Talk:Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Nel's book

I have reinstated Nel's references to the rape incident.

May I remind readers that WIkipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This can be seen in the context of the question "Does God exist?". Wikipedia does not take sides in this argument, but provides a forum where relevant arguement from both the Bible and from Richard Dawkins can be put side by side. In exactly the same way, I have quoted from both Nel's and Rickards' writings and also summarised their credentials to assist the user. I beleive that my summary is fair. It is up to the interested user to read for themselves what both have written and to decide for themselves. Martinvl (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. Rape is an allegation in most juridictions unless proven in court. Also, we have to decide if the writings of these individual meet WP:RELY, otherwise they may fall into what we would now call a blog. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note ALL the "facts" on my website are extracts from news reports as it clearly says at the top of the relevant webpage on my site. That is why I edited the reference to me "Rickard" (incorrect spelling) making the statement about the sensationalist newspapers reporting rapes. I made no such statement but was quoting another. Please edit to reflect this. If you wish to mention the comment and the rape issue leave my name out of it. I will look in my records and find the source of that report when I have time.

{{edit protected}} Support and request removal of the following

Rickard,<ref name=RobRickards>{{cite web |url = http://home.iprimus.com.au/rob_rickards/viscounts/hunyani.htm |title = The Hunyani Disaster |author = Rob Rickards |work = Viscounts in Africa - The Air Rhodesia story |accessdate = 2010-10-09}}</ref> a former Air Zimbabwe pilot claims that the alleged rape incident was invented by the "sensationalistic Jo'burg papers".

The cited source appears to state that this is uncited hearsay. For this reason alone, this is not a WP:reliable source for allegations of rape or journalistic malpractice. --Boson (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My Book "Viscount Down"

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not claim at any time to have parachuted into the Hunyani crash site and neither have I claimed anywhere at any time, that anybody was raped. Your report stating myself as a source, is considered to be malicious as it has no founding whatsoever and will be deeply disturbing to relatives of the victims. You (Martinv1) are hereby requested to cease attributing references to me that are grossly misrepresentative of the facts. Failure to do so will result in a serious complaint to Wiki against you. Keith Nell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spigieli (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Keith, I have reread your website and request that you accept my apologies regarding the rape allegation. I must have read your website rather quickly.

However, may I respectfully point out to you that your website can give the impression that you were in the party that parachuted into the area. The website reads "When the SAS parachuted into the crash site ... This is a rare story by a member of the Rhodesian SAS ... I was there". Most of the page in question is devoted to the aircraft tragedy itself and only a short paragraph to the military follow-up (to which I now understand you were referring when you wrote "I was there"). Perhaps you could look at rewording that phrase of your website - maybe something like "I was there helping to track them down". Martinvl (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To Martinvl - I can accept that some people might 'assume' that I parachuted into the crash site - but the paragraph in which I stated that I was there, is clearly about the mission to locate the Viscount Gang, and therefore its not really of importance whether I was part of the search and rescue team or not. I am very much more concerned about your statement that the Hostess was repeatedly raped, referring to me as the source of that information. How could you conclude that when there is nothing of the sort? You say you 'must have read the website rather quickly' - this is no excuse for that blunder. Apart from the trauma your allegation causes relatives of the victims, it also affects my reputation since my forthcoming book is already regarded as the main source of reference to all aspects of the terrorist missile campaign that caused these disasters. I will accept your apologies though - and thank you for setting the record straight. --Keith Nell-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.16.170.37 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can mark the above as resolved. For the record, this is related to OTRS ticket 2010102910008463. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear

It should be made clear how much military equipment there was on the two planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.23.82 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I am concerned that User:Cliftonian, who is now the principal contributor to this article assessed its quality on behalf of four different Wikiprojects before submitting it as a Good Article. I was always under the impression that reviewers should not be editors who were closely involved with writing the article. Martinvl (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

According to my understanding, for classes below GA class (stub, start, C and B) it is possible to assess the article yourself so long as you are impartial in doing it, which I did my best to be. I apologise if my actions seemed presumptuous. If you or anybody else wishes to re-assess the article for B-class, I have no problem with that. In the meantime, the article is now nominated for GA, which does have to be reviewed by somebody else. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In my view, this article automatically fails a "B" quality test because:

1. It is not stable - by definition it cannot be stable four minutes after it was posted.
2. It has not been independently reviewed for completeness. If the original editor had a "blind spot" when writing it, he will have the same "blind spot" when reviewing it.

