Talk:Rhodesian Bush War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice, thorough article, with a good handful of pictures, and good section divisions. Is there anything more to be said, to make this a bit longer? Also, I think the addition of an infobox, and a campaignbox (if appropriate), would put this article over the edge beyond the Start-class. LordAmeth 10:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles

Please do not rename articles by copying and pasting the text. There is a process for this that preserves the page history. Gazpacho 20:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Bobet 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, why was this article moved? This looks like a POV-move. "Second Chimurenga" is the official name in Zimbabwe, so let's stick to that. JackyR | Talk 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because to the rest of the world it's known as the Rhodesian Bush War? Because 'Chimurenga' means nothing to english speakers? Because it's not up to Mugabe's discredited government to decide what it is called (cf the Burma vs Myanmar name change debate)? (Just suggestions btw). Xdamr^talk 12:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It will always be known as the Rhodesian Bush War. Do we call Burma Myanmar? The nation of Zimbabwe is a failed state, and though what I say now is biased, it should have still been Rhodesia instead. --Bluelist 02:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Iwe Bluelist, hauzivi zvachose. The earth is created NOT as a static and dogmatic world. The point is that only Rhodesians will always know this war as a "Rhodesian Bush War". Your concept of "nation" is clearly confused. The nation of Zimbabwe is certainly not a failed state. I think what you wanted to say was "Mugabe's ZANU PF Government is a failed government". This fact does not in itself prevent the Nation of Zimbabwe or the State of Zimbabwe to put in place a successful government in future. Note that it is a government that has failed and not the nation.It is also not true to say that the "Rhodesian nation is a failed state" it was the Rhodesian governments that failed, which led to them being dismantled. Because the Mugabe government has failed, it will also be dismantled. - Shiku

Pedantic

My background - born in Zimbabwe mid '1960's, went to school there, grew up through the war, saw the lowering of the Union Jack (used as the flag during the Zimbabwe Rhodesia era in '79, prior to the general elections), the raising of the new Zimbabwe flag and lived most of the rest of my life there.

Oh! My Family were quite into politics, prior and post 1980 and once, when Ndabaningi Sithole was in our town, he had lunch at our house.

I know what happened during the Rhodesian bush war, I saw it, ate it, walked with it, played with it, slept in it and cried with it.

Now back to the point, this entry about the Rhodesian Bush War.

My mom once said - "There are always TWO sides to a story and then there's The TRUTH".

Besides a few politically incorrect terms, it is quite an accurate summary of the war. In every war the enemy is the enemy and which ever way you look at it, the side you're on you are going to support and you're going to call your enemy all sorts of things, to you he's always a gook, a terrorist, whatever... afterall he is your enemy. And exactly the same the otherway round.

Most of the criticism of this article are by people being pedantic about the way it was written. But actually that's how it was. We should not discuss the moral issues of a white minority political regime in a black country, that could be covered under other entries such as racism or politics and wouldn't fit in the scope of this article.

So besides a few minor points like whether you call your enemy a terrorist or a guerilla, this is quite a true article about the 'Cimurenga'.

Vegon 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The start of the article says that the result of the Bush War was the end of biracial rule and universal suffrage. Considering the fact that biracial rule did not exist prior to the war, and neithier did universla suffrage, I have corrected this.

twoblumen

Balance ?

I belive the important thing to remember here is that no matter who was called on to produce an balanced article, it would be bias to a greater or lesser degree, dependent on the authors view. This goes for every publication on the subject, whether a recognised publishing or not.

Apart from references to existing publications, it would be valuable to any reader or researcher to see a version of the article written with the perspective of the 'other' side ? 196.28.38.72 06:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

White minority vs. settler

I know this is being picky, but technically the Smith era did not mean "white minority rule" though in practice most of those who profited from it were either Anglo-Saxons or Boer settlers. 1) the state was run as a Settler biased body and 2) Rhodesian laws on who did and did not qualify as the top level (lets call it white for ease) were very complicated and (in my humble opinion quite crazy), for example, Christian and Jewish Arabs counted as White, as were Iranians, Japanesse and Hong Kong Chinese, Hispanic Americans from central and north America were classed equally with white Americans, Argentinians (though not Brazillians); Muslim Arab and Shikh, Hindu imangrants, were deemed mixed race, with exceptions in either direction; Mainland Chinese were clased as the equivilant of black. Unlike South Africa there were no laws on ethnic "purity" everyone had the right to vote (just not fairly distributed - see B Roll policies). To a large extent the rules were ad hoc. The overly simplistic term "white minority" should be replaced by the term "settler", though the body of the text should indicate that in practice this ment white. (RWRM 14:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

If you can source the above statements, but most importantly the conclusion that Rhodesia was not a "white minority rule", then the viewpoint could be mentioned in the article, however, since the Smith government is characterised as "white minority rule" in just about every reference, it would be original research to claim that was not the case. --Ezeu 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I strongly object to the use of the term "boer" in a Rhodesian context, because the term is specific to South Africa and even then, quite ambiguous. Secondly the term "settler" also has some political connotations that one might try and avoid as most people were in fact not settlers any more, but simply descendants of a group that could be called "settler". Furthermore the statements comparing the system to South Africa is also not accurate. South Africa did in fact have exactly the same classification whereby Japanese (and Taiwanese) where classified as "white" and Chinese not. The South African electoral system was quite complicated, but in essence every one did NOT have an EQUAL vote (universal franchise). I'm not an expert, but the similarities in race classification between the two counties could point to it being somehow inherited from Britain. See History of South Africa in the apartheid era#Colour classification and History of South Africa in the apartheid era#Other minorities.

The "settler" and "boer" terminology are very biased, very political terms that should be avoided. "White minority" is the most commonly used and politically neutral. --Deon Steyn 12:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction

Added link to "Pookie". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flingotravels (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Civil disobedience (1957-1964)

I will be more than happy to write this section. I have all the resources available to do so. Michael ^talk 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine but please refrain from referring to the PM as Premier. It is always Prime Minister. Additionally, when using direct citation make sure all of the preceding content is covered under the reference. Perspicacite 17:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the info you have added I am tempted to remove the content. Field did not ban ZAPU. Whitehead did in an effort to get him white votes. Sithole formed ZANU in July, not August of 1963. Make sure the content you are adding is accurate! Perspicacite 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My content is based on my sources. Wood's book, and Blake's. I would suggest your own sources are wrong. And Premier was the title while (Southern) Rhodesia was part of the Federation—the title of Prime Minister being reserved for the Federation's leader. So, get your own sources correct. Michael ^talk 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so this issue does not come up again, the following sources say ZANU was created in July 1963:

• Moshe Y, Sachs. Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations By Sachs, 1988. Page 374.
• Lake, Anthony. The "Tar Baby" Option: American Policy Toward Southern Rhodesia, 1976. Page 32.
• H.W. Wilson Company. Current Biography, 1986. Page 268.
• Winifred Crum Ewing, Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, and Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen. Case Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: A World Survey, 1976. Page 326.
• Frankel, Benjamin. Cold War 1945-1991 V1, 1992. Page 237.

Premier is never used on the Godfrey Huggins and Roy Welensky pages. Perspicacite 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course Premier is not used. Only during Federation was it used, to distinguish the position of the (Southern) Rhodesian leader (Premier) from the Federal leader (Prime Minister). Before and after the Federation it was PM. The usage is exactly the same as in the Australian states (which were colonies until they were federated in 1901, and the same thing happened to the titles of the leaders). Michael ^talk 01:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not be contributing to this article anymore. Persp, you're nothing short of a fool. Michael ^talk 01:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I will ignore that comment based on the fact that you have been productive on other Rhodesia-related articles. Perspicacite 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Error

Persp, your source apparently states that ZAPU was banned in September 1962, but page 353 of A History of Rhodesia states "On August 26, 1964 Ian Smith, who was now Prime Minister, banned ZAPU and ZANU". Curious. Michael ^talk 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

November 25 edits

Sf46, many of your edits are quite good, but there are several mistakes. The Derg was not allegedly Marxist, it was openly Marxist. Also, you implied a lot of events are alleged to have happened - but there is no evidence otherwise - or were claimed by certain individuals - which conflicts with WP:WTA. The consensus phrase in referring to ZIPRA and ZANLA members is "militants," not "nationalists," though I realize a few instances were still left in the article. Jose João (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I like all of your last edits, quite good. Jose João (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Background

Some background information on the war would be nice. It may be blindingly obvious why the war started, but I wouldn't want to just presume and add it myself. --Easytoremember 01:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of this has been added by the anonymous editor, busy doing some reworking of it, but at least it's there for now! Greenman 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this page to be biased toward the white population of Rhodesia by not being called the bush war.

