[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Zimbabwe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleZimbabwe was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 1, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 9, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 17, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 18, 2004, April 18, 2005, April 18, 2006, April 18, 2007, April 18, 2008, April 18, 2009, April 18, 2010, April 18, 2011, April 18, 2012, April 18, 2014, April 18, 2015, and April 18, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article



Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sandmanether, AlanSi91.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unrecognised state"

[edit]

There is no such thing. A state exists, or it doesn't exist. This one did. It is irrelevant whether (for example) a corrupt talking shop such as the UN happened to dislike it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.228.197 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not correct; when a group of people proclaim a new state to exist in a geographic area, the recognition of their attempt by other states, and by the people in the geographic area, are key to whether it will come into existence and remain in existence. The American Colonies declared independence, then fought a war and won, then the confederate "states" declared their independence and fought a war and lost. Israel declared a state and fought a series of wars. Eritrea proclaimed a state... I could go on. Your claim that those states existed or did not exist at each point in time is not a reflection of reality, there are grey areas and there are birthing pains. Long after the fact you can look back and say "well it happened on this day", but you might be celebrating as statehood what other people call a beer hall putsch. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. A state is not a state until at least one other country recognises it and sends ambassadors. Valetude (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarisation/deletion

[edit]

Not entirely comfortable with this approach:

  1. What's the guideline - is this article too long?
  2. We are losing and awful lot of material here. If removal is appropriate then the material removed should be put into the relevant articles History of Zimbabwe etc., rather than just deleting.
  3. Some material is removed as unsourced. This is wrong - it should be tagged so editors can run around and find the sources and only removed if no-one finds a source after the tag is in place for a reasonable period of time.

I'm far from convinced that this pruning is the right approach, but would rather discuss than revert. Babakathy (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The article is longish. See WP:SIZERULE; the current prose size is 61kb, anything over 60 kB falls under "probably should be divided". The pre-cuts version was 71 kB.
  2. There is already a lot of unsourced material at History of Zimbabwe, especially about the recent history, which was all I summarised (the pre-1980 years were untouched), so adding more would not improve either article.
  3. WP:V says it pretty clearly - any unsourced material may be removed. If you look at History of Zimbabwe, there are 'citation needed' tags going back to 2007, and keeping a country-level article in those conditions for so long is inappropriate in my opinion.
Having said that, if you feel I have removed something that was important to the article, I'm willing to find sources for it and add it back, if you tell me what it is.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply on your talk page, since this seems a broader issue. Babakathy (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The map in the sidebar showing Zimbabwe's location in Africa versus its location in the African Union has got to be one of the stupidest Wikipedifications that I've seen in a looong time. Did some turkey go off and do this to every African country? ... off to investigate, shaking head sadly. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's stupid about it? --Katangais (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell where it is in Africa. The separate fact that there is an African Union which is most of Africa except Morocco withdrew from it and Central African Republic has been suspended is entirely unrelated to every other African country. It's pedantic and distracting. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean Bond Coins.

[edit]

The Zimbabwean Bond Coins are now in circulation, therefore, this should be listed in the currency information - (202.89.141.109 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Bond coins saved the challenge of change as rand coins where in short supply Zimbudzi (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Life Expectancy Figure for Zimbabwe is outdated

[edit]

Under the demographics section on the Zimbabwe article, it says

"According to the United Nations World Health Organisation, the life expectancy for men was 37 years and the life expectancy for women was 34 years of age, the lowest in the world in 2006."

I am not disputing that this was true in 2006, but now it is 2015 and many new life expectancy estimates have been made, but the 2006 figure still remains. On the List of countries by life expectancy article, there are 4 different life expectancy estimates from the years 2009-2012; the figures on this page are updated but life expectancy figure on the main page on Zimbabwe remains the same. All of the four estimates have a higher life expectancy and some are a considerable increase from 2006; is this not enough to at least update the life expectancy figure?

In 2012 the WHO's life expectancy estimate for Zimbabweans from birth was 56 years for males and 60 years for females.[1]

In 2012 the World Bank had a life expectancy estimate of 58 years[2] (it didn't specify whether it was male or female so it can be assumed to be an average for males and females).

I don't know who will, but someone does need to update the life expectancy figure on the Zimbabwe page as it is outdated.

Thanks

Jesus is King of Kings (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "WHO - Zimbabwe". Retrieved 17 January 2015.
  2. ^ "World Bank - Zimbabwe". Retrieved 17 January 2015.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Go for it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Canaan Banana?

