other for some time. I don't think we would include everything that Mugabe accuses Britain and Tony Blair of, especially on the part of racism which by the way may be more truthful than blair accusations. I dont see Tony Blair as an imperialist or a colonist or allegede colonialist and warmonger. We should not inculde these irrelevent allegations. We present the facts, Mugabe took land from the descendents of white colonialist and imperialist who illegally obtained land through criminal acts (thief, armed robbery, murder, rape and extortion). If the reader determines that makes him racist then so be it, but considering the circumstances it does not satisfy that he is a racist.

Firstly to be a racist he must believe blacks are superior to whites, there is no evidence of that, he never said such thing. Mugabe took land from whites after Britain renagged on an agreement to pay these white farmers to leave when Tony Blair took office. Explain to me why any government would pay a people , who illegally entered their country and obtaind land through grossly illegal acts to leave? That is absurd. If a Mexican or Arab came into your house killed your family and kicked you out, explain to me why the american or european government should buy back your house and pay for that mexican or arab to go home. Now if Mexico or Arabia pays to remove that meixcan or arab then so be it great, but if the government kicks them out, does that make america or europe racist? If anyone is racist here it is the mexicans because they think they can steal your land and expect you to pay for it. However kicking out a theif of your country doesn't make you a racist.