Talk:Whites in Zimbabwe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Whites in Zimbabwe has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:Africa
 Africa Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Extinction of white Rhodesians as a national community

Beneaththelandslide. You have described the following item as "biased, sob story, rubbish" and deleted it from the main article:

QUOTE I was the first black girl at an all white school in Zimbabwe in 1979. I was seven years old and very afraid. One of my little classmates chose to spit in my face for being a kaffir. That affected me terribly and sent me on my nationalistic journey.

"Africa for Africans," I said to anyone who cared to listen.

When, the following year on November 11 (a) the whole school sang the Rhodesian national anthem (b), which incidentally I didn't know because as a black child I had never learnt it, I realised that white people will never change and they had to leave our country.

Tambu – Zimbabwean (reported by BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/march/2/newsid_3497000/3497239.stm

notes : (a) anniversary of UDI (b) “Rise O Voices of Rhodesia” (sung to Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’) UNQUOTE

Why do you feel this is "biased, sob-story, rubbish"?. Do you not feel that the disappearance of whites from Zimbabwe requires an explanation?. This is a friendly enquiry. I am interested to hear your views. Bob BScar23625 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is biased sob-story rubbish. Someone could just as easily find a little crying girl from another colour/ethnic group/political persuasion and use their tears as political leverage. It's also interesting that out of all the quotes both praising/attacking various leaders/stances/regimes you choose to use that particular one. - Gt 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Beneaththelandslide. OK - but what is your explanation for the disappearance of the Rhodesian white community?. Take Kenya as a comparable case. I believe (feel free to correct me, anyone)that there now more whites in the country than there were at the time of its independence. I take the multi-ethnic view, that a variety of ethnic groups living in a nation is a good thing. Why do you think the whites/Brits/Europeans (call them what you like) have effectively vanished from Zimbabwe?.

best wishes. Bob BScar23625 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of entering into a discussion. - Gt 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't want to talk then that is up to you, old boy. Bob BScar23625 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still Rhodesians?

While those who grew up in what was then called Rhodesia may regard themselves as Rhodesians, those whites who grew up in post-independence Zimbabwe regard themselves as Zimbabweans. Whatever their dislike of Mugabe, they are intelligent enough to realise that Rhodesia ain't coming back. They're from 'Zim'.

Quiensabe 20 January 2006 06:02 UTC

What you say is true. But the fact is that most white Rhodesians/Zimbabweans are now expatriates and my impression is that they generally call themselves Rhodesians. Bob BScar23625 09:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] the 2000 election and white participation in the MDC

Martey. You have deleted the following section of text.

"But it has been suggested that whites were a little too eager to involve themselves in opposition politics, given the sensitive history of whites in the country. Ethnic minorities are often wise to keep a low profile in their host countries."

An appreciation of events surrounding the MDC and the 2000 election is essential to give any sense of the recent history of whites in Zimbabwe. There is no element of opinion in the statement. So, I will reword that section of text and re-insert it. Unless you have any comments. Bob BScar23625 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] White MPs in the 2000-2005 Parliament

David. You have corrected the reported number from 6 to 4. Are you sure that is right?. Check out Timothy Stamps [1] Bob BScar23625 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference in the text is to the number of white MPs elected - and see Zimbabwe parliamentary elections, 2000 for the full election results. Timothy Stamps evidently held one of the places in the Parliament that was appointed by the President. David | Talk 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

David. My recollection is that Stamps was a constituency Assembly member up to 2000, but suffered some sort of de-selection in that year. He then returned to Parliament as a non-constituency member. But, I believe the non-constituency selection process does involve a form of election, so whether or not he can be described as having been "elected" is a fine point. I am pretty sure there were 6 white MPs in 2000. Bob BScar23625 06:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Depending on outside events I should be able on Friday to go up to Colindale and get the 1995 election results from the Zimbabwe Herald. Incidentally, do you happen to know anywhere in Britain which has the archive of the Sunday Mail? I need a 1970 edition which is not in Colindale. The only place I have found it so far is the Rhodes House Library in Oxford. David | Talk 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

David. I have a vague memory that 'Colindale' is an outpost of the British Library, where the newspaper archives are held. That is the limit of my knowledge on such matters. I take it you are up for election on Thursday?. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ps I see you came top of the poll with a very convincing majority. [2] Congratulations. Bob BScar23625 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nom on hold

This needs a more thorough review but is doing pretty well in most respects. However, at present, virtually every single image copyright information is wrong or seriously dodgy.