[edit]

Isn't it strange that Canaan Banana (the first president of Zimbabwe, 1980-1987) is not mentioned anywhere in this article? Does anyone know what's up with this? Michellecornelison (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - and now fixed. Thanks. Selector99 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I don't know much on this subject...I just noticed it while reading, so I wasn't totally confident about writing that in. -Michellecornelison (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White population

[edit]

I have tagged the infobox claim that 5% of the population of Zimbabwe is white as it is not consistent with information elsewhere on Wikipedia, see especially Whites in Zimbabwe. Viewfinder (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. That was the proportion in the 1960s and '70s but not now. Now off the top of my head it's much less than 1%. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, sources internal and CIA Factbook. Viewfinder (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017 coup

[edit]

According to news reports,[1] elements of the Zimbabwean army have put Robert Mugabe under house arrest. It's unclear at this point whether Mugabe will be forced to resign as president. Keeping in mind WP:NOTNEWS, at what point should something be said about this in the article? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dzirutwe, MacDonald (14 November 2017). "Zimbabwe's army seizes power, targets 'criminals' around Mugabe". Reuters. Retrieved 15 November 2017.
Unless someone can supply a citation showing that Mugabe has been removed, I think it's premature to change the infobox to say that the position of President is "vacant". I don't want to edit war this, but I'm looking for a consensus. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's too soon for the infobox. Sources such as The Guardian suggest it will happen by the end of the week, but nothing suggests Mugabe has actually resigned yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have already been made at Robert Mugabe & List of Presidents of Zimbabwe, that Mugabe is no longer Prez. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think those changes are premature and aren't properly sourced. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The debate at Robert Mugabe is largely academic; I plan to ignore it as I assume he will resign de jure before any consensus could be found as to whether he is already out of power de facto. The page List of Presidents of Zimbabwe is just wrong; I will likely remove the claims that Emmerson Mnangagwa is President unless a citation is added in the next half hour or so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source which indicates Emmerson Mnangagwa is now the interim President of Zimbabwe[1]

The Hash Smoking Stoner (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.democracynow.org/2017/11/15/headlines/zimbabwe_emmerson_mnangagwa_named_interim_leader_as_mugabe_deposed

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Mnangagwa on this source. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Reuters story[1] says that Mugabe is refusing to resign. I think that for now we should just say that Mugabe is under house arrest. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dzirutwe, MacDonald (15 November 2017). "Mugabe under house arrest resists army pressure to quit". Reuters. Retrieved 16 November 2017.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Zimbabwe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove '(disputed)' mentions

[edit]

It is clear that nobody disputes Mugabe's role as President of Zimbabwe. This is especially clear now as generals of the army stood by his side when he made the speech yesterday about refusing to resign, as well as Zanu-PF's decision to open constitutional proceedings of impeachment. Cipika (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially since there is a footnote explaining the situation. I'll edit the infobox accordingly. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Independence how?

[edit]

I must be missing something, but in the history section the 1964-1979/80 ends with a vote to revert back to colonial status and the next section begins with a President in 1980.

How did independence come about? The vote for return to colonial status seems to come after some positive steps toward independence & thus makes no sense.Ileanadu (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article on The history of Zimbabwe and am still in the dark. The Colonial era section ends with a declaration of independence "as of 1970" by Southen Rhodesia -with no British and no international recognition - and the next section begins with Independence day on April 18, 1980. Ileanadu (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The white minority government of Southern Rhodesia, a British colony, declared independence in 1965 and renamed the country Rhodesia, which adopted a new constitution making it a republic in 1970 (until then Elizabeth II was still its queen, at least in theory). However, no other country recognized Rhodesian independence. An internal settlement in 1979 resulted in Rhodesia being renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia, with a mixed government including both black and white ministers, but this was also not recognized internationally. Under the Lancaster House agreement Britain granted independence to the new nation of Zimbabwe in 1980, provided that it first acknowledge British authority under its original name of Southern Rhodesia. I'll look at the section and see whether it needs to be clarified. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to the article which I hope will make this clearer. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original state of Rhodesia under UDI was illegal under international law, therefore it was necessary to return it to British rule temporarily in order for the country to be awarded lawful independence as Zimbabwe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.8.216 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual reassessment