That's what the Zimbabwean government calls it. Complain to them. Gazpacho 19:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, more background needed

The "Causes" section doesn't really give much info. There needs to be a lot more specific discussion about the political situation in Rhodesia during the years leading up to this conflict. Also, though I'm not an expert on this area of African history, there seems to be somewhat of a white-Rhodesian bias. The article seems to go out of its way to emphasize that the anti-white-minority-gvt. forces were backed by the commies. Sure, the countries supporting each side (and major powers who remained neutral) should be mentioned, but a lot of the details listed here need to either be moved to other sections or removed all together. For example:

"North Korean military officials taught Zimbabwean militants how to use explosives and arms in a camp near Pyongyang."

and "Nationalists derailed several Rhodesian Railways trains with explosives."

Stuff like that doesn't give me much background info about the conflict, and it certainly doesn't fit in a "causes" section. It just comes across like someone trying to argue "hey, these guys were a bunch of commie-terrorists!" Helvetica (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've repeatedly reverted other users calling ZIPRA "terrorist" and I'm not a white-Rhodesian. If there is a specific body of text you find pov, point it out. Is it badly written as is? Yes. Is it POV? Not that I can see.. Jose João (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The POV mostly comes as a result of giving undue weight to certain aspects of the conflict and not hardly mentioning others. See the examples I cited above. Also, I couldn't seem to find any mention on the position of the British government or the broader international community outside the communist world. My impression though is that they generally viewed the white Rhodesian gvt. as something of a rogue regime. But you wouldn't know that from reading the article! Helvetica (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC) PS - your ethnicity shouldn't really be relevant here, but since you brought it up, I've noticed that your name is Portuguese. Do you happen to be of colonial Mozambican or Angolan descent?... Helvetica (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist camp/ refugee camp

This article seems heavily biased against the black population of Zimbabwe and the fight for independence. That kept was neither a TERORIST camp nor a REFUGEE camp! It was a military camp for ZIPRA forces fighting a legitimate war for independence. We should we careful who we classify as a terrorist otherwise everone fighting for legitimate independence then becomes one. HAs anyone called the all those people who fought for America's independence terrorists, they are called, and rightly so, HEROES and FATHERS of the nation. Please understand the impact of some of these words before throwing them around. And also, just because someone fought in the war does not validate everything they say about the war. in fact, I would agrue that it takes away impartiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.244.6 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they were fighting what they considered a legitimate war in what civilized countries consider an illegitimate way? But I am glad to see that you admit it was not a refugee camp. 170.170.59.139 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most "civilised" countries do things during war that in abstract they do not think are legitimate. Most wars involve war crimes. (Most, OK I don't have enidence to say all). Anyway, the point is that the word "terrorist" is loaded (as is "freedom fighter"). "Guerilla" is much preferable as it is a neutral term, conveying no value judgement about the legitimacyn or moral authority of the person in question. Babakathy (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Where to start :) Phrases such as 'leftist rebels', 'Good police work, based on intelligence, stamped out any urban threat.', 'masses of ill-disciplined and barely trained guerrillas and was unable to seize and retain an objective. Training standards were so low that many cadres did not clean their rifles.', 'ZANLA had to terrorise to achieve popular support','subsequently abused, raped and massacred by the ZIPRA terrorists', all betray a particular slant, while the external links are all from one perspective as well. The article needs serious attention to achieve balance. Greenman 23:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Which of the statements you cite are not correct? But 'terrorist' is POV perhaps; if this were changed to 'guerilla' throughout I would not object, even if it bothers a few old Rhodies. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The article's name is the absolute least of its problems. The wording has an obvious racist POV slant ("leftists", "terrorists", "nationalists", "tribal") emphasising how the rebel savage natives had started a "bush war" against a civilised government that had treated them so well and given them so much. Its content needs an extensive rewrite before any half serious person would consider it worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Also, this is an encyclopedia of World knowledge, not just a mirror of the naturally limited knowledge of English speakers, so the "this is what English speakers call it/care about" argument does not have much validity. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is calling the groups in question "leftist" classed as POV, let alone racist? They were communists, for crying out loud - how much more leftist can you get? ZANU only abandoned its commitment to marxism in 1991, and the rebel groups were supported by the Chinese and the Soviet bloc. 222.131.214.10 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The ANC is communist, were they also leftist nationalist terrorist rebels? Calling them "leftist" is POV, so is "terrorists". It's almost as subtle as the slur of "unrully hordes toy-toying and shouting slogans...", simply because you've regularly heard these labels without really thinking about what they imply does not automatically make it appropriate to include them in a POV article. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 14:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

By all rights, the ANC *is* a leftist organization, and it *did* commit acts of terrorism in the past. Certainly, innocents were injured or killed in its operations. The ANC has helped, however, to bring equality before the law for many in South Africa. It is always worthwhile to remember the crimes committed so that future generations can weigh whether or not those crimes in the past justified the ends many years later. An argument might be made that the ANCs crimes ARE so outweighed. Can Mugabe's crimes also be justified? That is not for us to answer, but the information should be presented. Jkp1187 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If all bombings with collateral damage are acts of terrorism, then really, who isn't a terrorist? It's obvious that the word terrorism itself is always going to be hotly contested. Due to its vague meaning, and heavily negative connotation, using it in this article is very POV. In my mind there is no good reason to use such a term in any NPOV wikipedia article save Terrorism. Angrynight 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted all the way back to October 3, because there's little reason to expect that the anonymous editors will come back to clean up their changes. Gazpacho 03:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"leftist" and "terrorist" have no racial slant whatsover. Their usage in the article is also 100% correct. The term "Leftist" describes the political bent of both organisations AT THE TIME, and terrorism describes perfectly the methods they used, eg. targeting civilians in their urban bombing campaigns, and utilising terror tactics against rural civilians to ensure their support.

"terrorism describes perfectly the methods they used, eg. targeting civilians in their urban bombing campaigns, and utilising terror tactics against rural civilians"- you are talking about the rhodesian army,right? --Severino 11:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Please support any implied assertion you are making that Rhodesian security forces conducted urban bombing campaigns. I think You'll find that that this was ZIPRA/ZANLA policy. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that ZANLA/ZIPRA carried out atrocities as a matter of course against segments of the rural (Black) population in order to "politicise" them.

What about adding a bibliography to this page? There are a number of books on each side, which could help to demonstrate the differing viewpoints.

Quite frankly my dearies, I don't give a damn about the whole thing. I'm not from the region and care only about NPOV. I'm against the "two side" theory of NPOV, not all sides are due equal coverage, however, I said it before and I'll say it again, "terrorism" is always going to bring agenda-driven edits. It is unnecessary, and can actions can be characterized objectively such that people will understand the right and wrong of the matter on their own. How 'bout we just keep putting up factual events, hrmmm? Angrynight 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the ZIPRA/ZANLA forces are "leftists" and "terrorists" would it not also be totally reasonable to precede all references to; The Rhodesian Armed Forces, with "oppressive","white-supremacist." And similarly the article implies that the ZIPRA/ZANLA forces were inept and yet they still overcame the "superior" Rhodesian Army. Also stating that the ZIPRA/ZANLA forces were undermanned is a bit hypocritical as the Rhodesian Army were certainly under-powered and had no more than 25,000 soldiers and were implementing National Conscription(This can be read in the Article about "Rhodesia" which is far less biased and offers a better account of The War). This article is farsical. I read this with the intention of better understanding The War of Independence. It has certainly done that, the racist, supremacist views aired by the author clearly demonstrate why there was an uprising. This is perhaps the most one-sided, non-objective, narratavised encyclopedic entrances i have ever had the displeasure of reading. I think it is very insulting to the people of Zimbabwe(white, black, brown,etc.)and very mis-informing. However, the article is so laced with the nostalgic, Rhodesian, propaganda, one would not know where to start.--86.131.31.124 02:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact: The majority of soldiers serving in the Rhodesian Army at the time of the bush war were black.

