Talk:Rhodesian Bush War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 4 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: Not moved. Consensus against proposed title. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Rhodesian Bush War → Zimbabwean War of Independence – This is to resolve a move war. Please see #Neutrality for details. LesbianTiamat should be considered the proposer of this move. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It is my view that the proposed target has at least the same lack of neutrality as the existing title. Propose alternative Zimbabwean war. It is clearly more neutral than the originally proposed target. I will be providing additional evidence in respect to usage of the title and the appropriate capitalisation. Suffice it to say at this point that ngram evidence would indicate that it is a more common name than either the existing name or the originally proposed target. The ngram evidence does not support capitalisation of war in the alternative proposal per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. I can see that some might support the alternative capitalisation of Zimbabwean War, which is still a better alternative, in my opinion, than that originally proposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Evidence As indicated, here is some ngram evidence relating to the various titles: compareing the three titles, Zimbabwean W|war, what follows Zimbabwean W|war 1, 2, 3 4.

Rhodesian Bush War only becomes more common than Zimbabwean war (and variations) since about 2010. For Zimbabwean War (as capped) it almost exclusively is the fuller names, Zimbabwean War of Indepencance or Zimbabwean War of Liberation. The latter is by far the more common. For Zimbabwean war (as capped), it is also followed as before with liberation more commonly but there are clearly significant cases of Zimbabwean war not being followed by those terms. Even if there are other wars that have happened in Zimbabwe there is no actual title conflict. Per WP:TITLEDAB additional precision is only required if there is an actual title conflict. WP:NPOVTITLE does give a degree of latitude and guidance: the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. If this is not met, then we should consider a more neutral title. If Rhodesian Bush War is not a neutral title and suffient to require a title change, then I do not see that Zimbabwean War of Independence or Zimbabwean War of Liberation can be considered to be neutral alternatives that should be considered over the existing title in respect to the guidance. That is why I have proposed the alternative Zimbabwean war.

Some additional evidence to consider is the capitalisation of Rhodesian Bush War (see here) and whether we can consider it a proper name and Zimbabwean War of Liberation (see here) similarly. Considering just the two alternatives, Zimbabwean War of Independence or Zimbabwean War of Liberation (regardless of caps) the latter would appear to be more prevalent and therefore the better alternative of the two. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Following up on a comment blow, there would appear to be a case to be made for Second Chimurenga and probably a good case since it is much more common than Rhodesian Bush War (see ngram here) See also [1]. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Now I could just cite WP:COMMONNAME and call it a day given the fact that most academic sources refer to the entire conflict as the "Rhodesian Bush War" but I want to briefly cite the potential article rename to Zimbabwean War and how apparently the "Zimbabwean War of Independence" is a more neutral title despite the bias highlighted by Indy beetle. Ultimately, I'm just not particularly happy about the article potentially being renamed to "Zimbabwean War" given the fact that there are other internal conflicts within Zimbabwe such as the 1980 Entumbane clashes and Gukurahundi and while yes, it's arguably the more "neutral" title of all the proposed renames, it's a little too vague of a title, especially for a conflict that was a major event in Sub-Saharan Cold War geopolitics. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