[edit]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Zimbabwe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article contains maintenance banners that are still valid in numerous sections, for over an year. Section Colonial era and Rhodesia (1888–1964) is tagged as needing additional references, with inline {{cn}} tags identifying the issues as early as 2015. The same goes for section UDI and civil war (1965–1980), although it does not have individual tags, it clearly needs additional references, as there are entire paragraphs unreferenced. Sections Geography and environment and the Flora and fauna sub-section are tagged as having no references for over a year and still lack them. Section Human rights, Armed forces, and Tourism are also tagged as in need of further referencing for over a year, and also with individual tags indicating that an update is needed in some aspects. Finally, the article itself is tagged as documenting a current event, and given the recent edit history, it's no longer stable. For these reasons I believe the article does not meet GA criteria anymore. I haven't made major contributions to the article nor am I very familiar with the subject to fix everything that has to be fixed myself, so I ask for input from the other editors if the GA status should be revoked or if the problems can be fixed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnalia0, please be sure to notify the Zimbabwe WikiProject about your reassessment, and give them seven days to respond, even if they aren't as active as they once were. If no one does show up to begin addressing the issues raised—and there are many of them, especially regarding unreferenced sections and paragraphs—then I don't see any choice but to delist. Please note that being templated as documenting a current event is not grounds for delisting, nor are constructive edits to update the article accordingly. Improvements are not considered instability, though edit wars, if they are occurring and continue to occur, could be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilco. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Abandoned. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, perhaps this should be converted to a community reassessment? On the other hand, there are indeed many sections with minimal or no inline source citations, and quite a few "citation needed" templates, so there clearly are problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would just delist it. It needs a lot of work and will likely sit in the community assessment pool for a few months before someone gets around to it (although I am trying to be more proactive). That alright by you Saturnalia0. AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emmerson Mnangagwa

[edit]

The probably-about-to-be-president's article could do with more eyes on it.

In particular, people keep adding to his infobox that he is "President (designate)", with no source. The WP:3RR means I can't keep removing this (which is why it's there right now), but I see it's been consistently removed from here, so I wonder if some of the same editors could keep an eye on that article too? TSP (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency Vacant?

[edit]

According to this article, it says that the presidency is vacant, however many of the other articles relating to the topic of the Zimbabwean presidency mark Phelekezela Mphoko as the current President (albeit in an acting capacity)[1]. Therefore should the role of President not say Phelekezela Mphoko (Acting)? GippoHippo (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.herald.co.zw/experts-clear-the-air-on-succession/

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

[edit]
ErwinTheMaestro (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why Quora link is at top and redirecting to slate? Please edit if required. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Zimbabwe for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Zimbabwe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zimbabwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 07:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Discrimination

[edit]

In any articles relating to Zimbabwe, removal of colour associated wording needs to be removed in line with United Nations convention on Human Rights. People are not colours, they are human beings. Identity is by ethnicity rather than a range of colours. Green beings come from Mars but yellow, white, brown, black are not identifiers of the human species. There is one human race and in that enlightened perspective, use of ethnic European identifies heritage but white does not. There are many African Frenchmen as there are many Caribbean British people. Oddly, there are "black and white" texts on racial segregation and perpetuating the continued epidermal discrimination is not what is enshrined in international law on human rights nor should it appear in encyclopaedic articles as a form of historical bias.

As for my personal statement of ethnicity, I am human. I don't care what melanin content is in your skin as that does not feature in textual conversation, ever. #EndApartheid Ashattock (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

[edit]

Under ethnic groups, it says

99.38% Black African
60.39% are Shona; Ndebele are largest minority with 39.10%

Are the two latter the portion of the total population, or just of the black? If it's the latter, it would imply that either Shona or Ndebele isn't a subset of Black African.__Gamren (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is my currency edit in the infobox fine?

[edit]

The RTGS dollar is no longer in use, according to Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.145.216 (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

economics

[edit]

what is the bond dollar?--142.163.195.80 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zimbabwe&diff=prev&oldid=1008102469

I recently attempted to shorten the lead section of this article as I find that it is too excessively detailed and suffers from significant unbalanced WP:Recentism, particularly the details of the coup which replaced Robert Mugabe with Emmerson Mnangagwa. I find that details such as "On 21 November 2017, Mugabe tendered his resignation prior to impeachment proceedings being completed", "Nelson Chamisa who was leading the main opposition party MDC Alliance contested the election results and filed a petition to the Constitution Court of Zimbabwe" and "The court confirmed Mnangagwa's victory, making him the newly elected president after Mugabe" are not significant enough to be in the lead section under MOS:LEAD. It should just say that Mugabe resigned following a coup d'etat in 2017 and that Mnangagwa has since served as Zimbabwe's president.DeathTrain (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeathTrain - Agreed that what you edited in your revision should be reinstated and that the current text be moved into the History section. Further, that section needs some attention since the title of the final sub-section doesn't accurately reflect the contents. I can't do so at this moment, but will attempt to do some cleanup in that sub-section when I can. Frankaustx (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even with those changes, the lead is still too focused on History. Please do merge the text with the History section, as suggested by Frankaustx, rather than deleting it though. CMD (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zimbabwe&type=revision&diff=1008578022&oldid=1008470442DeathTrain (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Decline

[edit]

@Chipmunkdavis: The statement that "The country has been in economic decline since the 1990s" is not true. From the "Economy" section: "After the formation of the Unity Government and the adoption of several currencies instead of the Zimbabwe dollar in 2009, the Zimbabwean economy rebounded. GDP grew by 8–9% a year between 2009 and 2012. In November 2010, the IMF described the Zimbabwean economy as "completing its second year of buoyant economic growth". By 2014, Zimbabwe had recovered to levels seen in the 1990s but between 2012 and 2016 growth faltered."

