This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rhodesian Bush War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Second Chimurenga. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The origin of the Second Chimurenga is in Ian Smith's refusal to go along with the Wind Of Change that saw indirect rule replace direct colonial rule among the former British colonies in Africa and Asia. The result was 15 years of war and 50,000 dead, which ended in April 1980. The problem with this article is that it only relies on Rhodesian and white South African sources. Add to this the use of the term 'Rhodesian Bush War', which only rhodesians use. It is very much like renaming the American Civil War the 'War Of Rights', or the 'War Of Northern Aggression'. Or calling WWII the 'War Of The Reich'. This article is highly biased, and should be rewritten in a way that includes the views of the actual Zimbabwean people who fought for their freedom, not the rhodesian British minority, who were never more than 5% of the population. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 07:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Cadar ( talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This page should absolutely be moved. The only internationally comprehensible term is the 'Zimbabwe War of Liberation'. The '(Rhodesian) Bush War' will not be understod by anyone except a small (white) minority in South Africa and the UK"--LRO 05:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
LesbianTiamat moved this page from
Rhodesian Bush War
here with the edit summary: NPOV. "Rhodesian Bush War" is explicitly a partisan name. This was discussed on the talk page and is now being carried out.
They then posted to the above discussion
here, which can be seen as a justification for their actions.
The move was reverted by
SuperSkaterDude45
here with the edit summary: No actual vote or discussion made to change the title. LesbianTiamat, actually request a move the next time you want to change the title
. The move has been contested. The appropriate action is then to start an RM. I do not see that there is a consensus to move, let alone a consensus to move to
Zimbabwean War of Independence. As
Indy beetle observes: ... unfortunately, neither "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Second Chimurenga"/Zimbabwean Liberation War" are entirely neutral titles ... the more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of "Zimbabwean War".
Zimbabwean War of Independence is arguably less neutral than the former name. I too was of a mind to contest the move because of the target selected.
LesbianTiamat reinstated their move
here with the edit summary: This change was discussed on the talk page, so it's going through. If you think there is a reason it should be called Rhodesian Bush War, please discuss that on the talk page, which you seem to have missed.
The appropriate action was to open an RM. Simply reinstating the move is disruptive. I will not revert since this will only further the disruption but this move is clearly contested.
Eyeluvbraixen has reinstated the original title
here with the edit summary: No, this needs to have a proper discussion. Is Zimbabwean War of Independence even a common title for this war?
They also made
this post to the TP that an RM is required.
The appropriate course is to submit the proposal to an RM. I will be initiating the RM directly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The side box references the "outcome" of the conflict as the Lancaster House Agreement. That is accurate insofar as it goes. However, the result of that agreement was not really "majority rule" since a form of majority rule had already been established through the internal settlement. What Lancaster House resulted in was elections in which ZANU and ZAPU also participated. A more accurate description would be: "End of armed hostilities" and "Elections involving all parties".
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides have made convincing !votes to the discussion. I'm afraid, there's no consensus as at this this. Best, ( closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesian Bush War → Second Chimurenga – Per the recent discussion, I believe it makes the most sense and fits best with Wikipedia policy to move the page to Second Chimurenga. Ngram shows that the Second Chimurenga is by far the most common term for the war and always has been.