An addendum to this, I've seen some people propose for the title to instead be renamed to the Second Chimurenga instead. On the surface, everything seems to be in its favor with more results on Ngrams and Academic Sources. 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. This isn't a total opposition to the proposal but I thought was worth pointing out. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Source that most academic sources refer to the conflict as the Rhodesian Bush War? "Second Chimurenga" gives about 2000 results on Google Scholar, "Rhodesian Bush War" gives about 600, "Zimbabwean War of Liberation" about 300. On JSTOR, "Second Chimurenga" gives about 300 results, "Rhodesian Bush War" about 50, and "Zimbabwean War of Liberation" about 70. Luiysia (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Luiysia: For starters, you yourself have already inadvertently proved my point as in Google Scholar, the Rhodesian Bush War is used double the times more than Zimbabwean War of Liberation and while yes, Rhodesian Bush War is the least used title among the three in JSTOR, the discussion is about moving the article to Zimbabwean War of Independence and that title only has 20 more, not nearly as comprable to the statistics used in Google Scholar. Here's a small excerpt of works found in the first page Google Books that directly use the "Rhodesian Bush War" in their titles or some variant: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Here's a similar excerpt of works using the "Zimbabwean War of Liberation" in its title: 1, 2. A noticeable trend I found was that "Zimbabwean War of Liberation/Independence" is only mentioned as a title but ultimately not being the defining word for the entire subject with some sources I found using it only being from general encyclopedias and not of works purely focusing the conflict such as 1, 2 and 3. Furthermore, in a broader aspect, this Google Trends displays "Rhodesian Bush War" being on average the more used title. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @SuperSkaterDude45Your Google Trends graph disproves your argument. If you set the parameters to between 2004-Present, the Zimbabwean War of Independence is the far more used term, continuing on until today. GrasshopperEdits (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @GrasshopperEdits: Even if we were to take a retrospective into account, this Ngram already shows "Rhodesian Bush War" being the more used title dating all the way back to the 1980s with only "Zimbabwean War of Independence" being the more used title in the 1990s. Not to mention that it isn't exactly the 2000's anymore and since say, 2004, it's more commonly known as the "Rhodesian Bush War" and given my example of scholarly sources beginning to use the latter more, I'm failing to see where this point stands besides you somehow and for reason wanting to keep an outdated title that doesn't reflect the naming conventions of today. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  You can scroll to my reply below and see that I would support renaming this article to Second Chimurenga, by far the most common term used in scholarly sources. Luiysia (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just want to make a note that there is a move discussion regarding on renaming Second Matabele War to First Chimurenga. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for opening the RM, I think established consensus on the name for this article was not entirely made clear, and I think this is was/is the best way to resolve it. With regards to my comment from the earlier discussion, when I said that "more professional scholarship tends to prefer some variant of 'Zimbabwean War'", I did not mean the phrase verbatim "Zimbabwean War", I meant a formulation of "Zimbabwe/Zimbabwean" + "War" + [Other stuff], leaving open options such as "Zimbabwean Liberation War" or "Zimbabwean War of Independence". I haven't committed to anything yet and I'll have to do some research before coming to my !vote, so I'm not !voting now. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I’m sorry, but has this war ever been referred to as the “Zimbabwean War of Independence”? As I mentioned in my edit summary, the source that backs that name actually calls it the “Zimbabwean War of Liberation”. I get the desire to be neutral, but we can’t make up names full cloth. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  With regards to you opening question, the answer is very much yes [2][3][4]. The question is how significant the use of that name is verses other ones. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. It's not Wikipedia's job to name this conflict. We must follow what the sources call it. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:COMMONNAME should this not be called the Second Chimurenga? As mentioned in the discussion in 2020, it seems to only make sense to use the term commonly used in Zimbabwe. The term "Rhodesian Bush War" is very confusing to anyone not already sympathetic with the colonial history of Zimbabwe. See google ngram.

"the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue"

It's also arguable that the naming of this Wikipedia page itself caused the term "Rhodesian Bush War" to become more prevalent. Luiysia (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The war in academic circles is often referred to as the "Zimbabwe W|war of L|liberation" [1] [2] [3]. As @Indy beetle pointed out, the name "Zimbabwean War of Independence" has also been used. These titles are used as much if not more frequently in published research on the subject, or is referred to as both within the same text. As a result, it does make Wikipedia look like it's taking a side in the titling of the war. For maximum clarity, it is common sense and on track with Wikipedia's guidelines to to change the article title to a name that:
  1) Is used more often, and;
  2) Describes the geographical location of the independent state that formed as a result of the war, as with Wikipedia's articles on the American Revolutionary War, Algerian War, Haitian Revolution, or more pertinently, the Irish War of Independence.The latter is also an article with a name that could be slanted in one direction, but academically and factually is more accurate and specific than the second name in the description, Anglo-Irish War.

As a result, it seems a name change is in order, and Zimbabwe/an War of Independence is the most on track with other articles and desired degrees of neutrality.

GrasshopperEdits (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about those wars you listed: the titles for those articles are the most common names for those conflicts. Based on this discussion alone, it is very evident that the Zimbabwean War of Independence is by far the least common name for this conflict. It’s also a major misnomer; ZANU/ZAPU weren’t fighting against British colonial rule, they were fighting against Ian Smith’s white-minority government. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to Eyeluvbraixen's point, most of the aforementioned wars you listed usually lack any significant name variants such as the Haitian Revolution and the part where you stated Describes the geographical location of the independent state that formed as a result of the war when other articles on Wikipedia such as the Boshin War, the Mau Mau rebellion and the First Balkan War don't use this hypothetical naming convention. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