Reaching levels similar to the 1990s and then faltering again seems an overall decline. That said, is there a better wording that could suffice rather than cutting what is already paltry economic coverage in the lead? CMD (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think fact that there have been at least periods of significant growth makes that statement untrue, but I've updated to a more accurate statement like you suggested. पदाति (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the intro

[edit]

Someone has done some racist editing on this page, needs immediate attention 121.200.5.191 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name?

[edit]

What is Zimbabwe? It’s clearly Rhodesia 174.197.69.9 (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly" out of date there. No?--Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary award addition

[edit]

The following is not a good source for this information nor is the mini overview about the documentary appropriate for this summary article about a country. WP:Summary.

Camilla Nielsson, a Danish filmmaker followed up making the 2014 documentary film Democrats with the 2022 film President which explores the controversial 2018 presidential election in Zimbabwe; opposition leader Nelson Chamisa says there was voting fraud and claims he won the presidency. The government in the country has banned President from being shown. The movie won the World Cinema Documentary Special Jury Award at the Sundance Film Festival.

Moxy- 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some germane points... 1. Nielsson is not even anywhere near the average filmmaker; she is top notch. 2. President won an award from the jury. 3. If the only or one of the only source materials is a movie then we (the site) would use it; same for books. 4. You are not right about sources or types of them. 5. You're not reading the information presented accurately. 6. This is a key part of the story or facts about the situation. 7. The election is not only of general interest but it also should have the POV expressed by the two docs (documentaries). There are more reasons too.Extraordinary2 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The info is basically there.added "claiming voter fraud" ... mentioning this documentary it's creator it's awards and it's banning is not relevant to the country's history over all. WP:ONUS Moxy- 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Setting aside that you didn't use basically in the right way, there was no information until that edit. If you are going to argue in this fashion you would be able to extrapolate from there and find other articles. You can't. Wikipedia doesn't "mention" a work, book, film, etc. and not say the name of the creator. The award is in the reference and just as you would say the Wizard of Oz is from 1939 you also mention its two Oscars. Extraordinary2 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your best bet to promote the film would be to make President (2021 film). Moxy- 02:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear what other people have to say. Again, you miss the point. This is about the facts and things happening. I don't promote films. I believe you are totally wrong.Extraordinary2 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
another page.and another .Sure lets ask the other reverter @Number 57: Moxy- 04:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These appear to be edits aimed at promoting the film in question, hence being reverted. Number 57 08:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are manifestly wrong. We don't seem to be able to find other people who can back up what I am saying. Why the pair of you can't seem to understand that how something is covered has nothing to do with promotions is a mystery.Extraordinary2 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘Great prosperity during the early Mugabe reign’ line

[edit]

This sentence is a bit misleading and gives Mugabe more credit than he deserves in my opinion. What do others think? El dude brother2 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was prosperous during the Rhodesian era. I believe it should say that instead. 88.109.64.12 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Zimbabzwe" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zimbabzwe and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Zimbabzwe until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City

[edit]

Zimbabwe as of now has two capitals because the parliament is being seated in Mount Hampden at New Zimbabwe Parliament Building while the judiciary and executive is in Harare both at Sam.Nujoma Street, so I think we should update the information surrounding the Capitals Mindthem (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim needs sourcing. The Mount Hampden article is very poor, with an uncited claim of being the capital, with the only source stating "Zim Cyber City is being built in Mount Hampden on the outskirts of the capital, Harare". The New Zimbabwe Parliament Building article still describes Harare as the capital, and sources there also seem to describe Harare as the capital. Greenman (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay noted let me work on referencing. Thanks Mindthem (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Pronunciation

[edit]

Please add the IPA for the pronunciation of Zimbabwe in the Shona language. Thank you. 1.126.111.140 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I've added it. ~~~ Coldspur (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary?

[edit]

There's virtually no information about Zimbabwe's judicial system. I see that there is (or at one time was) a Constitution Court, and there's a passing reference to a "supreme court" -- are these the same? How are judges chosen? Does Zimbabwe, like Nigeria (another former British colony), retain some elements of English common law in its legal system? Someone knowledgeable about Zimbabwe could improve the article by adding material along these lines. 108.35.161.251 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans 500,000 years ago

[edit]

The earliest modern humans date back to no more than 300,000 years ago. (Early modern human - Wikipedia) There were no humans 500,000 years ago, there were only now-extinct species of proto-humans. 202.83.95.14 (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zimbabwe&oldid=1255801408"