The fact that something is a postcard photo does emphatically not mean that the photographer released all rights, even if it is hard to identify the photographer.

Just because something has a boiler template for fair use doesn't mean there's no need to write a fair use rationale too. Read the templates, at the bottom they ask for a fair use rationales.

All the images, and especially "fair use" ones, should have sources. Currently not all do.

Some of the items tagged as "political posters or leaflets" really don't look like they are.

Some of the fair use rationale reasoning is plain weird. For instance, the fact that something is a newspaper photo is an indication weighing against, not in favor of, fair use - newspapers pay a lot of money for their photographs, and they do have continuing value in archives because they are often brought out as stock photos if that person gets into the news again.

Above all, it's worth thinking carefully about the degree to which fair use images are being used at all in article like this. The government material is a very strong case - the idealized image of "Rhodesian life" that was being sold to white immigrants is a key point of this article. It seems likely to me that a fair use claim for a picture of an individual is much stronger on their own article page than on a page like this. Are there really no alternative free images of any white Zimbabweans? TheGrappler 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Grappler. Thanks for your comments, which I accept. It is not easy to fix the matter of the images - which are central to the article. So, I will withdraw the GA nomination. Bob BScar23625 05:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ps the Fair Use status of the Chelsy Davy image was specifically agreed with Administrator RadioKirk, see my personal Talk page. BScar23625 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context on Nicholas van Hoogstraten

I have reinserted the edits I made the other day, to include the phrases "controversial British developer" and "whose conviction of manslaughter was overturned on a technicality" because I believe these to be useful context for any casual reader who might wish to better assess the value of Nicholas van Hoogstraten praising Robert Mugabe. NvH was convicted of hiring thugs to kill a business rival and his family.

Oh no he wasn't. He was acquitted. In any event, who is this "... and his family"?. BScar23625 16:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(This was in Britain -- he has interests in several countries.) The judge believed that the intent was to kill, not merely to frighten. People reading his character references should have this information.

On a technical Wiki-note, I apologise for reverting before discussing here, but I am not sure how else to draw BScar23625 and other knowledgeable editors' attention to this. Thank you. BrainyBabe 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BrainyBabe. I hear what you say. But the fact is that van Hoogstraten was acquitted of the murder/manslaughter charges. Who are you to say that the original conviction "was overturned on a technicality"?. That is just opinion. In any event, the crime and acquittal took place in the UK, not Zimbabwe. Perhaps you should make an entry on the Nicholas van Hoogstraten page rather than on this Zimbabwe page?. Take a look at the Gregory Lauder-Frost discussion page if you are interested in this kind of issue. I hesitate to mention the word "defamation". Bob BScar23625 16:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BrainyBabe. As you have not responded, I have revised the text to retain your general point while presenting it in a more subtle manner. I hope that is OK. Bob BScar23625 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not able to log on yesterday. Bob, I appreciate your insertion of the lengthy Observer article as a reference note, which I remember readig when it came out; it contains a lot of NvH's direct quotes and sufficient background from the interviewer.
As for the murder (which was done in front of the victim's grandchildren -- no one else was killed, you are correct): NVH was charged with manslaughter (for hiring the thugs who are serving time for murder), convicted, and the conviction was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Then the victim's family sued in the civil courts (sort of like the O.J. Simpson case), and won a multi-million pound award against NvH. The judge said he considered him guilty not just to a civil level of proof (balance of probabilities) but to criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt).