Fact: The ZIPRA/ZANLA "forces" never overcame the Rhodesian forces, the majority of internal engagements were short, sharp firefights, the usual result being either the complete annihilation, or dispersal of the terrorist groups involved. The external engagements, or camp attacks always resulted in overwhelming victories for the Rhodesian forces.

Fact: ZIPRA/ZANLA were both left wing organisations, with full backing from far-left Marxists states.

Fact: ZIPRA/ZANLA "forces" deployed within Rhodesia preferred to not engage the Rhodesian armed forces, and this was also not their role, as operating in small groups of up to 20 men, without any form of air support, they could not take on the security on anything approaching equal terms. They were deployed primarily to "politicise" the rural black population (usually by terrorising those who did not fully support of their parent organisation into doing so), and to destabilise the economy as much as possible by attacking soft targets.

Fact: Neither ZIPRA or ZANLA overcame (as you put it) the Rhodesian army. Possibly the conventionally trained ZIPRA troops who were held back in Zambia, and never committed to the bush war, could have defeated the Rhodesian forces in open battle, considering that towards the end of the war these conventionally trained troops were far better equipped than the Rhodesian forces, but as Nkomo never gave the go order, we will never know.

By the sounds of things though, you would not be happy to see anything that is not politically correct, no matter how factual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.122.41 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the section above me is a godsend. This person has hit the nail on the head. Haven't any of you complainers heard of the Rhodesian African Rifles? These men were brave and competent black fighters, loyal to the Rhodesian Government. This was NOT a war of Black vs. White, it was a war of Black Nationalists vs. Rhodesia (White and Black). The Black soldiers fought alongside white soldiers, and in certain regiments (ie the Selous Scouts) black soldiers were paid exactly the same salaries. Most of Mugabe and Nkomo's forces were abductees from the Mashona and Matable population, taken to bases in Tanzania and other African nations for shipping to the Soviet Union, East Germany, and China to undergo terror training. Anyone who actually lived through this war, be they white or black, will tell you this. How can you possibly complain about labelling them "leftists" or "terrorists"? Some Russian advisors were killed by Rhodesian forces in Mozambique and the Special Air Service even captured a Russian General's uniform, complete with medals. How is calling them "leftist" a racist statement? Especially true of the unsigned statement above mine, is that the terrorists or guerillas or whatever you want to call them, NEVER overcame the Rhodesian Security Forces. The victory in this war was purely political, as Mugabe won the 1980 elections, not the actual fighting. Nearly all white Rhodesian soldiers will testify to happily serving alongside their black counterparts, and I have many books written by impartial non-rhodesian men and women to back up these claims, if anyone wishes to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.157.50 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias

Readig this article is difficult because different sections are written from different points of view, pro and anti Rhodesia and pro and anti Mugabe/ZANU. Can I suggest that the piece be rewritten giving BOTH points of view as exactly that POINTS OF VIEW. For a start we can change the name of the piece from Rhodesian Bush War to either 2nd Chimurenga/Rhodesian Bush War or vice versa. Secondly, can we say that the present Zimbabwean Administration justified the war as a battle against foreign and colonial domination '''''while'''''the Rhodesian Administration at the time justified their actions as an attempt to prevent Communist tyranny from destroying the conservative, civilised and Christian nature of their (our) country. For the record, many Black Zimbabwean/Rhodesians fought for the Smith Administration, just as at the same time many white Rhodesians/Zimbabweans campaigned for an end to the white hedgemony, usually from outside the Republic. While there can be no doubt that there was extreme racism ON BOTH SIDES, it can also be argued that there were many on both sides who did not see the conflict as one between races but between a right wing regime (on one side) and left wing revolution (on the other). As for the legality of either side, we see too often people simply follow either the line that UDI was illigal or that ZANU/ZAPU. Any thorough reading of Zimbabwean/Rhodesian history will indicate that UDI was legally justifiable as Britian had renaged on her obligations to grant dominion status, in fact what is suprising is that UDI did not happen earlier. Secondly, why distinctly definable terrorist acts were carried out such as the shooting down of Civilian Aircraft by ZAPU, for the most part ZANU restricted itself to a slow insurgancy. Some commentry should be added aboout atrocities on both sides, (rape, murder and mutilations within Zimbabwe by Nationalists and assasinations outside Zimbabwe by the Rhodesian forces) and there should be more context added: that the war was part of both the decolonisation process in Africa and of the Cold War; that many in the West sympathised with the Rhodesians and many actively aided the Nationalists; That the British Army refused to support Wilson's view that the Rhodesians should be put down by the Empire (or what was left of it) and that while China, Russia and the US were players in this affair (the US through Kisinger finally ending it), the main external players were the AU, Zambia, Tanzania, Yugoslavia and Cuba on one hand and South Africa, the Portuguese Empire (while it lasted) on the other, with Britain flapping its hands on the sideline....

well, zanu and zapu were fighting against a regime which excluded about 95% of the population from economical resources and political participation. this is the background of all. and this makes their fight a just case. the independence-declaration was not the problem as blacks were 2nd class citizens also before, just like in south africa, where it didnt start all with the np-victory in 1948 (which is considered the beginning of apartheid). in rhodesia /zimb. one side fought against the white minority regime,the other side to maintain it. --Severino 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no Aparthied in Rhodesia. This is a common misconception. I will not go as far as justifying the way white Rhodesians treated black rhodesians, because yes, they were denied certain liberties etc etc, but it was nowhere near as severe as South African Aparthied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.128.116 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article title

While I think it's good to try and find a balance, slash seperated article titles are frowned upon here. They suggest a hierarchy and there's a technical reason as well, making whatever before the slash a "parent" to whatever is after it. See here for a similar debate. I think it'll have to be one or the other. Google brings up more than three times the amount of results for "Rhodesian Bush War" [1] than "Second Chimurenga" [2] Bnynms 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is there an alternative, such as 'or' or something in the title? Choosing one title over the other is inherently POV :) Greenman 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should use the most common name and put the other one in bracktets: Rhodesian Bush War (Second Chimurenga). Its a bit messy, but its a compromise. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and to some extent Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), seem to support Rhodesian Bush War, but since Second Chimurenga is prefered in Zimbabwe, we would be perpetuating systemic bias if we used Rhodesian Bush War instead of the term preferred in Zimbabwe (where the events took place). The difference in google hits is far from colossal, and the difference that exists is probably also a result of systemic bias. --Ezeu 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Second Chimurenga' is the name that the Communist government gave the war after it had finished for its own propaganda purposes. To call this war the Second Chimurenga would be like calling the Korean War the 'War to Resist America and Aid Korea', or the Eastern Front of World War II the 'Great Patriotic War'. I would call it the Rhodesian Bush War and then mention the term Second Chimurenga is the lead. michael ^talk 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Second Chimurenga" could also imply that we call the previous conflict "First Chimurenga" here, which we do not. 88.105.173.23 01:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this may require a poll.--Ezeu 02:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No poll. Common sense must win. This 'Chimurenga' nonsense was created by the Marxist-Leninist government as part of their propaganda. You'll find the word completely absent from any Shona or English literature in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe until ZANU and ZAPU started using it. It is a sad day when we start using the propaganda of governments to name wars. michael ^talk 02:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, no poll required. The internationally recognised name is the Rhodesian Bush War. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be as neutral unbiased and unbiased (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) as possible and in this case the alternate term was coined later for political purposes. Deon Steyn 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article name to the "proper" name of "Rhodesian Bush War" according to the wikipedia guidelines and standard as laid out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions that prescribe use of names that the "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and limit the use of "/" characters to indicate a subpages (Help:Page name#Forward slash (/)). The introduction mentioned the alternate name ("Second Chimurenga) used only in Zimbabwe and created at some later stage (when?). Deon Steyn 10:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be better to drop the “Rhodesian” bit, after all that is the contentious part of the title and the conflict is only really known as the “Rhodesian Bush War” in South Africa (outside of government) and in some western military circles. We could still have Rhodesian Bush War and 2nd Chimurenga redirect to this page and simply call the conflict the “Bush War”. The only other listing for a bush war is the “Ugandan Bush War” and there is no such venom in naming it. Other bush wars have more recognisable names, such as the Mozambican Civil War. In Zimbabwe the war has the following names:

• “our War” with or without the capitalised W, amongst the former Rhodesian Forces, especially the hardliners, though not exclusively e.g. older, not necessarily pro-Rhodesian white Zimbabweans.

