Talk:Rhodesian Bush War

Neutrality

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

":(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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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 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)

Majority Rule?

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".

Requested move 12 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Oppose This term is not widely used or known outside of Zimbabwe. The conflict is usually only called the 'Bush War' or 'Rhodesian Bush War'. When it is called something else, it is called the 'Zimbabwe War of Liberation'. While this may be the most commonly used term, it is very regionally limited, the most widely known international name is the '(Rhodesian) Bush War'. GramCanMineAway (talk) 18:52, 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)

As the closer of the previous RM, I do not wish to reopen the close, so I believe this is a fine proposal to get a clear consensus for or against Second Chimurenga. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very definitely not the WP:COMMONNAME outside Zimbabwe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose First time I have ever heard this term, unlikely to mean much even to educated people who know something about the history of the period. Whether the current title is ideal is another issue. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The above two opposes don't add much to the discussion. The nominator has provided ngram evidence that the proposed term is more common. Responding with "I've never heard of it" (it's in the very first sentence of the article) or a blanket statement that it's not so is likely to be disregarded. This is not a vote, and the closing admin will review the evidence and statements provided. Greenman (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. Wikipedia is a world encyclopaedia and this proposed name is clearly a POV term which is not commonly used or understood elsewhere. See Indian Rebellion of 1857 for why we don't use loaded terms (i.e. not the Indian Mutiny or the First Indian War of Independence, which would be seen as favouring the British or Indian POVs respectively). The current title is entirely neutral. It was a "bush war" and it did happen in Rhodesia (which is what the country was then called). It doesn't favour either side. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Re-iterating my previous concerns with the imminent rename of First Chimurenga should this rename go through which as I've demonstrated before, is recently declining in usage within academic sources via the Ngram I've used. Another point I want to highlight along with other editors is how apparently, this title only seems to be used in Zimbabwe. This is the first time I've even heard of the title "Second Chimurenga" and sure, its another personal anecdote but if it's this consistent among several editors of varying backgrounds, then WP:COMMONNAME is a definite with the average reader that isn't particularly knowledgeable on the subject. If a sudden naming convention came into play, dictating local names must be the used titles then how come the Second Italo-Ethiopian War hasn't been renamed to the Italian Invasion already? How come the First Sino-Japanese War hasn't been renamed to the War of Jiawu? How come the Cuban War of Independence hasn't been renamed to The Necessary War already? You get the point. Just because a name happens to be used in the local country where the conflict took place at, doesn't suddenly mean it's suddenly the title the world should adopt. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the previous discussion you stated: 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 2017 though 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)

  @Cinderella157: Sure, it's still experiencing overall more popular usage as of today but 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. The primary reason I bring it up is that it would be rather weird and inconsistent for one article to be renamed to the Second Chimurenga which will naturally lead people to wonder about the First Chimurenga, to which the first instance remains a redirect. It's like if the Second Italian War of Independence were to overnight be renamed to the Franco-Austrian War but the First Italian War of Independence were to retain its original title. It wouldn't exactly feel right regardless of the lack of any specific guidelines to titling events by chronology. Regardless, the very title "Second Chimurenga" doesn't have much relevancy outside of academic sources that are primarily from Zimbabwe. The Pageviews aren't exactly a good indicator of the title being well established or relevant among the general public with only one instance prior the discussion reaching 10 results prior to the latest series of discussions. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  SuperSkaterDude45, 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)

  @Cinderella157: Three years might not seem significant in the short term but you have to keep in mind that this is from more recent years which has determined prior page moves. Sure, it's too soon so say if this will be an indefinite trend but as highlighted in my original comment, it's worth noting. Believe it or not, but I do share the same sentiment with the current discussion with the First Chimurenga (to which I wasn't even aware of prior to you mentioned it) Also care to list some specific examples of said sources being used outside of Zimbabwe? Because specific examples I've found almost always are either published within Zimbabwe, have a certain level of pro-ZANU or pro-ZAPU bias within the actual contents of the works (potentially violating WP:POVTITLE) or authors that have their origins traced from Zimbabwe. Again, please let me know if you have found specific sources that are exceptions to what I've just described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Soft Oppose largely per SuperSkaterDude45. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per ngram evidence offered by the nom, it is the much more common name in the global English corpus than Rhodesian Bush War. This is reinforced by JSTOR (154/22) and Google scholar {2100/625) searches. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Name rarely used outside of Zimbabwe Nationalist circles.Wojturski1912 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The evidence provided by the nominator, and by Cinderella157, makes a strong case that "Second Chimurenga" is the WP:COMMONNAME here. I find most of the opposes to be unconvincing – "I haven't heard of it" is effectively meaningless, and I'm not convinced that Zimbabwean nationalists make up enough of the global Ngram corpus (or that of Google Scholar or JSTOR) to account for the clear lead in usage. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support Evidence in favour of the proposed name seems convincing, Ngram, JSTOR, Google Scholar, while the counter-arguments have mostly been anecdotal. The most coherent attempt at a counter-argument was that the usage of the similar name of the prior conflict, the First Chimurenga, is declining, but that doesn't seem relevant here. Greenman (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Zimbabwe has been notified of this discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not the common name internationally. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)<
• Oppose. Per SuperSkaterDude45, Wojturski1912 and Peacemaker67. Proposed name change could be a redirect if not already one. Donner60 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. If, as demonstrated, the proposed name is the most common name globally, then there really isn't a case to answer. It's arguable that we should move it even absent global common name, simply because of WP:TIES - this event is closely connected to Zimbabwe and should use that country's English. The oppose votes above are frankly a bit offensive, claiming once again that usage in the US and Europe (glibly labelled as "international"), and looking at the conflict from the point of view of the colonizer, trumps local and global usage. Wikipedia policy strongly favours this move, and such votes should be disregarded.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Seconded. @Reading Beans: Also I don't think a "no consensus" is at all appropriate here. There has been no policy argument made at all on the "oppose" side of the argument, while solid case for WP:COMMONNAME and also WP:TIES has been made in support of the move. A reminder that like any area of Wikipedia, RM discussion are WP:NOTAVOTE. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Reading Beans, am I to understand from this, that because both sides have cited WP:COMMONNAME, both cases are ipso facto of equal weight, regardless of whether the evidence and rationale for invoking this actually reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community reflected in this particular part of policy (see WP:RMCI and WP:NHC)? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

Reading Beans, It would appear to me then, that you are saying that 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)

@Cinderella157: I find it rather interesting that you say that 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)

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)

@Greenman: At least 6 other people seem to have similar views to me and 4 not but the amount of people ultimately doesn't matter as 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)

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:AT nor 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)

Title?

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)

@5.195.80.55: See previous discussions regarding the title as to why the "Zimbabwe War of Liberation" isn't used for this article. A basic summary is that the title isn't used in many scholarly references as well as the title being far less commonly used outside of Zimbabwbe (a potential violation of WP:POVTITLE). SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Portugal and Zambia

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)

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)

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)

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

Belligerents

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)

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)