The substance of the case was that Raja was suing NvH for around 100k, and two hoods shot/stabbed Raja to death. But Raja lived long enough to utter the words "van Hoogstraten's men have done this" to his son and a police officer. NvH was charged with murder, but the evidence against him was all circumstantial and this became apparent at the trial. The judge said to the jury something along the lines of "if you feel that the evidence is inadequate to convict NvH of murder, then you might convict him of the lesser offence of manslaughter". The jury obliged.

But the judge was wrong. Manslaughter is a different offence to murder - not a lesser offence. If NvH had been charged with manslaughter from the outset, then his defence would have been appropriate to the charge. That was not just a technicality. CPS statement on the case

The civil action for damages was a wholly different matter. BScar23625 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also a matter of record (recapped in the article you cite) that he served four years for hiring someone to throw a hand-grenade into a clergyman's house, and that he has been convicted numerous times of other offenses connected with his business endeavours. "it was enough to earn him a four-year sentence, and a further five years for receiving stolen silver which the police found in his house when they went to question him. Since then, there have been convictions for demanding money with menaces, forcible entry, bribing a prison officer, assault, contempt of court..." (How can I do those superscripts to link to the article?)
I am not suggesting this belongs in this article, but I am attempting to show why I think some knowledge of NvH's many criminal convictions is relevant in judging his ability to give a character reference. I would agree to the use of the flexible euphemism 'colorful', which you inserted, in conjunction with 'and criminal'. That's brief and to the point. WOuld that be Ok with you? I would much rather sort this out on the talk page. BrainyBabe 10:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BrainyBabe. Change the word "colourful" to "criminal" if you wish. But think hard about that and be aware of the Gregory Lauder-Frost Wikipedia article. NvH, like David Frost, never sues for libel. But, one never knows when he might change his policy on this. Do you want to receive solicitor's letters and run the risk, however slight, of losing your house?. Bob BScar23625 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added one word to the other so that the phrase now reads "a man with a colourful and criminal history". Thanks for this discussion. BrainyBabe 17:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Be aware that NvH gives generously to various charitable and voluntary sector operations in Zimbabwe. Don't believe all you read about him. Bob BScar23625 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

footnote : The GL-F article has been purged, so references thereto have been struck out. The substance of the case was that the article contained material that was either false or was protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. BScar23625 21:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

This article uses a number of unfree images for which it claims fair use, and while the majority of these claims seem to be well-grounded, I believe that Image:ZBWE1.jpg may not qualify. This photograph of a mother and child is used to illustrate generic white Zimbabweans, and while it is true that its use here is unlikely to cause the copyright holder(s) to lose much money, it would not be difficult to replace it with a free photo. After all, there are lots of white Zimbabweans, and pretty much any old shot will do. On the other hand, the other photos in this article would be much harder to replace; it's a lot harder to get a free shot of a famous white Zimbabwean, and the photo from the government brochure is still harder to replace. I've removed the image, and have posted a message at User:Etienne.navarro's talk page, as he's the only wikipedian listed as being from Zimbabwe -- perhaps he knows some white Zimbabweans. --Zantastik talk 17:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Zantastik. I agree that Image:ZBWE1.jpg is borderline, but I am sure that a case could be made for its use. The case is complicated by the fact that the image's author (the famous photojournalist Mary Ellen Mark) has specifically refused permission for its use in this context. I will see what I can come up with in its place. Bob BScar23625 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ps Replacement inserted. As you say, "any old shot will do". Bob BScar23625 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

As a non-specialist reader of this subject, the following is my assesment, per WP:WIAGA:

1. It is well written.

(a) compelling prose and comprehensible to non-specialist readers: weak passes
  • The story is not compelling for a non-specialist reader. Perhaps because of some unexplained terms and abbreviations in the article that confuses me. Please see below.
  • There are many specific Zimbabwean knowledge about politics and others that are not explained briefly.
(b) follows logical structure and good lead section:
  • Lead section does not conform WP:LS, that it does not give a context in the first line.
  • There is a section Aftermath at the end. What kind of aftermath?
(c) follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style: weak passes
  • Regarding style of the reference list (see 2.b below).
(d) technical jargons: needs improvement
  • This statement: "It never gained full Dominion status,..." in the lead section, but nowhere in the article explain about Dominion status.
  • Some unexplained terms/abbreviations: BSAC, ESAP, and others.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