• The “Bush War” amongst the former Rhodesian Forces and most external neutrals

• The “2nd Chimurenga” by both sets of nationalists

• The “Liberation struggle” by the state machinery of Zimbabwe and most post colonial governments in Africa including the South African one, and to a large extent by the formal opposition, though less so by government (2nd Chimurenga coming back to the fore), some in Zimbabwe’s more liberal white population refer to the conflict in this way without a bias, while those on the more conservative side refer to it in that way laconically.

• The “War of Independence” almost exclusively the state and party machinery, in part to continually de-legitimise UDI and increasingly to match the present political animosity with Britain with the conflict against the Smith regime (a silly notion to anyone who knows anything about the history of Zimbabwe/Rhodesian relations with Britain under Labour as opposed to under Tory rule)

• Or simply “The war” when not wishing to publicly taking a stance and increasingly young urban Zimbabweans who do not feel particularly “liberated”

(RWRM 11:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

There is nothing contentious about the "Rhodesian" bit, that was the country's name at the time. South African also referred to the South African Border War as the "Bush War" so that won't work either. It matters not what modern day Zimbabweans refer to it as, "Rhodesian Bush War" is the most commonly found international name. Other names can be mentioned and have pages that redirect to this one (as is currently the case with "Second Chimurenga"). This is the standard Wikipedia guideline. --Deon Steyn 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

there is plenty contentious about the "Rhodesian" bit to Black Zimbabweans and, for that matter most of Africa's officialdom (implying, contentiously, both that the Rhodesians were the targets and that the war took place in Rhodesia a country not legally recognised by anyone except the Portuguese Colonial Empire Governements) and while I have no personal problem calling it the Rhodesian Bush War (my father served in it on the Rhodesian side), I can recognise that nobody in the governments of Africa or academic circles on the contenet would call it that now, in fact I suspect that outside of the staff colleges of Britain and the the US, the vaults of the BBC and the odd historian that the majority of people who call it the "Rhodesian" Bush War are South Africans who were part of the old order, the new order subscribe to the term "Liberation Struggle" as a reference to that war and every other anti-colonial war. The South African Bush War, such as it can be called that, has its own internationally recognised name, the South African Border Wars. What I've suggested is a simple compromise, it does not detract from overall nature of the conflict and by removing the pointless qualifier of "Rhodesian" is true to usage at the time and adheres as close as is possible to the NPOV rule. (RWRM 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

I was simply pointing out that Bush War is an impossible title, because it is not the proper name and only a contraction used when in a context where the meaning is clear. It can refer to the current American president's war(s), The South African Border War (relevant, being a neighbouring country), The Ugandan Bush War and probably other wars. The most widely, internationally recognised name is the Rhodesian Bush War, which is the term used for it whether countries recognised Rhodesia or not or whether it has since garnered other names. True, it can be called a "liberation struggle" or "war of independence", but that is not the common name by which it is known. I don't understand why this is such a difficult point just as one example, the so called "first chimurenga" is in fact known as the Second Matabele War which is what the article title is. --Deon Steyn 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely as it is that someone wanting to read about G W Bush's war(s) would type "Bush war" rather than Iraq war, Operation Lasting Freedom or War on Terror, with in the first sentance they would be put straight and there is no reason why there can not be a disambiguity ling for that.

Secondly AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE the few other "bush wars" (SA Boarder war, Mozambican/Angolan/Ugandan civil wars, the invasion of Uganda by Tanzania to expell Idi Amin) all have either commonly held other names or the qualification of "Uganda" is uncontentious.

Thirdly, if it is a matter of common modern usage, outside of a small minority in South Africas almost no one uses the term Rhodesian Bush War. Rhodesians and white Zimbabweans would be the last people to add the pointless qualification Rhodesian, most of Africa will follow the the Zimbabwean line and most of the rest of the world does not know it happened.

The weight of academic writing about this conflict will come from Africa and African universities and will no doubt use the term Zimbabwean Liberation Struggle (no matter how incorrect it is) or some other ZANU term, the little academic writing from outside Africa will refer to the war in accordance to their political outlook except possibly the staff colleges of the UK and the US who will use the term "Rhodesian War" or "Rhodesian Bus War"

Further to that, any view that bush war is not specific enough is nonsense, unlike all the other wars listed above, the war was fought almost exclusively through bush warfare (insergancy and counter insergancy) true there were aerial some bombings and the occasional act of terorism, by all three sides, but there were not conventional "battles" and dispite both RhA and the ZIPRA aqiring tanks, neither got the chance to use them. (RWRM 09:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Bush was is too ambiguous, in fact a page already exists to disambiguate it. This is an international source and has to be viewed as such, the term "bush war" has almost no meaning or at best can refer to two conflicts. If someone says "bush war" an expert could at best ask if they meant "Rhodesian Bush War" or "Ugandan Bush War" or perhaps "Bush's War" (a common term). Yes there was a Zimbabwean liberation struggle (note lower case), but there was also one in Mozambique, Angola, South Africa. If a page is created for the "Zimbabwean liberation struggle" it could have the "Rhodesian Bush War" as one of it's chapters, but it's not the same thing and even if it is, the article name would remain "Rhodesian Bush War". --Deon Steyn 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent]Internationally the war is often known as the "Chimurenga" or "Second Chimurenga", being used as such in English language writings. It's certainly used in academic institutions and publishing[3][4][5][6][7] - including apparently the US Library of Congress[8] - and of course in the music world because of Chimurenga music ([9])

Google hit numbers are of course unreliable because they tell you about no of people on-line, not real-life usage, and in some cases the numbers are affected by Wikipedia itself. However, just so as we know, today I've found:

• Chimurenga 182,000 (of which some are about the related music)
• Second Chimurenga 48,800
• Rhodesian Bush War 109,000

None of which confirms the repeated assertions above that "Rhodesian Bush War" is "the most widely, internationally recognised name". It might be true: the opposite might be true.

The guidelines explicitly for such cases are at Wikipedia:Naming conflict: I suggest everyone read them all through. The box below is taken from that page: I have filled it in as best I can, giving both names "0" under "most common" because of my comments above.

Criterion	Second Chimurenga	Rhodesian Bush War
1. Most commonly used name in English	0	0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	n/a	n/a
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

This would give "Second Chimurenga" as the article name. JackyR | Talk 16:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing us to the guideline. The problem – amongst others, see Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity persists – is however is to determine the "scores" for that table. I would argue that most of the sources for "Second Chimurenga" would be from Zimbabwean sources (directly or indirectly). Secondly the term "Chimurenga" itself is Shona ("struggle") not English. Wikipedia is an English language Encyclopaedia, so the original English language term should have preference, just as the "first chimurenga" refers to the Second Matabele War or the Second Indochina War redirects to Vietnam War. Also the naming guidelines state that the title should be historically accurate (not necessarily good or legitimate), which "Rhodesia" is (see Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Dealing with historical contexts). So one the one hand we have an English, historically accurate term not only used by many sources, but also immediately clear and easily recognisable while on the other hand we have a non-English term (translation?), possibly referring to a broader struggle for independence as opposed to the actual military conflict. --Deon Steyn 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JackyR, for reminding us of the guideline, like Deon I don't think second Chimurenga is appropriate, for his reasons but also, mainly, because second chimurenga (even in Zimbabwe) does not hold official status, rather it used to have some significant popular use, one might justifiably argue that now it does not - not the case for the term "Bush War", being the offical name of the conflict used by one of the protagonists. Your stats demonstrate this, in that very wooly way that google stats do, of the 182 000 sites that mention Chimurenga on 49 000 actually clearly indicated that they were refering to the 2nd. The google search for Rhodesian Bush War does can not realy help sort between the arguement for using the term Rhodesian or not. I would advocate that a search for the "The Bush War" should automatically take you to this page, the very all of the few other wars that are "bush wars" (SA Boarder war, Mozambican/Angolan/Ugandan civil wars, the invasion of Uganda by Tanzania to expell Idi Amin) and the concept of bush warfare should have links off from this site and the "Bush War" disambiguous site could be scrapped. As a parting note, I searched Chimurenga, 2nd Chimurenga, Rhodesian Bush War, Bush War and Liberation struggle on Ency Brit online and the results were not good for any of the options. (RWRM 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