"Rhodesian Bush War" suggests a bias towards the colonizers, and it is also not the most common name for the conflict, thus it goes against WP:POVNAMING as well as WP:COMMONNAME. I believe some have suggested that "Second Chimurenga" is also biased, just towards the anti-imperialist force--even if this were the case, per WP:POVNAMING, this would still be acceptable as it is by far the most common name for the conflict. Sophie ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 21:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 11:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Clarification sought Sophiet Union, you will see that I have requested the closer of the previous RM to clarify their close. Consequently, opening this RM is probably premature, and possibly redundant. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My main concern with this title is the inevitable future usage of the First Chimurenga over the Second Matabele War. While yes, this ngram currently displays the latter being more used than the former in recent years, it's also noticeably on the decline since 2017 with the former being used more often.In the passage, the first mentioned is First Chimurenga and the latter is Second Matabele War. The ngram clearly shows First Chimurenga is the predominant usage since about 1980 and not the other wat around as the quoted text would state (
the latter being more used than the former in recent years). It is apparently
on the decline since 2017though whether this is statistically significant or not is another question. We would certainly need a more sophisticated statistical analysis than a three point moving average, particularly given that there are only two later data points available (2018 and 2019 - see also ngram with zero smoothing). Even with this downturn in First Chimurenga, from 2017 - 2019, it still exceeds Second Matabele War by about twice as much on 3 point smoothing - but it is stated:
it's also noticeably on the decline since 2017 with the former being used more often[emphasis added]. I'm not certain how the title at Second Matabele War directly relates to this discussion. There is nothing to say that if we have an article titled second X, we need to have an article with the primary name first X. We may not even have an article referring to first X if it is not notable or unwritten. And for the rest, the analysis of the ngram data you make, I am totally confused since it appears to be totally inconsistent with the data unless one starts by swapping the two terms - and even then it doesn't seem to sit quite right? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
not only has usage been declining in recent years in favor of the Second Matabele War but it's also only really known as the First Chimurenga.... in Zimbabwe[emphasis added]. As I stated, given the large fluctuations one sees when using zero smoothing (see ngram) one cannot assert from a simple 3 point rolling average that the downturn since 2017 is statistically significant. It would take a much more complex statistical analysis to determine if it was. My assessment is that it probably isn't and that the apparent downturn is probably due to a particularly high result in 2014. To the weirdness (which I don't share with you), there are RMs for both this article and the Second Matabele War. One could equally say it would be weird if the other were renamed to First Chimurenga but this remained as Rhodesian Bush War. Page views aren't a good indicator. A Google search for Second Chimurenga will send readers to Rhodesian Bush War on wiki. This is reasonably a primary route by which many readers access wiki. I see that a number of editors are asserting that Second Chimurenga has little usage outside Zimbabwe but this assertion is made without evidence to substantiate it. On the otherhand, ngrams, JSTOR and Google Scholar each have a global corpus and significant predominant representation of Second Chimurenga that would belie that it is a term with little usage outside Zimbabwe. However, my main query was the confusing inconsistencies in the analysis you made in the previous RM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Reading Beans, you would state: Both sides have made convincing !votes to the discussion.
Given the detail of the discussion, perhaps it would be appropriate to summarise what the arguments were and why the arguments of one side did not outweigh the arguments of the other - ie why they carried equal weight?
Cinderella157 (
talk) 23:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
because both sides have cited WP:COMMONNAME, both cases are ipso facto of equal weight. It is not sufficient to invoke a link to WP:P&G. In this case, the application of WP:COMMONNAME is evidence based. Per WP:NHC:
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue[emphasis added]. You have agreed that the close might be overturned. Procedurally, it would be inappropriate for me or another participant to do so. However, absent a better explanation for the close, it might be appropriate for you to revert your close. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
In this case, the application of WP:COMMONNAME is evidence based.when you have yet to give an actual response to my original question of the existence of sources either outside of Zimbabwe, not made with an existing bias in mind or if the authors have their origins or descent in Zimbabwe. This entire talk has been going on for nearly two months now and its rather evident that there isn't any established consensus and prolonging it will likely just lead to more of the same. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Zimbabwe but I am listening to a Zimbabwean speaker and they referred to this as the Zimbabwe War of Liberation
That seems...a more accurate name than "Rhodesian Bush War". Why is an outdated/colonial name still being used? 5.195.80.55 ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Could someone verify that the cited sources actually state that Portuguese and Zambian forces were involved in combat in this war? The latter is behind a paywall. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Why Can't support from the Soviet Union and China be listed on the Page just because they're not belligerents, But Yet for say the South Africa Border War they're allowed to be listed for the same thing (Material support) even though they weren't Belligerents either, Doesn't really seem to be a real reason why it's not allowed? 86.7.30.90 ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rhodesian Bush War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Second Chimurenga. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The origin of the Second Chimurenga is in Ian Smith's refusal to go along with the Wind Of Change that saw indirect rule replace direct colonial rule among the former British colonies in Africa and Asia. The result was 15 years of war and 50,000 dead, which ended in April 1980. The problem with this article is that it only relies on Rhodesian and white South African sources. Add to this the use of the term 'Rhodesian Bush War', which only rhodesians use. It is very much like renaming the American Civil War the 'War Of Rights', or the 'War Of Northern Aggression'. Or calling WWII the 'War Of The Reich'. This article is highly biased, and should be rewritten in a way that includes the views of the actual Zimbabwean people who fought for their freedom, not the rhodesian British minority, who were never more than 5% of the population. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 07:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Cadar ( talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
This page should absolutely be moved. The only internationally comprehensible term is the 'Zimbabwe War of Liberation'. The '(Rhodesian) Bush War' will not be understod by anyone except a small (white) minority in South Africa and the UK"--LRO 05:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
LesbianTiamat moved this page from
Rhodesian Bush War
here with the edit summary: NPOV. "Rhodesian Bush War" is explicitly a partisan name. This was discussed on the talk page and is now being carried out.
