Talk:Rhodesian Bush War

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

Military history: African / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Zimbabwe: Rhodesia Top‑importance

Rhodesian Bush War is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance). WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks: edit history watch purge Zimbabwe-related tasks You can help! Here are some Zimbabwe related tasks you can do: Monarchy of Rhodesia, more ... Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs Category sorting : Factual Accuracy : Update: NPOV : Citations : Style or Cleanup : Expand: Related Wikiprojects: Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project view • edit • discuss • history • watch

British Empire Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 12 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be Second Chimurenga. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

2006–2008 2009–

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)[reply]

@83.84.100.133 I agree. Violence against white civillians from the nationalists is discussed on the page quite a bit, while the vastly larger number of black civillians killed is only mentioned in passing around the end of the article. I understand that some black civillian casualties were perpetrated by nationalist groups, as is mentioned in the article, but no Rhodesian atrocities aside from the biological/chemical warfare program are discussed.

It seems like there is a lot of uncritical regurgitation of Rhodesian sources. If one were to read this article uncritically, they'd leave believing that a noble, albeit problematic, Rhodesia fought murderous savages until they were stabbed in the back by their allies.

The vibe I get from the pages relating to Rhodesoa and the war in general is that there are people trying to disseminate a version of events that are sympathetic to the Rhodesian government. Tubbydoorway (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More serious scholarship has also called the reality of the chemical program into question, so that is also unsatisfactory. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesian Bush War: Obviously biased, explicitly partisan.

Second Chimurenga: Not very widely-recognized, potentially also partisan in the other direction?

Zimbabwean War of Independence: Exactly what happened, regardless of narratives or motivations or framing. It was the war that was fought in Zimbabwe over the issue of Zimbabwe's independence. Also appears to be the accepted academic terminology.

I have changed the title of the page accordingly. LesbianTiamat (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how that works. You need to make a proper move request for this article. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the anonymous author of this paragraph, who is clearing Zimbabwean and also clearly took no part in the war, a couple of points:

(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader.

(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias.

(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin. The fact is that there are virtually no reliable sources of information from ZIPRA or ZANLA combatants, and even the published materiel from those sources of the time, even their internal documents, were what can charitably be called "light" on hard facts. This makes them unreliable for use as sources for factual articles.

(4) Show us any good sources with verified information from authors of any other group than European, ex-Rhodesian or South African ethnicities and nationalities, and we will happily include the information from those sources. Or better yet, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account here on Wikipedia to become an editor, and make the changes yourself, but and here's the thing: cite your sources always, with verifiable references.

Cadar (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

":(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader." Nobody except rhodesians call the Zimbabwean War of Independence the Rhodesian Bush War.

"(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias." The bias of 'modern thinking' has been replaced with what, regressive thinking?

"(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin." That is exactly the same as saying that the article is one-sided. You just explained why you think it is one-sided. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@83.84.100.133: If you cannot be civil and cannot accept the edits or input of other editors here on Wikipedia in good faith - as amply demonstrated by the numerous complaints on your talk page - then you have no business wasting the time of editors who are working to improve Wikipedia. I will not dignify your unfounded accusations with a discussion. If you want to make changes to the page in question, as previously requested, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account and take responsibility. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

Cadar (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to use the name that is most common in Zimbabwe, especially if it is impartial? The Rhodesian Bush War name implies partiality towards Rhodesians, and since Zimbabwe is an English-speaking country it makes sense to use the most common impartial term (Second Chimurenga War).Rivere123 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely second this... among modern academic sources on the subject, the term 'Rhodesian Bush War' is openly associated with the perspective of the Rhodesian Front. It is by no means a neutral naming, and I wholeheartedly support changing the title. I had a bit of an embarrassing moment when I used this term in a paper and my professor, a historian of South Africa, was incredibly confused and said that this term is an openly political one. I will quote a bit from a book by the scholar of the conflict Luise White from 2021:

"The war about which I write was an enormous part of that history, and what an author calls that war literally stakes out a political position. Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle is enshrined in nationalist historiography. However nuanced and critical an analysis is, this was the story of guerrilla armies defeating minority rule in Southern Africa years after the era of decolonization. What Rhodesians—even after there was no country of Rhodesia— called the bush war has another meaning. At its best it is the story of brave white men defending their land, and at worst it removes the struggle from a political context: it describes where white men patrolled and fought; it reveals nothing about what they fought for."