It is the Ugandan civil war of the 1980s that is known as the bush war, not the invasion of Uganda by Tanzania. It was known as the Ugandan Civil War until Museveni (one of the protagonists), who always referred to his time "in the bush", popularized the term "bush war" in Uganda. "Bush war" became even more popular as the Ugandan Civil War (at least in international media) also came to refer to the LRA insurgency. The other side of the conflict (UPC) still prefers to call it the Luwero War. However, usage of "bush war" to refer to the Ugandan conflict is well established[10], and suggesting that the disambiguation page Bush War be made to redirect to this article is not acceptable. Leave the disambiguation page as it is. --Ezeu 09:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I never thought that was a viable option either. --Deon Steyn 10:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave "Rhodesian Bush War", provided that the complexities of the name are fairly explained and there is recognition that this name (RBW) is not ideal. (RWRM 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

 Done I have added a note to qualify the name ("as it was known at the time"). I still wonder about the "Liberation Struggle" which I feel has wider connotations (perhaps political efforts in Africa and abroad etc.) than just the actual physical war, but I think it's okay for now? --Deon Steyn 13:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of problem in this article, but the title is, I think, the biggest one. Titling an article on the Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwean Liberation Struggle "Rhodesian Bush War" makes about as much sense as titling an article on the American Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression." As in the latter case, the former is not an international English language term, but a partisan description by those who wish that the war and history had gone a different way. The "Zimbabwean Liberation Struggle/War of Liberation" is probably the most common international description, though it operates more as a description than as a formal name for the conflict. The "Second Chimurenga" is the widely accepted name for the conflict within Zimbabwe, and is recognized as such internationally. As such, it is no more a partisan name for the conflict than "the American Revolution." The objection that "Chimurenga" is Shona, and therefor not appropriate for an English language article, is wrongheaded on at least two counts. First, English has many terms that derive at least partly from other languages (the English language word "Second" should mark this as a borrowing into English within a multi-lingual nation, rather than a non-English term). Second, "Second Chimurenga" acts as the name for this war within Zimbabwe, including in non-Shona speaking areas, so it is not a regional name, but a national term. Finally, the objection to "Rhodesian Bush War" is not to the term "Rhodesian" alone. Rather, "Rhodesian" points to the overall bias of the name, just a "Lost Cause" would in U.S. terms. I would suggest retitling the article "Second Chimurenga" or "Second Chimurenga/Zimbabwean Liberation Struggle" with a link to a second post on the multiple names names for the war, similar to what is done for the entry on the U.S. Civil War. Jpool 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I'm note sure if the above comments are still accurate, because the user account User:Jpool doesn't exist and the initial post was later edited by an anonymous user. As for the arguments, this question has been thrashed out thoroughly by editors with different opinions and the current situation (article name/ introduction) was agreed upon. Furthermore, your arguments contradict themselves:

1. You state the term isn't regional, because it's used nationally in Zimbabwe, but that nation is only one nation/region, i.e. the term isn't global, it is "regional".
2. Chimurenga is not an English word just because it is used by English speakers in Zimbabwe and even if it was widely adopted into international English we still have the wikipedia guideline that states the English version of a title should be used.
3. "Zimbabwean Liberation Struggle/War of Liberation" might be a common description, but that is superseded a proper name.
4. Wikipedia already caters for synonyms, using the redirect feature so that someone looking for one of the other names will be redirected to this article. --Deon Steyn 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On statistics of the various names: searching Google tells you which name is more widely used on the Internet. I ran a search through Google Scholar, with the following rssults:
"Rhodesian Bush War" 9
"bush war" + Rhodesia 137
"Second Chimurenga" 174
"Zimbabwe Liberation War" 125
"liberation war" + Zimbabwe 1,480
This indicates clearly that the consensus amongst historians and other scholars favours liberation war and not Rhodesian Bush War. Arguably this is more relevant than how many webpages of any kind mention each name.Babakathy 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a new name for it, based on TheBlacklist's idea,(He is my brother), I hope this will end this anger amongst users. Please forgive me for mistakes I have committed. Bluelist 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe scholars favour those terms, but in reality the majority of english speaking people worldwide call it the Rhodesian Bush War. I am Australian (thats pretty "international", right?), and here it is never ever referred to as Chimurenga or Liberation Struggle, by anyone. I have spoken to many family friends living in England, the USA and even France, on this issue, and they all instantly say Rhodesian Bush War, without a second thought. AT THE TIME of the war, the country was referred to as Rhodesia. Rhodesia was a hotly contested issue, and whilst it was never officially recognised, the entire international community was involved in the diplomatic resolution of the conflict. and AT THE TIME, the war was known as the Rhodesian Bush War. I hardly see why newer, non-english names should be accepted as the name for this english language Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.128.116 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose move. I have to ditto the above, the title should remain Rhodesian Bush War. I think that very few English speaking folks outside of Zimbabwe would have any idea what Chimurenga is or means, while most the of the world refers to it as the Rhodesian Bush War, folks in Zimbabwe know what that means too. I think the article is right to give alternate names as it does. Sf46 (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I think I have a solution for this problem, I am a new user so I cannot do this. We should move this into the Zimbabwe Independence War, or something else that does not have a trace of bias. Among my ideas for the name are the Zimbabwe Independence War, Zimbabwe Independence Struggle, Zimbabwe Independence Conflict, Zimbabwe Revolutionary War. (TheBlacklist 03:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