(a) it provides references: weak passes
  • The second paragraph of the lead section contains claims and facts without its source.
(b) inline citations is required: weak passes
  • Please read again WP:CITE regarding citation style, as references list is unreadable for me.
  • The first line has opinion statement: "The first whites of Zimbabwe are thought ....". Thought by whom? Citation is needed here.
(c) reliable sources: weak passes
  • Personal website (ref #6) and mail (ref #18) cannot be used as reliable source.
(d) no original research: passes

3. It is broad in its coverage.

(a) all major aspects: failed
  • I miss the story about relationship with other races, esp. african Zimbabwean.
  • There was a big headline news months ago about eviction of white Zimbabwean farmer and controversial plan from Mugabe to evict whites from Zimbabwe. Where is it in the article?
  • Due to that events, it must be a some historical background about this bad relationship, but I miss that in the article.
(b) stays focus & no non-notable trivia: passes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias: failed
  • Controversies about whites in Zimbabwe from other races that lead to white farmer eviction is missing here.
  • It is clearly visible that this article has a bias view, written only from white Zimbabwean perspective.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented: failed
  • This is related with 3.a. Views from other races about whites in Zimbabwe are not presented in this article.

5. It is stable (no edit wars ongoing): passes

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

(a) proper tags and descriptive captions: failed

Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of content only under very restricted circumstances where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use but is also, in essence, not repeatable. ie. it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image. This might, for example, include an historical event, but a publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person can be replaced comparatively easily.

(b) a lack of images: passes

Due to the above matters, hence I failed this article for GA. When those are solved, this article can be renominated again. — Indon (reply) — 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indon. Thankyou for your time and attention, which are appreciated. I will take another look at the article. Believe me, President Mugabe ("Mad Bob") has never threatened to evict whites (or anyone else) from Zimbabwe. Bob BScar23625 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination for GA status

I feel that the earlier objections have been reasonably addressed, and have now renominated the article as a GA candidate. Bob BScar23625 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lots of dubious statements

There are lots of dubious statements in this article. One of the most prominent on a quick read is "White Zimbabweans have brought a pioneering spirit to the nation and have contributed to economic life at several levels" - there are two sources quoted for this statement, but they don't appear to justify presenting it as objective fact. Can someone justify, perhaps whoever inserted it if they are around? Generally the article very clearly is saying, explicity and subliminally, to the reader: "whites made this country and continue to do so". I don't like it because it isn't verifiable fact (I will stay away from going further...) --SandyDancer 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. It was me that wrote the statement you refer to. If you examine the two references carefully, I think you will read a subliminal message which is the exact opposite of the one you suggest. Perhaps that message is conveyed in a manner which is a little too subtle?. Do you feel that the two references convey a positive or negative message about the business activities of certain whites in Zimbabwe?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Clever and subtle language doesn't seem appropriate, especially when dealing with a controversial topic like this. You didn't answer my question about how those sources possibly justify placing the statement in the article as if it is objective fact. On that basis, I think it should be deleted - or at least rewritten. --SandyDancer 22:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. Well, the term "pioneering spirit" can be interpreted in several ways. I use the term in the context of the criminal looting of a sovereign nation (the DRC) by ruthless businessmen. Are you claiming that this looting never took place?. Bob BScar23625 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm honest I've got no idea whether or not the looting took place. I'd hazard a guess it did, if that helps. However my point is that this isn't clear from what is written at all, and the "pioneering spirit" bit is more likely to be interpreted another way. Perhaps you could consider rewriting it? I'd prefer not to plunge in and do so because I am ignorant of the topic and you are not. --SandyDancer 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. Go to the heading "Context on Nicholas van Hoogstraten" above and you will see that I had a very similar discussion with BrainyBabe concerning NvH. I described NvH as "colourful" and inserted a link to an article outlining his history. BrainyBabe insisted on describing him as "criminal", which I considered to be potentially defamatory. We compromised in the end by describing him as "colourful and criminal". If you don't like "pioneering" then perhaps you might suggest an alternative term to describe the business activities of the individuals concerned?. Bob