May I respectfully suggest that you revoke your own assessments of the article, withdraw the GA nomination and invite member of the relevant four Wikiprojects to assess it. Once that has been done, I will look at it more carefully (I am not a member of any of the four interested Wikiprojects). BTW, it looks to be a reasonably good article, but on skim-reading it I noticed a few ommissions. I also feel that the lead might need revisiting.

Martinvl (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made a number of what I believe to be non-contraversial changes. There are a other points that I believe should be seen to including:

• The lead needs an overhaul - it concentrates too much on the incident itself whereas it should be a summary of the article as a whole - in particular you should try to summarise the political situation in a few lines. You should also try to trim down a lot of the detail. May I suggest that you ensure that each of the following are covered in equal proportions, both in the lead and in the artcile as a whole:

1. The political context - the reader might not know anything about UDI
2. The state of the bush war, in particular why were the guerillas able to operate
3. Details of the attack
4. Consequences of the attack

• Be careful of WP:NPOV - the inclusion of Smtih's statement when declaring UDI can be seen as a promotion of your own POV.
• Try to remove all citations from the lead itself, except where you are making direct quotes. This is only possible if the lead is a true summary of the article itself.

Martinvl (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have downgraded the article to "C" class across the board as you requested, as I feel I cannot reasonably argue that I did not have a blind spot while writing this; if that were the case, I would still have the blind spot now. On the other hand, I disagree with the view that the article can not be considered to have been stable immediately after posting: in my view, an article should be considered unstable when two or more users are regularly making considerable and/or contradictory changes to it.

I noticed two changes you made to the article, both of which are not entirely correct:

The first was that concerning the name of the colony, which you incorrectly changed the article to say was changed on UDI. Not so. Salisbury began using the name without "Southern" in October 1964, following the independence of Northern Rhodesia as Zambia. Reasoning that the qualifier "Southern" was superfluous as there was no longer a Northern, the Southern Rhodesian government announced the change on 7 October and confirmed their intent to change the constitution on the 23rd. Assuming it was a matter of course, they started using the new name immediately without waiting for Britain's assent, but Britain ultimately blocked the move, saying the acts naming the country were British, and therefore could not be altered by the colonial government; but Salisbury went on using the name anyway (see Claire Palley (1966), The constitutional history and law of Southern Rhodesia 1888–1965, with special reference to Imperial control, Oxford University Press, pp 742–743). This is a rather complicated affair, but the point I am trying to make is that the name was not changed concurrently with UDI: Salisbury had actually been using "Rhodesia" for a year by that point.

The second was some that you added at the end, regarding Muzorewa's 1979 election victory and so on. All of this was unsourced and not entirely accurate. I've written a new, more accurate version, with sources; I hope it meets with your approval.

Regarding the GA nomination, I can't see how it is really harmful to the article to have it listed for review, particularly as I believe the article stands a good chance of passing, which would upgrade it to GA class across the board anyway, thereby superseding all of the relevant B class reviews. I won't make a fuss about the step between C and B class as it has little significance, but if you or anybody else wishes to review it for B class, that can only be constructive.

I hope all of this is helpful and that you are well. I will attempt to have a run through the article, and particularly the lead, in the manner you described above. I will quickly say that the references in the lead are only present on direct quotes and following the word "terrorism", which I believe is a strong word that requires a reference after it, even in the lead, to lend it credence. Thanks, and all the best, —Cliftonian (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ over the use of "Southern Rhodesia" vis-a-vis "Rhodesia". I have in my possession stamps that I collected when I was a student during my first year at the University of Natal in 1965. These stamps have the country name "Southern Rhodesia" and are overstamped "Independence 11th November 1965". A few weeks later new stampes appeared with a similar design, still bearing the Queen's head, but the country name "Rhodesia". A particularly good example can be seen here. If you visit Southern Rhodesia you will see that the bill to change the country's name from "Southern Rhodesia" to "Rhodesia" that was passed in 1964 never received assent from the Governor so never became law.

As regards a GA status, I suggest that you request a review on all the Wikiprojects concerend, stating that you woudl like it to submit it for GA. I am sure that with a bit of tidying up here and there you should be on the last lap, but you cannot hold the finishing tape while you are running.