You have to establish consensus for such a controversial page move. For the record, I oppose changing the page name. Perspicacite 07:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also happy with the current name. There is no bias. The country's name at the time was Rhodesia, and that was they called it. Wizzy…☎ 08:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Perspicacite and Wizzy. Not only do I oppose the name changed, but it actually goes against a decision/consensus reached earlier to keep the current name and redirect subsequent (historically) names to this page. The earlier argument of Google hits carries very little weight. What is important is that the English language name first associated with it and commonly used is the important name. The previous compromise reached was to keep the current name ("Rhodesian Bush War"), but to list the other names ("Second Chimurenga") and also redirect these names to this page. --Deon Steyn 13:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How is the English language word commonly used determined? I am suggesting that Zimbabwe Liberation War is a reasonable name as (i) it is a widely used name in English (946,000 google hits), especially amomngst historians (see my comments on Google Scholar in the section Article Title above) and (ii) it can be considered the official name in terms of current use in Zimbabwean official documents and broadcasts (irrespective of what anyone may think of the government). Names do change over time and Wikipedia policy seems to be to use the current official name, for example Great War redirects to World War 1. Although the former was the English language name first associated with that conflict, World War 1 is the article title. Babakathy 12:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is admittedly tricky to determine the "commonly used" name in some cases, but Google is not the correct way and you have not used it correctly either: because your search includes sentence fragments or descriptions that include any combination of the words. If you add quotes around the term you get a paltry 675 references. There are various ways to describe the conflict, from Zimbabwe's "War of Independence" or "War of Liberation" or "Liberation Struggle" and these terms are used to describe and classify the conflict. In many cases (like Angola) this is the only name, because there is no other, but in Zim's case there is name and according to Wikipedia guidelines these must be used. We already have several aliases and these are also mentioned in the article introduction. --Deon Steyn 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statistics on "Zimbabwe liberation war" - but quotes for "Rhodesian bush war" gives an even lower 517 hits. One of the problems is the difficult in applying self-referentiality to a conflict that the opposing sides used different names for.Babakathy 07:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me from earlier discussions that "bush war" is just as generic as "liberation war", and the addition of the preceding word Rhodesian or Zimbabwean respectively (a) describes and classifies the conflict and (b) generates a name. I am not really sure what advantage Rhodesian bush war has over Zimbabwe liberation war? Babakathy 08:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Liberation war" is a generic and cliche communist-ism. Russia called the eastern front of WWII the "Great Patriotic War", but this is not accepted. We should treat this war the same. Michael ^talk 09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"liberation" as an adjective is by no means exclusively communist. See wiktionary [11] and [12]. For example, the Bangladesh Liberation War was a war for political independence from Pakistan. I do not get the relevance of "Great Patriotic War" to this discussion. Babakathy 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Referring again to Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_historical_contexts I still like the present title. I oppose Chimurenga, as that is the victor writing history. It was definitely a War. Perhaps the present title is the loser writing history. I could go with Zimbabwe Liberation War. The country was Independent already - that implies colonialism, which was recent, but UDI had been declared. I guess it was also a Revolution. It was really about majority rule. Perhaps this debate will recur, and we should settle it now. Wizzy…☎ 19:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A generalised name is only used when there is no proper name to work with. Here we have a proper name and it was the first name given to the conflict (in English language circles, which are preferred since Wikipedia is a English language encyclopaedia). The same issues apply to things like the Vietnam War where there are other names used in Vietnam itself, but it was first known as such and that is the name used. --Deon Steyn 05:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify why "Rhodesian bush war" is a proper name and "Zimbabwe liberation war" is not? As to preference for the first name used, Wikipedia policy seems to be to use the current official name, for example Great War redirects to World War 1, not the other way around despite Great War being the first name used. Babakathy 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A Proper name, because it was used in the titles of publications and news headlines etc. and it can not be confused with any other war. The name "Zimbabwe liberation war" is however not exactly clear, because the war it refers to is called the Second Chimurenga, with the First Chimurenga referring to Second Matabele War. So it is clear that some source feel that there two wars (or struggles) for the liberation of Zimbabwe, so the term "Zimbabwe liberation war" would be too ambiguous. WWI is a different matter, it could only be named halfway through (or after?) the conflict and then given different names by different scholars. Furthermore only following WWII and another round of "naming" have scholars probably come to agree to a standardised name for both. The fact remains that "Zimbabwe liberation war" is too ambiguous. --Deon Steyn 09:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI I moved this to "Second Chimurenga" some time back, but I'm content now to have it under the name by which it was called in the international (English) press while it was going on. Gazpacho 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Using the definition given by Deon Steyn above, "Zimbabwe liberation war" is a proper name used in titles etc, see the following examples: [13], [14], [15], [16] , [17], [18].

I do not see how the consensus that emerged among scholars post World War 2 about the name of World War 1 is different from the consensus that emerged among scholars post-independence on the name for the conflict we are discussing (125 hits for "Zimbabwe Liberation War" vs 9 for "Rhodesian Bush War" from Google Scholar, see earlier section Talk:Rhodesian_Bush_War#Article_title).

Re: name used by press at the time - this may be true for English (ie UK) and USA press, but English language newspaper in eg Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana did not report using that name.

Re: usage at the time: WP:NCON specifies 'current' for both "undisputed official name of entity" and for "self-identifying name of entity". Not the name first used. Babakathy 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of "Argumentum ad Googlum", essentially the number of Google hits is of limited value (also addressed in some WP guidelines). Furthermore, your own examples contradicts your own point of view; the very first link is to an article titled "The forgotten soldiers: Women in Zimbabwe's liberation war", note the grammar and capitalisation: the title is not "Women in the Zimbabwe Liberation War", because this is not it's proper name. In only two of the six examples do we see the term "the Zimbabwe Liberation War".

The fact of the matter is, that "Rhodesian Bush War" is more "self-identifying" than "Zimbabwe liberation war", because – as I have explained earlier – the latter generic terms can refer to the Second Matabele War. "Rhodesian Bush War" immediately places it in an unambiguous historic (pre-"Zim") and technical (bush, not urban/political) context — this is of course over and above the fact that it was the first and most common term used in English language sources (or "Anglo world"). I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the "Rhodesian Bush War" only ever referred to specific parts or periods of the overall struggle for liberation/independence. Perhaps there should be a super article – possibly called "Zim Liberation struggle" that describes the historical process and lists the First and Second Chimurenga in an overall context?

--Deon Steyn 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose move. For above listed reasons. The article already refers to alternate names. Outside of Zimbabwe, no one knows the name Chimurenga or what the generic name liberation struggle refers to specifically. Sf46 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The term "Rhodesian" in the title helps link the conflict to its cause - Southern Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence. The term Chimurenga is also one pushed by the Mugabe government. The term "Bush War" is also used in most literature concerning the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjones (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation This has been brought to my attention though a mediation request. I will attempt to establish consensus there Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07 Rhodesian Bush War. Note that this is informal mediation. Thank you! Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

L1A1 Rifles

I think that the phrase characterizing the L1A1's as older rifles is correct, at least as far as the Rhodesians were concerned. The Rhodesian military had been supplied with L1A1 rifles before UDI. The L1A1 is an inch version of the FN-FAL rifle. There are some minor differences between the two. The R1 metric version of the FN-FAL that the Rhodesians later obtained from South Africa and other sources could not use the inch L1A1 magazines, while the L1A1 could use its inch magazines as well as the metric magazines. This metric version would have been a newer rifle to the Rhodesians, because this metric version was the only one they could obtain after UDI and the sanctions were in place. Sf46 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)user:sf46

Not only that, but after the UDI, the supply of L1a1s more or less dried up and the imported South African R1s took pride of place in Rhodesian service. So yes, the L1a1 is indeed the "older" model in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trench raider (talk • contribs) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV terms

Terms like "freedom fighters" and "guerillas" are biased terms. To the pro-Zimbabwe movement, they would be called freedom fighters, to the pro-Rhodesia side they would be guerillas or "terrs".Neutral wording such as militants or nationalists should be used as Wikipedia stresses neutrality. Sf46 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these terms should be avoided. Guerilla would however be neutral, because it's a technical military term that describes tactics or strategy (Guerilla warfare). Having said that, it would be difficult to label all participants as such so it can probably be avoided too, not because it's POV, but because it might not be true. — Deon Steyn (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. on Rhodesian side?

I noticed that someone listed the U.S. as a belligerent on the side of the Rhodesians. This would be very interesting if true. Does anyone have any references to such information? Sf46 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guns for Hire

"This re-print is interesting only to demonstrate the liberal basis of its authors, as well as their complete ignorance (or complicity with the Soviet Union) regarding knowledge of the "Rhodesian event." It more or less blames Bob Brown and Soldier of Fortune magazine ( as well as the U.S. Reserve military) for keeping the Rhodesian government viable against "freedom fighters", trained and supplied by the Soviet Union, China and North Korea. History, as usual, has shown that Rhodesia was one of numerous losses to the "Cold War", aided by the direct actions of then President Carter and Andrew Young. It has now become a non-existentant entity, and embarrassment to all of Africa. Purchase it with the understanding that it was complied as propaganda for college campuses and the liberal media and should be retained as evidence of "liberal thought process."

"Pretty interesting piece of information. It comes off as propaganda and it is but alot of it is factual and worth a read."

"As a former soldier in the Rhodesian security forces (army), Soldier of Fortune personnel were the last people that one wanted to be seen with. These armchair commandos generally created an air of mistrust and were not seen accompanying the troops but seen swilling drinks at one of the many hotel bars and talking trash. Nothing in this book makes any sense. The last thing the CIA would do is use Soldier of Fortune magazine (SOF) to recruit any mercenaries. In fact, one could count the 'mercenaries' on one hand and those who would be called mercenaries were actually farm hands that were armed. The Rhodesian government had a dim view of killings outside of the military or police. This book is filled with false statements and is very fictious in every detail. It is laughable at times."