Do you really think its good to refer to people as "pioneering" when you mean "exploitative"? I just fail to see why such tongue in cheek euphemism is appropriate. Fine, don't defame people - but within the limits what is lawful, state the verified facts. --SandyDancer 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think SandyDancer has a valid point here. Why not use "exploitative" ? Wizzy…☎ 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Andy. I didn't see your comment immediately. Bob BScar23625 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. I am always very careful about publicly accusing anybody of doing anything improper. As an aside, go to Reference number 17 and you will get an account of why Billy Rautenbach returned to his native Zimbabwe. The Rautenbachs are real characters, with Billy's son Conrad being the Zimbabwe national champion rally driver. How about we take out "pioneering spirit" and insert "buccaneering business skills"?. Bob BScar23625 11:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, jokey euphemism doesn't seem appropriate. If something is, in your view, defamatory, best not to imply it all, as that would still be defamatory. --SandyDancer 11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. The Zimnews website is professionally run and its report on Billy's history looks very carefully worded. Putting a link to it could never be defamatory, although I would never publicly state the innuendo contained therein. The same considerations apply to comment on the DRC involvement and the evasion of EU sanctions. The use of euphemisms is standard practice in journalism. Why do you feel that those euphemisms are "jokey"?. Bob BScar23625 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think euphemisms are "jokey" per se - but I think they are being used in that way here. And whether or not such euphemism might be standard practice in journalism, the writing style of an encyclopedia should often be very different. --SandyDancer 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. Do you feel that it is jokey to describe Nicholas van Hoogstraten as "colourful" rather than "criminal"?. Bob BScar23625 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and opaque for those picking up the article for the first time - it obscures true meaning. --SandyDancer 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. What is inappropriate for an encyclopedia?. We seem to be drifting into a discussion of what Wikipedia is about. Do you feel that you have insights into Wikipedia that others lack?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point entirely. The point I am making. By your own admission here the wording is "subtle". To my mind, the guff about "pioneering spirit", which isn't actually backed up by the sources, is quite simply misleading. It isn't factual. The fact that you elude to all sorts of things it really means doesn't help the casual reader. --SandyDancer 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. I accept that use of the term "pioneering spirit" is ambiguous - and intentionally so. I think that by now we both agree the point that is being made, so can you suggest an alternative term?. You offered the term "exploitative", but that can mean anything or nothing. regards. Bob BScar23625 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer. Well, how about we take out "White Zimbabweans have brought a pioneering spirit to the nation and have contributed to economic life at several levels" and insert "The political environment in Zimbabwe has allowed the development of an exploitative business culture, in which white businessmen have played a prominent role."?. Bob BScar23625 16:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks --SandyDancer 16:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. That was an interesting discussion. Bob BScar23625 17:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on Hold

Hi,

This article has a good start on its references and has pretty comprehensive coverage of the topic. I put many {{fact}} tags on it. Please note that I did not put them everywhere that they are needed; I just put them in places that would give you an idea where they belong:

  • In general, any time you mention a specific number (2 million this; 15% that) it should be cited (except perhaps in the lead; and then it can be skipped there only if the fact is repeated and cited later).
  • Any time you make a statement that "the government did this; a famous person said that" you need a cite.
  • Any time you make a strong generalization (most people believe this; most people do that) you need a cite.

I didn't scan closely for POV problems. Beware of anything that just sounds like you are trying to persuade readers that any particular group is good or bad -- loaded words like "freedom fighter," "oppressor" etc. I'm not saying I saw those words; just giving examples.