This was from "Fighting and Writing: The Rhodesian Army at War and Postwar" published by Duke University Press. Surely this is a clear demonstration that the title of the article is overtly biased towards one side of the conflict at the expense of the other and violates neutrality rules. A frank discussion on renaming should be had immediately. 129.2.181.227 (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read most of White's book and done what I can to make the article as a whole more neutral, I think it's worth pointing out that as White suggests unfortunately, neither "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Second Chimurenga"/Zimbabwean Liberation War" are entirely neutral titles. Having written the "Historiography" section of this article, I can attest to the fact that the writing on this subject is fractious and politicized. Anecdotally, I am willing to say that the more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of "Zimbabwean War". A source that primarily calls the conflict Second Chiruenga is probably going to be uncritical black nationalist discourse (Hellicker et al. is an exception because it is an analysis of that discourse), and if you search Rhodesian Bush War you can see that mostly returns results for white veteran pulp literature of dubious quality. Nothing is really ideal here, I think it's just good that we have all three names in the lede. If this article were to be moved, I would offer my mild support to "Zimbabwean Liberation War" or similar, since in my experience that's what the most professional works gravitate too. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In doing extensive history research on this topic, I agree that most academic historiography refers to the war as either Zimbabwean Liberation War or Second Chimurenga. The Rhodesian Bush War, in my view, is an outdated and colonial expression 145.90.74.112 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move is contested

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

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)[reply]

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".

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)[reply]

Seconded. @

WP:NOTAVOTE. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not disregard the !vote by SuperSkaterDuede45. They based their oppose !vote on

WP:COMMONNAME as the support did. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NHC)? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I addressed the question raised by Amakuru which should also answer your question. I did take in tje number of supports and opposes per see rather the arguments. Remember, RM discussions are

not a vote. I would take in no prejudice if you overturn my closure. I woukd definitely AGF. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

@

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)[reply

]

The claim that Second Chimurenga is the more common term has been made with evidence. The counter claims that Second Chimurenga is not used outside of Zimbabwe, or as added here, by authors with their origins in Zimbabwe, have been made without evidence. These claims need evidence rather than just assertions. Effectively it seems that everyone is in agreement that Second Chimurenga is the more widely used term, just with as of yet uncited disclaimers of various kinds. Greenman (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk pages aren't a head count. A few specific examples I've found that follow the criteria I've established (a majority of these feature authors that were at least born in Zimbabwe or had their careers based there) include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. This in contrast to the exceptions of what I've established including 1, 2, 3 with additional passing mentions including 4 and 5. Another thing of note that several works that use "Second Chimurenga" often feature the same author as for example, 1 and 2 are both written by Oliver Nyambi. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to form a complete analysis of each individual work that talks about the Rhodesian Bush War but this excerpt should suffice for the talk page. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The assertion that sources should be excluded from the corpus of sources based on national ties is incongruous. It is akin to asserting that American writers should be excluded from the corpus of sources for the American Civil War or that Jewish writers should be excluded from the corpus of sources for the Holocaust. Neither

WP:RS would make such a distinction. In respect to evidence offered, we have quantitative evidence of usage on one hand and what amounts to unsubstantiated opinion on the other. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@

WP:POVTITLE). SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The debate has been going on almost as long as the article has been in existence. The basic problem is that the original and current title is not neutral, but is used by a substantial number of sources outside Zimbabwe - a plurality to majority, depending on metrics used, and the metrics have also been debated for decades.

Within Zimbabwe, the official term, as recorded in laws and in military decorations, is Liberation War or National Liberation War. Unsurprisingly, it is widely used by most authors in Zimbabwe. Wars of national liberation is a widely used term in other conflicts, and while that isn't especially neutral, it's generally an accepted term if the war resulted in independence - and controversial while the war is ongoing.

The term "Rhodesian bush war" is somewhat widely used by authors outside Zimbabwe partly because it is a widely used term, and so people follow it, and to a much lesser but noticeable extent, especially in the 1980s, that Rhodesian literature (as in, writing by authors who identify as Rhodesian since independence) was almost exclusively published outside Zimbabwe.

Referring to the conflict as Rhodesian is offensive to a lot of Zimbabweans, especially those who fought or whose family fought in the war in Zanla or Zipra or in civilian resistance. That makes the whole thing unpleasant and emotive for quite a few of us, but isn't a WP policy.

What do most people, on either side, who remember the time call it? The war. Like in so many countries. Babakathy (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Zambia was used a stageing-point for Guerilla forces to move into Rhodesia territory, But Zambian Forces themselves were not, While Portugal was. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda Mad your questioning Belligerents in this case, When you obviously are not fully sure who was even fighting in the War. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to be Kinda Mad, but did you verify what the sources said? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The infobox is for belligerents. "Supported by" was deprecated by the community. See Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]