Martinvl (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that the change from "Southern Rhodesia" to "Rhodesia" in 1964 never got assent from the Governor and never became law—in fact I thought I had said exactly that in my last message—but the point I was trying to make was that the shortened name was used in Rhodesian government correspondence and documentation from late 1964. The fact that the name was not changed in British constitutional law explains the presence of the "Southern Rhodesia" name stamps after this point. According to British law, of course, the name never changed to Rhodesia at all, and retained the "Southern" suffix right up to Zimbabwean statehood on 18 April 1980.

I think it's also mentioning that this isn't really a major point for the article, and attempting to explain it in sufficient detail would detract from the main subject, which is Flight 825. I have given appropriate explanations of the change in other articles I have written, such as Lisbon Appointment.

I have messaged the user AbstractIllusions, asking him to review the article for B class on behalf of the Africa and Zimbabwe projects. I've also dropped a note on the talk page of Gavbadger, asking him to do the same for Aviation, and perhaps Terrorism too. I hope this is all to your satisfaction. Thank you for your input here; I feel we are cooperating and making progress. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian, what you are doing is fine, however I feel that where one uses the word "colony", one should also use the words "Southern Rhodesia", if only to distinguish it from the colony of Northern Rhodesia. I would also point you in the direction of the article Rhodesia (name). Martinvl (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for the tip. I am aware of the article on the Rhodesia name; I wrote much of it. As a compromise here, I've expanded the footnote on the country's name to include a thorough explanation of the issue. I hope this is helpful and to your satisfaction. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the article for B class review for Aviation and Terrorism and i see no obvious problems and have given the grade as B. However there are some bits that i would like to be changed, these are:

• The sentence in the lead "The Rhodesian government initially refused to confirm that the plane had been shot down, doing so only after four days of investigation", The Rhodesian government should be internally linked.
• The sentence also in the lead "This disabled the two starboard engines, ruptured fuel and pressurised hydraulic lines, causing a conflagration on the wing that the crew and passengers could not extinguish", The world "conflagration" should be linked.
• The sentence in the Background section "Britain had recently adopted a policy of no independence before majority rule, and Rhodesia's government mostly comprised members of the country's white minority, so this declaration went unrecognised internationally. Britain should be the correctly named the United Kingdom.
• This sentence again in the background section "Around the same time, Rhodesia's other key backer, South Africa, adopted a détente initiative, forcing a ceasefire just as the security forces were pushing the guerrillas back" Détente should be internally linked.

Good Luck

Gavbadger (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gav. There isn't presently an article on the Rhodesian government, so I've omitted that one for now, but I've applied the other suggestions. Thanks again! —Cliftonian (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Assessed for Wikiproject Africa. It meets 'B' quality standards in current form. Some suggestions: 1. Flight (first sentence): "which was wound up at the end of that year." Wound up seems euphamistic (a la "passed away" instead of "died"). 2. Attack on the ground (Last two sentences, first graph, starts "This left 10") Needs to be combined with one another for clarity. Maybe parentheses to add the point about the girls. 3. Attack on the ground (second graph, last sentence, starts "Please don't shoot us"), problem with the words "mown down". Is that the right conjugation? Mowed down seems right to me. Also, I think violence should never be covered over, but mown or mowed down may be POV description of the event. 4. Constant usage may help. The plane is referred to many different ways (the Hunyani, the Viscount, etc.). Also, although "Rhodesian" was deployed politically to mean some people, it should generally be used as a modifier and not alone for writers without specific knowledge. Hence, I suggest "Rhodesian government" or "Rhodesian armed forces", etc and not just "Rhodesians". I would be wary of "Rhodesian civilians" or just "Rhodesian". I know the usage may seem needlessly wordy...but it seems best. 6. Weasel words? Attached to Freeman claims. "Seen by most as an act of terrorism" I couldn't read his full discussion on Google Books, but make sure Freeman supports the claim that it was "seen by most" or "by many others" as terroism and not just that Freeman thinks it is terrorism (which doesn't support the claim "most" or "many others"). 7. To weigh in on issue raised in discussion above, I think the Smith quote adds fair emphasis (and its relevance on the Rhodesia article is outside dispute), but for this page a matching quote box from Nkomo or ZANU or ZAPU declaration would give it a nice feel for the background. Note: As part of check, I plagiarize checked 10 sentences with no hits and reread three sources on relevant passages (Nyarota, Cilliers, and Seeds of political destruction) for weight of claims, and the weight seemed appropriate based on those sources. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I hope I've addressed these issues. I've changed "wound up" to "dissolved". I've reorganised the sentence about the women and girls. I've changed "mown down" to "killed" to avoid possible POV issues. Incidentally, I think "mown down" would be correct rather than "mowed down", as it's a passive tense, while "mowed" is active—"they mowed" vs "they were mown"—but this is moot anyway.
• I've tried to remove most uses of "Rhodesian" by itself; see what you think.
• Freeman's source discusses the incident as an act of terrorism, describes its perpetrators as terrorists, and implies that many saw it as such, but on re-reading I don't see him explicitly saying "most". I've added some more sources here to support the statement.
• I've added a ZANU chimurenga communiqué extract to go opposite Smith's quote, I think it looks good and helps.
• Thanks for the review, and I hope you're well! —Cliftonian (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Air Rhodesia Flight 825/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