If we want to go based on the most common name for the conflict in literature then the title of the article should clearly be Second Chimurenga as this ngram demonstrates. Luiysia (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If this discussion was about moving this article to “Second Chimurenga”, then sure. But we’re discussing about moving this to “Zimbabwean War of Independence”, which you chart clearly shows to be the most barely used name for this war. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM#CM. It is reasonable and appropriate for a user to propose an alternative to that originally made, just as I did. It is reasonable to discuss such an alternative here. The guidance also tells us: Do not create a new move request when one is already open on the same talk page. I deleted the second RM accordingly. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name is problematic, but nominator has provided no evidence in support of the proposed new name, and some brief research indicates that the proposed name is uncommon as well as inaccurate. Greenman (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, I do not believe Zimbabwean War of Independence is the best option. Based on Ngram, it appears Zimbabwean War of Independence and Zimbabwean War of Liberation are the least common terms. I do absolutely support a name change, however. Second Chimurenga is by far the most common term (more than twice as common as "Rhodesian Bush War," and without its connotations,) and there appears to be a few in favor of it, so a new move request should be made when this one is concluded. Sophie (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. You can only have a war of independence against rule by another country or to break away from the country you're part of. Zimbabwe didn't break away from Rhodesia. Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in toto. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be noted that 'rhodesian bush war' goes against WP:POVNAMING as well as WP:COMMONNAME, but Zimbabwean War of Independence also does not fit WP:COMMONNAME, as it is 45x less common than Second Chimurenga and about a fourth as common as Zimbabwean War of Liberation. per both WP:POVNAMING and WP:COMMONNAME, this article should instead be named Second Chimurenga. flibety (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I think there's a good argument that Second Chimurenga would be POVNAMING in the opposite direction. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    I’m sorry, but it’s very clear that this article is either going to keep its current title, or get renamed Second Chimurenga. I get the desire to be neutral, but the fact is is that those two are the most common names for this war, with Zimbabwean War of Liberation (probably the most neutral term for this conflict) only seeing occasional use. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    war of liberation seems biased by presupposing prior tyranny, the issues with rhodesian bush war have been discussed, and war of independence has issues with common use.

    how is 'second chimurenga' biased? it just means second struggle Flibety (talk) 23:12, 11 October 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.

Natg 19, while there has clearly been a consensus against the initially proposed move, The discussion has indicated that Second Chimurenga is the most WP:COMMONNAME, Per WP:RM#CM a discussion is not limited to consider just the proposed target. I would observe that there has been sufficient discussion regarding this alternative that the closer would be reasonable obliged to address that proposal in their close - to indicate where the consensus lies for this alternative and, if not consensus for a recommendation on what course should be followed in respect to this alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, I do not believe that there was a clear consensus for Second Chimurenga, so I do not think the article should be moved there. I believe that the requested move (opened below) is a good way to clarify whether Second Chimurenga should be the correct title. Natg 19 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Israeli support

The cited reason for the removal of the support part linked to a discussion which, importantly, did not say that 'supported by' should never be used. I wanted to ask, what reason is there to remove it here?

It's worth stating the support that Israel provided was very substantial. According to 'The Israeli Connection' (the source cited for the edit), such as the sale of submachine guns and provided Rhodesia with the rights to produce uzis. The Ruzi then became 'standard in the Rhodesian armed forces and police, and was also sold to (white) citizens for $100.'

eleven Bell 205 helicopters were also provided to Rhodesia who used them in counter-insurgency campaigns.

significantly, the source also points out that the Rhodesians utilised counter-insurgency methods that they got directly from Israel. For instance, one Israeli company 'built the five-hundred-mile "belt" [of land mines] along the border with Mozambique and Zambia.' And in 1976, Israeli mercenaries also teamed up with Rhodesia.

All of these details demonstrate a significant amount of active support towards Rhodesia and I see no reason why it ought to be ignored. Genabab (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of supported by in the infobox is deprecated. You are correct, in that the close does not require a total ban on this but it makes it very clear that cases of use should be rare and require an affirmative consensus (which I would read to be and RfC) sufficient to override the broader community consensus not to do this. I also see that there is no mention of Israel in the article. Including it in the infobox would therefore be contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since the infobox should summarise key facts from the article - we should not be trying to write the article in the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Would the problem go away then if the Israeli role was mentioned in the article? Genabab (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that is the first of two issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And the second one? You haven't said just what is preventing consensus Genabab (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The INFOBOXPURPOSE issue is, while a good practice, a technicality which can be easily resolved. The more important thing is whether there is a good argument that singling out Israeli support in the infobox is WP:DUE. Several international actors offered their support to belligerents in this conflict. How is Israeli support for one more worthy of upfront mention than others, or for that matter should any of them require infobox mention at all? What sources do you know of which stress the significance of Israeli involvement here? That is what is preventing me from adding my "consensus" to this proposal for inclusion in the infobox, though mention in the article body of other state or nonstate actors seems perfectly reasonable. This wasn't a full-on proxy war, after all. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Indy beetle I'd say what makes it so significant... Well, let me just quote the first post I made.

According to 'The Israeli Connection' (the source cited for the edit), such as the sale of submachine guns and provided Rhodesia with the rights to produce uzis. The Ruzi then became 'standard in the Rhodesian armed forces and police, and was also sold to (white) citizens for $100.' (significant as Israel is arming civilians, allowing production rights to such an extent that the Uzi became a 'standard in the army and police.

significantly, the source also points out that the Rhodesians utilised counter-insurgency methods that they got directly from Israel. For instance, one Israeli company 'built the five-hundred-mile "belt" [of land mines] along the border with Mozambique and Zambia.' A five hundred mile belt of land-mines is very significant/involved. And in 1976, Israeli mercenaries also teamed up with Rhodesia, so they were also providing manpower. Genabab (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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)