They then posted to the above discussion
here, which can be seen as a justification for their actions.
The move was reverted by
SuperSkaterDude45
here with the edit summary: No actual vote or discussion made to change the title. LesbianTiamat, actually request a move the next time you want to change the title
. The move has been contested. The appropriate action is then to start an RM. I do not see that there is a consensus to move, let alone a consensus to move to
Zimbabwean War of Independence. As
Indy beetle observes: ... unfortunately, neither "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Second Chimurenga"/Zimbabwean Liberation War" are entirely neutral titles ... the more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of "Zimbabwean War".
Zimbabwean War of Independence is arguably less neutral than the former name. I too was of a mind to contest the move because of the target selected.
LesbianTiamat reinstated their move
here with the edit summary: This change was discussed on the talk page, so it's going through. If you think there is a reason it should be called Rhodesian Bush War, please discuss that on the talk page, which you seem to have missed.
The appropriate action was to open an RM. Simply reinstating the move is disruptive. I will not revert since this will only further the disruption but this move is clearly contested.
Eyeluvbraixen has reinstated the original title
here with the edit summary: No, this needs to have a proper discussion. Is Zimbabwean War of Independence even a common title for this war?
They also made
this post to the TP that an RM is required.
The appropriate course is to submit the proposal to an RM. I will be initiating the RM directly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The side box references the "outcome" of the conflict as the Lancaster House Agreement. That is accurate insofar as it goes. However, the result of that agreement was not really "majority rule" since a form of majority rule had already been established through the internal settlement. What Lancaster House resulted in was elections in which ZANU and ZAPU also participated. A more accurate description would be: "End of armed hostilities" and "Elections involving all parties".
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides have made convincing !votes to the discussion. I'm afraid, there's no consensus as at this this. Best, ( closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans ( talk) 18:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesian Bush War → Second Chimurenga – Per the recent discussion, I believe it makes the most sense and fits best with Wikipedia policy to move the page to Second Chimurenga. Ngram shows that the Second Chimurenga is by far the most common term for the war and always has been.