This article is in very good shape, and I found it to be a facinating, though horrifying, read. I have the following comments and questions, and recognise that it's unlikely that sources will exist to permit all of them to be answered.

• The final sentence in the first para of the lead isn't needed (this background is too much information here)

• Ok

• While the block quotes in the background section provide a useful taste of the kind of attitudes which underpinned this conflict, they seem a bit out of place in this article

• I put them in to break up what looked like a bit of a wall of text, but perhaps you are right

• "In March 1978, Smith agreed the Internal Settlement with more moderate nationalists" - this wording is a bit awkward (how about "In March 1978, Smith and moderate nationalists reached agreement on the "Internal Settlement", or similar?)

• Ok, have replaced with "In March 1978, Smith and moderate nationalists Bishop Abel Muzorewa and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole reached agreement on what became termed the "Internal Settlement"."

• That's great (the extra precision of naming who he was negotiating with really helps) Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Had there been any attacks on Rhodesian military or civilian aircraft prior to this incident?

• Have added a new paragraph on this kind of thing at the top of the incident section.

• Was this a deliberate pre-planned attack on the aircraft, or did the ZIPRA unit happen to be passing by and/or operating without specific orders to target civilian aircraft?

• I can't find a source that says. I'll keep looking.

• Related to this, did ZIPRA have many Strela 2 missiles at this time?

• Don't have numbers, but they had quite a few; see the new paragraph.

• That works for me Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why was there no international response to the attack, and how did this compare to the responses to other incidents in the war?

• Petter-Bowyer (p. 331) says "The Western world heard this quite clearly but chose to ignore the horror because Rhodesia continued to be a hindrance to the West's obvious desire to turn the country over to communists." A view I know quite a few people would sympathise with, but quite definitely not a neutral one. Other incidents in the war also received very little (if any) response, for example the Elim missionary massacre mentioned in the background section of this article, and other similar incidents. Rhodesian attacks on guerrilla bases, by contrast, received great publicity in international circles, with Rhodesia receiving much condemnation in the UN, OAU etc for attacking refugee camps (even when ZANLA's internal literature contradicted this description, but that's another story). In short the international reaction, perhaps better termed simply as a lack of one, was pretty typical of the war on a whole.

• OK. As I understand it, there wasn't much syphathy for the white Rhodesians by this time internationally (even the South Africans were getting sick of the war). Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is correct. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are the figures for the casualties the Rhodesians inflicted considered credible? (especially in the attack on Zambia). They look rather high, and there's a long history of aviators of all countries greatly over-estimating the effectiveness of their operations

• The source doesn't say.