Michael ^talk 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that a couple of people have gone abck and forth reverting the US information, but no citation or reference has yet been produced. Sf46 (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PST8720.JPG

Image:PST8720.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

British English

You guys went a little crazy changing those spellings from Americanized versions of English to British style spellings didn't you? [chuckles] Sf46 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean - however as it was an ex-British colony until 1980, British English is entirely appropriate as per National Varieties of English, isn't it? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying that it's appropriate or inappropriate, just pointing it out. Sf46 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'Americanised'? :) 170.170.59.139 (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

It seems pretty clear that we're headed towards mediation, at the very least. Hilmarc (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose move. Again for above listed reasons that have been covered time and again above. Consensus also appears to be against name change. Discussion at move request for this article: Here. Sf46 (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? By my count, of the above, Xdamr, Bluelist, Bnynms, Michael, 88.105.173.23, Deon Steyn, 121.222.128 116, Perpicacite, and Wizzy agree with you. But Shiku, JackyR, RWRM, Jpool, Bakbathy, and TheBlacklist agree with me. No consensus there. Library of Congress, academic consensus, most Zimbabweans (speaking in English, even), Africa and the diaspora, and global left wing circles all go with Second Chimurenga. That's hardly consensus support for "Rhodesian Bush War," either. I'm moving this to mediation. Hilmarc (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• You know what might be a solution? In the case of wars where the two sides give the war a different name... we go with the name that the winners use. That's why War of Northern Aggression is a redirect, for instance. What do you think? DS (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. That's yet another argument against "Rhodesian Bush War." The latter name is what the Rhodesian Front and their allies called the war. "Second Chimurenga" or "Zimbabwe Liberation War" were what the ultimately victorious African nationalists (both ZANU & ZAPU) called it. The RF lost this war, and the new, majority African-ruled country of Zimbabwe was born, a key fact that the name "Rhodesian Bush War" does not account for. As a friend of mine put it, this would be like calling the American Revolutionary War "the War of Colonial Impudence." Remember the Wikipedia guidelines emphasizing most common usage, official usage, and self-identification. Surely the vast majority of people in Zimbabwe have some say in what this war should be called. And while Chimurenga is indeed a Shona name, it has been borrowed into English, just like Harare and Zimbabwe, for example. Let us not forget that English is an official language of Zim, so it is part of the English-speaking world itself. 71.235.238.182 (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Looking exclusively at published books (as opposed to an Internet search of online material), Google Books shows there are 191 works containing the words "Second Chimurenga" vs 72 for "Rhodesian Bush War" vs 250 for "Rhodesia" and "Bush War". Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet the works containing "second chimurenga" often include a translation in brackets such as simply "[second] war of liberation" while another refer to "chimurenga wars". The exact meaning and nuance or translation is still not clear. On the other hand, books containing the term "rhodesian bush war" are unambiguous, many dating from the early 80s and two with the name capitalized and included in their title ([20]), all of which again demonstrates that this term is 1) unambiguous, 2) English 3) probably the first English language term used. Once again, the Shona language term redirects to this article and the various alternate names are explained in the introduction, this should be more than sufficient

.— Deon Steyn (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing here - the third search in my post above is definitive. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are not going to sufficient, let alone "more than sufficient", there is in no way consensus on this issue (see April posts above). Regretably we do not seem to be getting any closer to one either. Babakathy (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the google book search, Second Chimurenga is actually the more frequently ucsed term. I am getting the following stats: 72 for "Rhodesian bush war" [21], 272 for Rhodesia and "bush war" [22], 335 for "second chimurenga" [23], and 511 for "second" and "chimurenga" [24]. I know Deon is not that much in favour of using google, but since the statistics were raised - and not followed to their logical conclusion. Babakathy (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And also from google books: A mere 6 for "Zimbabwe national liberation struggle" [25], but 479 for Zimbabwe "national liberation struggle" [26], 61 for "Zimbabwe liberation struggle" [27], 796 for Zimbabwe "liberation struggle" [28], 78 for "Zimbabwe liberation war" [29], 643for Zimbabwe "liberation war" [30]. The current official term (as per Zimbabwean law e.g. on war veterans) is "Zimbabwe national liberation war", which gets 36 from google books [31], or 101 for Zimbabwe "national liberation war" [32]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakathy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Name Controversy

Seeing there is some controversy about this article's name, I've come up with the idea of maybe changing it to the Rhodesian Civil War. Since after all, this was a indeed civil war between the different Rhodesian fractions. So instead of favouring either names of the conflict fom the different involved parties, why not use this one? 13dble (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless "Rhodesian Civil War" is a term actually in significant usage it would be original research to create a new term. (Also I'm not sure that "civil war" is quite the best term for a conflict that for one side was a war of independence - and the conflict began before UDI - rather than a struggle for control of the country. Then there's the overspill into neighbouring countries. Indeed other than references to other conflicts the phrase "civil war" is currently only used in this article to describe conflict between ZANLA and ZIPRA.)

Since Zimbabwe is officially an English speaking country then following the Wiki rules on national variants of English I guess the best location for the article should be the predominant name in Zimbabwean English. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Rhodesian Civil War" is used a bit here and there, but obviously no way near as commonly as "bush war" or "Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle", the point is however that it is a neutral third party term not favoured by either involved parties. But if you deem that the term is so rarely used that it should be classified as original research i won't argue over the point with you.

"best term for a conflict that for one side was a war of independence"

This is usually the case when dealing with African civil wars (that is to say war of independence or liberation). Take Angola for example; didn't UNITA view their fight as a fight for "Angola's total independence"? No matter which way one might see it, both of the combating parties came from and fought over the same country.

13dble (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a compromise name may appeal for dispute resolution, it is not ideal for an encyclopaedia, where (one) of the objectives is to make correct information easily available to readers. A compromise name which is not widely used in itself is not helpful - for the most extreme example consider Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs, proposed name to solve the name controversy of gasoline/petrol! We have to settle on one of the well-known names Rhodesian Bush War, Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle. Babakathy (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The name debate here, has been discussed several times over. The consensus (but not necessarily the unanimous opinion) has been to keep it as is with the title of Rhodesian Bush War and redirects & aka's of Second Chimurenga and Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle. It's not a compromise, it's an attempt to educate about all of the names. Sf46 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, there is no consensus here: at least the same number of people favour the title of Rhodesian Bush War as favour Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle. Babakathy (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Attrocity photo and refs

The three links that added in this edit do not actually substantiate the statement in the caption to the image that the murdered civilians (missionaries?) were indeed killed by guerrilas. Although there is reference made to the killing of civilians (including missionaries) by guerrillas, there is no link with the photo in question. May I also point out that the sources given are no less biased than the denials by Mugabe and Nkomo that one of them quotes. Accordingly some caution is required on this specific claim, unless a reliable source is supplied.Babakathy (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Must Be Renamed

The Library of Congress name for this conflict is "the Chimurenga War." The vast majority of Zimbabweans - and of academic specialists in this subject - call this war the Second Chimurenga or the Zimbabwean War of Liberation or the Zimbabwean War of Independence, most definitely not the "Rhodesian Bush War." I'm as critical of Comrade Bob as anybody else is, but to suggest, as one of the posters below does, that the name "Chimurenga" is just his (or ZANU-PF's) whim is totally off-base. Even his opponents within the country call the war the Chimurenga. As a university professor specializing in southern African history, I can assure you that the name "Rhodesian Bush War" is inadequate on several different levels. Up to this point I have avoided logging in and moving/renaming this page, but this particular situation is so egregious, so crying out for correction, that something has to be done about it.128.36.192.168 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT Rename I'm unsure of the current status of the debate over the name of this entry, but I would like to make a very strong plea for its revival, given that nothing has happened so far. "Rhodesian Bush War" is an inaccurate term with racist connotations, and is not found in either popular or academic usage. As noted by Dragonfly above, historical convention suggests that the "winners" get to name the war, and in this case that clearly supports the title "Second Chimurenga," though it would make sense to include a redirect for "Zimbabwean War of Independence" and/or similar terms.

