![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against proposed title. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesian Bush War → Zimbabwean War of Independence – This is to resolve a move war. Please see #Neutrality for details. LesbianTiamat should be considered the proposer of this move. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.If this is not met, then we should consider a more neutral title. If Rhodesian Bush War is not a neutral title and suffient to require a title change, then I do not see that Zimbabwean War of Independence or Zimbabwean War of Liberation can be considered to be neutral alternatives that should be considered over the existing title in respect to the guidance. That is why I have proposed the alternative Zimbabwean war.
more neutral titledespite the bias highlighted by Indy beetle. Ultimately, I'm just not particularly happy about the article potentially being renamed to "Zimbabwean War" given the fact that there are other internal conflicts within Zimbabwe such as the 1980 Entumbane clashes and Gukurahundi and while yes, it's arguably the more "neutral" title of all the proposed renames, it's a little too vague of a title, especially for a conflict that was a major event in Sub-Saharan Cold War geopolitics. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Describes the geographical location of the independent state that formed as a result of the warwhen other articles on Wikipedia such as the Boshin War, the Mau Mau rebellion and the First Balkan War don't use this hypothetical naming convention. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page.I deleted the second RM accordingly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Natg 19, while there has clearly been a consensus against the initially proposed move, The discussion has indicated that Second Chimurenga is the most WP:COMMONNAME, Per WP:RM#CM a discussion is not limited to consider just the proposed target. I would observe that there has been sufficient discussion regarding this alternative that the closer would be reasonable obliged to address that proposal in their close - to indicate where the consensus lies for this alternative and, if not consensus for a recommendation on what course should be followed in respect to this alternative. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The cited reason for the removal of the support part linked to a discussion which, importantly, did not say that 'supported by' should never be used. I wanted to ask, what reason is there to remove it here?
It's worth stating the support that Israel provided was very substantial. According to 'The Israeli Connection' (the source cited for the edit), such as the sale of submachine guns and provided Rhodesia with the rights to produce uzis. The Ruzi then became 'standard in the Rhodesian armed forces and police, and was also sold to (white) citizens for $100.'
eleven Bell 205 helicopters were also provided to Rhodesia who used them in counter-insurgency campaigns.
significantly, the source also points out that the Rhodesians utilised counter-insurgency methods that they got directly from Israel. For instance, one Israeli company 'built the five-hundred-mile "belt" [of land mines] along the border with Mozambique and Zambia.' And in 1976, Israeli mercenaries also teamed up with Rhodesia.
All of these details demonstrate a significant amount of active support towards Rhodesia and I see no reason why it ought to be ignored. Genabab ( talk) 19:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against proposed title. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Rhodesian Bush War → Zimbabwean War of Independence – This is to resolve a move war. Please see #Neutrality for details. LesbianTiamat should be considered the proposer of this move. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.If this is not met, then we should consider a more neutral title. If Rhodesian Bush War is not a neutral title and suffient to require a title change, then I do not see that Zimbabwean War of Independence or Zimbabwean War of Liberation can be considered to be neutral alternatives that should be considered over the existing title in respect to the guidance. That is why I have proposed the alternative Zimbabwean war.
more neutral titledespite the bias highlighted by Indy beetle. Ultimately, I'm just not particularly happy about the article potentially being renamed to "Zimbabwean War" given the fact that there are other internal conflicts within Zimbabwe such as the 1980 Entumbane clashes and Gukurahundi and while yes, it's arguably the more "neutral" title of all the proposed renames, it's a little too vague of a title, especially for a conflict that was a major event in Sub-Saharan Cold War geopolitics. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Describes the geographical location of the independent state that formed as a result of the warwhen other articles on Wikipedia such as the Boshin War, the Mau Mau rebellion and the First Balkan War don't use this hypothetical naming convention. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page.I deleted the second RM accordingly. Cinderella157 ( talk) 22:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Natg 19, while there has clearly been a consensus against the initially proposed move, The discussion has indicated that Second Chimurenga is the most WP:COMMONNAME, Per WP:RM#CM a discussion is not limited to consider just the proposed target. I would observe that there has been sufficient discussion regarding this alternative that the closer would be reasonable obliged to address that proposal in their close - to indicate where the consensus lies for this alternative and, if not consensus for a recommendation on what course should be followed in respect to this alternative. Cinderella157 ( talk) 02:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The cited reason for the removal of the support part linked to a discussion which, importantly, did not say that 'supported by' should never be used. I wanted to ask, what reason is there to remove it here?
It's worth stating the support that Israel provided was very substantial. According to 'The Israeli Connection' (the source cited for the edit), such as the sale of submachine guns and provided Rhodesia with the rights to produce uzis. The Ruzi then became 'standard in the Rhodesian armed forces and police, and was also sold to (white) citizens for $100.'
eleven Bell 205 helicopters were also provided to Rhodesia who used them in counter-insurgency campaigns.
significantly, the source also points out that the Rhodesians utilised counter-insurgency methods that they got directly from Israel. For instance, one Israeli company 'built the five-hundred-mile "belt" [of land mines] along the border with Mozambique and Zambia.' And in 1976, Israeli mercenaries also teamed up with Rhodesia.
All of these details demonstrate a significant amount of active support towards Rhodesia and I see no reason why it ought to be ignored. Genabab ( talk) 19:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
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)