• I've rummaged through my books, and it turned out that I own a 1982 edition of Moorcraft and McLaughlin's book which I bought second hand years ago. They describe the attack on Zambia on page 202, and state that while the Rhodesians claimed to have inflicted 1500 fatalities on ZIPRA, the bulk of the forces in the country were actually unscathed, "hundreds of refugees living in and near the camps were killed" and the Rhodesian gunners would have been unable to tell the difference between ZIPRA personnel and civilians. It notes that the attack demonstrated the Rhodesian military's prowess and raised Rhodesian morale, but states it had few long-term effects. Is this also in your later edition? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• In my version this passage is on page 155. I have added some more: "Historians Paul Moorcraft and Peter McLaughlin write that this exaggerated considerably the actual number of guerrillas killed, as most of Nkomo's army, then numbering about 10,000 fighters, had not been touched. On the other hand, unarmed refugees often camped in or around insurgent positions, and hundreds of these had been killed in the Rhodesian raid. Moorcraft and McLaughlin comment that for the Rhodesian airmen, it would have been "impossible to distinguish innocent refugees from young ZIPRA recruits." The stuff on the lack of long-term effects is already present in the "aftermath" section ("The Rhodesian attacks on ZANLA and ZIPRA bases did much to restore white morale following the Viscount incident, though they had not actually made much impact on the respective nationalist campaigns"). —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• That looks good Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I also own this book which is also available online. While it wouldn't be of much use in adding details to articles on the chronology of the war such as this one, it provides quite good analysis of the Rhodesian security forces which might be useful to you for other articles (though, IMO, its authors fell into the surprisingly common trap of focusing on the successes of the Rhodesian military to such an extent that they're essentially unable to explain why the war ended the way it did - Moorcraft and McLaughlin seem to do a much better job of this based on the parts of their book I've read). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this, I think it will be handy in future work. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The ultimate source of File:Joshua Nkomo cropped 1975.png seems rather unclear Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's cropped from another file, File:Jnkomo.jpg, which has the following source information: "Photo taken from article: "Joshua Nkomo: Rhodesia’s Leading Black" with the following permissions: Robin Wright is an Alicia Patterson Foundation award winner on leave from The Christian Science Monitor. This article may be published with credit to Robin Wright, The Christian Science Monitor, and the Alicia Patterson Foundation". I don't know quite what to make of this

• I don't think that it's free - it appears to have been scanned from the magazine, and so is probably under copyright. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've taken it out. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, I haven't much time right now so haven't answered all the issues, but will do as soon as I can, thanks again and hope you're well —Cliftonian (talk) 11:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, here are my proper responses. I hope they are helpful. Thank you again for the great review. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great work with this article - I don't see any barriers to it also passing an A class review, and would require only copy editing to meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for the review, Nick, which was great, as your reviews always are. I will take your advice and list this for an A class review now. Thanks again and have a great weekend! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

The article seems rather reluctant to call this event terrorism. Why is this? Surely it cannot be considered anything else.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely it can. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

An excellent piece of work on this aspect of history, well done. Have made a couple of additions on the ZAPU perspective. In the long run, the sections on Chikumbi and New Chimoio deserve expanding into their own articles. Babakathy (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the helpful additions to the article. I'm really glad you like it. I always value your opinion on my writing as I know if you approve I have succeeded in presenting things neutrally.

I hope you don't mind but I have taken out the bit you added about the battle of Sinoia in 1966—I think it is a little bit misleading to mark this as the start of the war as it was not actually the first clash between nationalist fighters and government forces—there were guerrilla infiltrations from Zambia even before UDI—and there were only a handful of people on each side (moreover, it was the police and not the army at Sinoia). The skirmish is marked by the modern government as the start of the Chimurenga, true, but in my opinion this isn't the same as the war actually starting then (as I see it, the Chimurenga had already been underway for some time, politically, ideologically and militarily). None of this is really relevant to this article anyway, so I think it's best just to leave out this bit of detail and go back to the simpler version we had before. I hope this is all right with you. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's not strictly relevant to the article - and the start of a civil war is notoriously difficult to pin down, since it is often undeclared / unofficial. The Sinoia battle's significance is more symbolic than tactical I think. I have started an article on the battle - will get to the Wankie battle too eventually (RLI perspective already written up I see), not as fast as you ;)

Am still a bit concerned on the matter of Zim commentators not speaking of the killing of the survivors. Whilst I concur that's a broadly accurate statement, we really need a source saying that Zim commentators rarely speak of it. But I find that section comes across very well as it gives us the voices of different aspects of the legacy in counterpoint to each other. Babakathy (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to find sources pointing this aspect out but have failed to find anything. I agree with your previous conclusion that the use of the two Herald articles omitting mention of the massacre as a reference for this risks going towards synthesis, but I do think it can reasonably be argued that citing the absence of any mention in either of these two reports on the incident, each containing several views from Zimbabwean commentators, is better than having no reference at all. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Aaah, you have seen Sinoia battle - I do appreciate your contributions in the same spirit you appreciate mine. Babakathy (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to know :) —Cliftonian (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see that the article I started has progressed to FA - thank you and well done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)