The current title is a deeply unfortunate aberration in Wikipedia's coverage that has been opposed by a number of people, both academics and ordinary folk. The time has come to change it, please. Dynino (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT Rename For basically the same reasons. I recently took a university course on African history, and this is not the commonly used name for this war. - *jb (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT Rename Like 128.36.192.168, I am a university professor (British imperial history) and taught this conflict as recently as last semester. I concur that the current name for this article is confusing and should not be retained. The difficulty in applying WP conventions to this article is due to the idea of 'common use'. The publication of Rhodesian Army veterans' accounts has sustained the popularity of the Rhodesian government's terminology among readers of military history outside Zim. However this terminology is not commonly used by academics or by the majority of Africans, and is not usual in either Zimbabwe or South Africa. Given the problems with 'Second Chimurenga' (not commonly used by specialist scholars publishing outside Zimbabwe, despite the Library of Congress's cataloguing decision), my preference would be 'Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle'. This might not be the outcome dictated by the application of WP:NAME but if it is a choice between WP:NAME and WP:NPOV, I would rather preserve NPOV - after all, we must IAR. Happydemic (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT Rename either to Second Chimurenga as most widley used or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle as the English-language equivalent of native name. I have given my detailed position in the tables below. Babakathy (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE Rename This topic has been debated over, and over, and over, and is becoming more and more a case of beating a dead horse. Please look back through the debate archives and see that it has been discussed and that the consensus has always seemed to be to leave it as is. The redirects for other names are there, and I'm sure there are still other titles for the same event besides the main three. I've grown weary of stating my reasons for objecting to a change, and would direct anyone who wants to see them to again please check the archives. Also please note that the issue has already been through mediation at least once, with the result being the title you see now. Sf46 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that it must be frustrating for you to have to go through this again, but as a newcomer to this page (though not to Wikipedia) I'm afraid that I can't agree that this is a dead horse - it is, on the contrary, an understandable and important debate between two different views which both have points in their favour, and one which should continue to take place - politely and respectfully - as the usage of the terms in question evolves, even if that is wearing for those who have had the discussion before. Strong arguments in favour of a name change have been presented above and in the table below and these are, in my view, not refuted by the arguments presented in favour of the current article name on the many previous occasions on which this has been discussed.

Incidentally, all the material relating to the article name is here on the current version of the talk page and has not been moved to the archive (at least, not as I write this).

On the mediation point (and here you must forgive my newness to the article), the only record of mediation that I have found is by the Cabal - TINC! - and it appears that the mediator did not conclude the mediation. Certainly there is no record of a mediator's comments on the issue. If you have links to other mediations or discussions I'd be glad to read them. Happydemic (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Maybe there was some years ago but there is not now and has not been for at least two years. Just saying there is consensus does not make it so, especially given the recent posting to this page. Are there any archives except on this talk page? I cannot see that any of the debates above resulted in consensus.

I can find no mediation ruling in favour of the current (or any other title). As far as I can see from archives elsewhere in wikipedia, there have been three initiatives attempting to resolve this, none of which concluded:

Mediation cabal:no conclusion reached by mediator.

Request for mediation: abandoned with no conclusion.

Move request: no conclusion stated.

If there were other attempts in the last two years, please can someone put a link? I know it is boring to repeat one's arguments, but it is worth noting the last few discussions proposing move have been started by editors who were not involved in the earlier debates. It is scarcely flogging a dead horse if more people keep bringing the issue up. Babakathy (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving of Talk Page

The talk page is currently very long, which I don't think helps efforts to resolve the NPOV concerns raised regarding this page. I suggest archiving talk sections in which there have been no posts since 2007, WITH THE EXCEPTION of those directly related to the naming dispute or which identify specific areas of concern which have not been addressed.

Specifically, I propose archiving the following sections: Pedantic; Balance ?; White minority vs. settler; Minor correction; Civil disobedience (1957-1964); Error; November 25 edits. Even after archiving the talk page would still be very long, but it might help a little. Happydemic (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

supportBabakathy (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive created. Happydemic (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Have very lightly formatted the remaining talk page to ease readability (standardised indents, in one case only moved text which appeared to be in the wrong section into a different section, created one new section in a very old discussion). Apologies for any errors. Happydemic (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Article: attempt to tabulate

Below I have attempted to summarize (i) the main findings of google searches, (ii) the main points pertinent to the wikipedia naming criteria and (iii) some of the other points raised in the various name discussions. On the use of google, use english policy says Google hits are an unreliable test, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 1803 for one variant and 1030 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English. The use of Google scholar to identify journal articles etc is consistent with wp:rs identifying such as reliable sources.

Search term	Google web (English only)	Google Scholar	Google books (English only)	Google news
Exact phrase
"Rhodesian Bush War"	6,040	22	116	32
"Second Chimurenga"	7,180	258	510	84
"Zimbabwe Liberation War"	2,100	207	145	208
"Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle"	771	73	136	111
Not exact phrase
Rhodesia + "bush war"	18,200	236	494	352
second + chimurenga	34,900	921	656	320
Zimbabwe + "liberation war"	36,100	2,160	692	2,360
Zimbabwe + "liberation struggle"	59,200	3,750	974	2,370

The majority of web references are for Second Chimurenga as an exact phrase or Zimbabwe and "liberation struggle" if it is not an exact phrase. The former is a translation of the latter. News results favour "Zimbabwe liberation war" or "Zimbabwe liberation struggle".

Criterion as per controversial names policy: proper nouns	Finding
Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers	Rhodesian Bush War or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle should both be readily recognizable.
Native name has a common English-language equivalent	Applies to translations, eg Munich rather than München or Moscow for Moskva. Thus Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle is favoured over Second Chimurenga and where the former italicised term is an English translation of the latter. Rhodesian Bush War is a wholly English term.
Self-identifying term for the entity involved	This is the core of the problem: The combatants identified themselves as Zimbabweans on one side, Rhodesians on the other side. Thus it is difficult to identify any name in current usage as a universal or politically neutral name. This should not lead to inventing a neutral name though, eg Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs which was proposed as a name to solve the name controversy of gasoline/petrol!
Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)	Second Chimurenga is the most widely used term when spoken or published in English: see google web and google book results
Is the name in common usage in English? (cont: websites of media	Zimbabwe liberation war, see google news results
Is the name in common usage in English? (cont: focus on reliable sources	Second Chimurenga, see google scholar results
Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)	Zimbabwean law favours the expression liberation struggle in clauses such as the liberation struggle which occurred in Zimbabwe and in neighbouring countries between the 1st January, 1962, and the 29th February, 1980, in connection with the bringing about of Zimbabwe’s independence on the 18th April, 1980 (War Veterans Act, Cap 11:15, Act 4/1992 as amended) or else descriptive sentences such as the armed conflict that occurred in Zimbabwe and in neighbouring countries between the 11th November, 1965, and the 29th February, 1980, in connection with the bringing about of, or resistance to, political and social change in Zimbabwe (War Marriages Validation Act, Cap 5:15, Act 33/1984).
Historical context	Rhodesian Bush War is less ambiguous given earlier anticolonial struggles in Zimbabwe, as per Deon Steyn at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07_Rhodesian_Bush_War#Case_for_the_oppose, although the "second" in Second Chimurenga should be clarity enough.

Other criteria suggested on this page, wp:rm, mediation	Finding
Library of Congress Subject Headings	Second Chimurenga, as per Hilmarc at Talk:Rhodesian_Bush_War#Copied_from_WP:RM and for example here
Academic consensus	Second Chimurenga, see google scholar result
majority English language usage by Zimbabweans	Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle, as per Mangwanani at Talk:Rhodesian_Bush_War#Copied_from_WP:RM and Hilmarc at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07_Rhodesian_Bush_War#Case_for_the_support
Name in current usage, for example Great War redirects to World War 1	Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle
Name used by winners of the war	Second Chimurenga or Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle
First common name used	Rhodesian Bush War, as per Deon Steyn at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-07_Rhodesian_Bush_War#Case_for_the_oppose.
Current unchallenged (untagged) content of article	Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle as the section on civil disobedience is more applicable to a struggle than a war
Avoid systemic bias	Second Chimurenga as per Ezeu on this page

I would suggest that the bulk of the official wikipedia criteria and other criteria favour Second Chimurenga or else Zimbabwe Liberation Struggle. The latter is also (i) the (less common) English translation of the former name which is the (more common) native name and (ii) the nearest thing to the official name. Babakathy (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)