I'm putting this article's GA nom on Hold for 7 days. Drop me a line if you have q's.--Ling.Nut 11:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow up comments: Also remember, GA is not FA. Everything I said above is true. However, the standards for GA do not require nearly the same degree of completion of various goals as an FA would. GA is more subjective. I personally look for a flexible "something like 75% or 80%" of the places where citations should be to actually have citations.
Feel free to ask if you have questions.--Ling.Nut 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I sincerely appreciate all the hard work and good work that is being put into this article. It is a pleasure to see committed editors. :-)
--Ling.Nut 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ling.Nut. Take another look at it now. I have used the Angus Selby PhD thesis (Selby) widely as a reference source. I think that is fair, given that the thesis has been heavily assessed and is itself tightly referenced. The thesis is internet accessible, and anyone who wishes can work back to primary sources. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 09:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Final concern is the last thing mentioned, see below.
I made one nontrivial edit out of NPOV concerns. You can revert my edit if you wish, but I think the sentence regarding the return of a passport to a significant living person should assume a more neutral posture. Please see the edit summary. Moreover, I tried to follow the link referenced at that section, but it requires a subscription. If you could find a different link or reference, that would be more appropriate.
As it stands at this moment, most reviewers would suggest that the article is well-written enough and well-referenced enough for GA. The biggest concern in any controversial area is WP:NPOV. I noted what appear to be good faith attempts to maintain WP:NPOV, including:
  • "blacks being excluded from land that they had worked for generations"
  • "100,000 blacks were forcibly resettled from farming land designated for white ownership"
  • "between black men and white women illegal – with a penalty of two years imprisonment for any offending white woman"
  • "Public spending on education, healthcare and other social services was heavily weighted towards provision for whites. Most of the better paid jobs in public service were reserved for whites."
I'm sure you're aware that if you decide to go for Featured Article, their reviewers will probably be going over every line with a fine-toothed comb looking for NPOV issues. But as everyone likes to say, GA is not FA, and I think the examples above show good faith.
Also please be aware that there are still many unreferenced facts remaining that would definitely need to be addressed if you intend to go for FA. But GA is not....
  • However, I still have one final concern that I should have mentioned earlier. I apologize for not catching it from the beginning, but it is only a matter of a good 30 or 45 minutes' work, I suspect. Please read WP:LEAD. The lead (first few paragraphs) should be a one-stop, bird's eye view of the entire article (as is stated more clearly in WP:LEAD). Please rewrite the lead along those lines. When the lead looks good, I will pass this article.
Thanks! --Ling.Nut 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PS — I'm not gonna ask you to reference anything else in the body of the article. But as you rewrite the lead, you may occasionally wanna stick to presenting summarizations (this is not a rule, it's a sugggestion), and put (well-referenced) details in an appropriate place in the body. On the other hand, it is also sometimes good to have some (well-referenced) details in the lead, though. I'm speaking vaguely because it's all a judgment call; use your best judgment. If a detail is significant enough to stay in the lead, leave it there, but please reference it. If a summary will do, then summarize, and move the details to the body. Again, use your best judgment. But please reference details that you leave in the lead. Many thanks! --Ling.Nut 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK now?. Bob BScar23625 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This is an excellent job so far, but you shortened the lead a little too much. :-)
  • Look up and down the article for major topics left ummentioned in the lead. I can say for sure that — in my opinion — you need to mention "white farms," mention the land issue (both the fact that blacks were forcibly resettled in one period, then whites lost their land in another), mention the periods of political & economic & instability & violence. That's my list of what else should be in the lead; you may disagree. There may be other major issues that I missed, too. As I said, just look for key points in the article -- not neglecting controversies -- and put them in.
  • You are about 3 or at most 5 minutes from being passed as GA.
  • Oh wait, please also reference that statement about population. So only 1 more sentence needs referencing.
  • Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ling.Nut. Thankyou for your guidance, which is appreciated. I have updated the article in line with your latest comments, but conservatively so. Perhaps we have done enough for now?. We can return to the article if there is any question of an FA nomination. Bob BScar23625 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination Passed

Good work! I appreciate the hard work put into this article. I hope you have success if you eventually go for Featured Article.

  • --Ling.Nut 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ling.Nut. Thankyou for your time and attention. Bob BScar23625 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/i/Talk%7EWhites_in_Zimbabwe_357c.html"