"Rhodesian Bush War" suggests a bias towards the colonizers, and it is also not the most common name for the conflict, thus it goes against WP:POVNAMING as well as WP:COMMONNAME. I believe some have suggested that "Second Chimurenga" is also biased, just towards the anti-imperialist force--even if this were the case, per WP:POVNAMING, this would still be acceptable as it is by far the most common name for the conflict. Sophie ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 21:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans ( talk) 11:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Clarification sought Sophiet Union, you will see that I have requested the closer of the previous RM to clarify their close. Consequently, opening this RM is probably premature, and possibly redundant. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
My main concern with this title is the inevitable future usage of the First Chimurenga over the Second Matabele War. While yes, this ngram currently displays the latter being more used than the former in recent years, it's also noticeably on the decline since 2017 with the former being used more often.In the passage, the first mentioned is First Chimurenga and the latter is Second Matabele War. The ngram clearly shows First Chimurenga is the predominant usage since about 1980 and not the other wat around as the quoted text would state (
the latter being more used than the former in recent years). It is apparently
on the decline since 2017though whether this is statistically significant or not is another question. We would certainly need a more sophisticated statistical analysis than a three point moving average, particularly given that there are only two later data points available (2018 and 2019 - see also ngram with zero smoothing). Even with this downturn in First Chimurenga, from 2017 - 2019, it still exceeds Second Matabele War by about twice as much on 3 point smoothing - but it is stated:
it's also noticeably on the decline since 2017 with the former being used more often[emphasis added]. I'm not certain how the title at Second Matabele War directly relates to this discussion. There is nothing to say that if we have an article titled second X, we need to have an article with the primary name first X. We may not even have an article referring to first X if it is not notable or unwritten. And for the rest, the analysis of the ngram data you make, I am totally confused since it appears to be totally inconsistent with the data unless one starts by swapping the two terms - and even then it doesn't seem to sit quite right? Cinderella157 ( talk) 07:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
not only has usage been declining in recent years in favor of the Second Matabele War but it's also only really known as the First Chimurenga.... in Zimbabwe[emphasis added]. As I stated, given the large fluctuations one sees when using zero smoothing (see ngram) one cannot assert from a simple 3 point rolling average that the downturn since 2017 is statistically significant. It would take a much more complex statistical analysis to determine if it was. My assessment is that it probably isn't and that the apparent downturn is probably due to a particularly high result in 2014. To the weirdness (which I don't share with you), there are RMs for both this article and the Second Matabele War. One could equally say it would be weird if the other were renamed to First Chimurenga but this remained as Rhodesian Bush War. Page views aren't a good indicator. A Google search for Second Chimurenga will send readers to Rhodesian Bush War on wiki. This is reasonably a primary route by which many readers access wiki. I see that a number of editors are asserting that Second Chimurenga has little usage outside Zimbabwe but this assertion is made without evidence to substantiate it. On the otherhand, ngrams, JSTOR and Google Scholar each have a global corpus and significant predominant representation of Second Chimurenga that would belie that it is a term with little usage outside Zimbabwe. However, my main query was the confusing inconsistencies in the analysis you made in the previous RM. Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Reading Beans, you would state: Both sides have made convincing !votes to the discussion.
Given the detail of the discussion, perhaps it would be appropriate to summarise what the arguments were and why the arguments of one side did not outweigh the arguments of the other - ie why they carried equal weight?
Cinderella157 (
talk) 23:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
because both sides have cited WP:COMMONNAME, both cases are ipso facto of equal weight. It is not sufficient to invoke a link to WP:P&G. In this case, the application of WP:COMMONNAME is evidence based. Per WP:NHC:
The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue[emphasis added]. You have agreed that the close might be overturned. Procedurally, it would be inappropriate for me or another participant to do so. However, absent a better explanation for the close, it might be appropriate for you to revert your close. Cinderella157 ( talk) 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
In this case, the application of WP:COMMONNAME is evidence based.when you have yet to give an actual response to my original question of the existence of sources either outside of Zimbabwe, not made with an existing bias in mind or if the authors have their origins or descent in Zimbabwe. This entire talk has been going on for nearly two months now and its rather evident that there isn't any established consensus and prolonging it will likely just lead to more of the same. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not an expert on Zimbabwe but I am listening to a Zimbabwean speaker and they referred to this as the Zimbabwe War of Liberation
That seems...a more accurate name than "Rhodesian Bush War". Why is an outdated/colonial name still being used? 5.195.80.55 ( talk) 12:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Could someone verify that the cited sources actually state that Portuguese and Zambian forces were involved in combat in this war? The latter is behind a paywall. Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Why Can't support from the Soviet Union and China be listed on the Page just because they're not belligerents, But Yet for say the South Africa Border War they're allowed to be listed for the same thing (Material support) even though they weren't Belligerents either, Doesn't really seem to be a real reason why it's not allowed? 86.7.30.90 ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)