Talk:Rhodesian Bush War

Left and Right Side of belligerents table

Editor user:UncleBourbon has proposed to flip the belligerents table, stating that the victors belong on the left hand side of the table. I googled "Who won the Rhodesian Bush War" and the first result was a U.S. Department of Defense report which stated, The racially integrated Rhodesian Army was considered one of the best in Africa at the time of the conflict, and it performed with professionalism throughout the war, essentially winning the military conflict while the international isolation of the white minority Rhodesian government brought about its political defeat. So military victory, followed by political defeat. I propose the belligerents table should remain with the Rhodesian side on the left. SONORAMA (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by SONORAMA, I endorse changing the Rhodesian side to the right, given the Rhodesian Army never achieved a true military "victory," because ZANLA and ZIPRA continued to exist as military combatants to the point of the Lancaster House Agreement, the agreement itself being a clear victory for ZANU and ZAPU. The Rhodesian objective of the war was to maintain unfree elections so as to maintain the existence of the Rhodesian state; the Lancaster House Agreement mandated free elections, and directly resulted in the dissolution of the Rhodesian state. It's ridiculous to claim "victory" in any capacity when your state ceases to exist and it's territory is governed by the same people you had been warring against, whose objectives had been to govern said territory all along. In an example of similar articles, the Vietnam War lists the North Vietnamese as victors, despite the United States holding military superiority to the point of the Paris Peace Accords, because even if the U.S. abandoned the conflict for political reasons, it still resulted in the South Vietnamese state ceasing to exist. You do not 'lose' by achieving all of your objectives just because your K/D ratio is lower than the enemy who 'won' by failing all of their objectives and ultimately ceasing to exist. The recent article title change to the "Zimbabwean War of Independence" even further establishes this objectively as a Rhodesian defeat; I fail to see how any nation could lose it's 'War of Independence,' when it successfully attains independence.UncleBourbon (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict did not end with a military victory or loss. It ended with the Lancaster House Agreement and international recognition of the election results that said agreement brought. You state, "It's ridiculous to claim "victory" in any capacity when your state ceases to exist and it's territory is governed by the same people you had been warring against, whose objectives had been to govern said territory all along." But this wasn't the outcome of the Lancaster House Agreement at all. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as a country did not "cease to exist," as Yugoslavia did. It merely changed its name and largely continued on. The Lancaster House agreement in guaranteed Whites 1/3 representation in parliament, far disproportionate to their population, and in contrast to the non-racial franchise which Rhodesia had upon UDI. Moreover, Whites retained civil service jobs, were active in the military and police forces, and in civic life in general well into the 1990s. That the elected leader of Zimbabwe would eventually forsake the terms of the Lancaster agreement and oppress his alleged enemies of both African and European descent and effectively end the Patriotic Front was a result of Mugabe's gradual efforts to consolidate power and punish supposed enemies. Mugabe's actions were not a result of the agreement itself, and certain did not stem from any military victory during the 1970's conflict. SONORAMA (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1/3 representation is still not minority rule. Claiming ZANU-PF didn't win the war because the war ended with the Lancaster House Agreement, which effectively handed ZANU-PF victory and Zimbabwe it's independence only 4 months later, is frankly pedantic, particularly when this is a visual change; I'm not proposing a change to the Results themselves, but to move ZANU/ZAPU/Mozambique to the left of the infobox where victors go. Even if we were to entertain the idea that nobody decisively won or lost the war (an idea I reject), then there still isn't any particular reason to object to moving ZANU/ZAPU/Mozambique to the left of the infobox. It's also worth noting the Territorial changes section already mentions Rhodesia's disestablishment and Zimbabwe's independence regardless.UncleBourbon (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems similar to South African Border War and Korean War in the fact that it ended in a military stalemate, so it doesn't matter which side of the infobox either party is listed on. The Lancaster House Agreement was a trilateral political settlement involving all parties that ushered an end to hostilities without conclusively naming one side as the victor. Due to the fact that ZIPRA and ZANLA were not on the same side for most of the war (and arguably never were, despite brief and nominal alliances) we could also split the box three ways, similar to Yemeni civil war (2014–present). Rhodesian government forces in one list, ZIPRA and Zambia on another list, and ZANLA and Mozambique on yet another list. That would be a much more accurate depiction of how the sides stacked up in this conflict. --Katangais (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would definitely agree with this statement. 81.103.231.80 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Rule?

The side box references the "outcome" of the conflict as the Lancaster House Agreement. That is accurate insofar as it goes. However, the result of that agreement was not really "majority rule" since a form of majority rule had already been established through the internal settlement. What Lancaster House resulted in was elections in which ZANU and ZAPU also participated. A more accurate description would be: "End of armed hostilities" and "Elections involving all parties".

Name

No, I'm not restarting the debate on which name the article should go by (today).

I'm asking where the name Rhodesian civil war comes from? Not a term I'm used to reading in the literature - or hearing at all for that matter. I mean, its descriptive, not wholly inaccurate as a term, but who actually calls it that? Babakathy (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: POLC 3200 African Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2025 and 1 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GrahamKoeberl (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Georgiecharette, Bewing123.

— Assignment last updated by ProfAllison (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

foreign involvement

For “belligerents” the soviet union and People’s Republic of China are not listed. Clicking on the “ZANLA” link will show the People’s Republic of China as an ally of ZANLA, but it will not show Romania and Yugoslavia as allies to ZANLA. Clicking the “ZIPRA” link does not show the soviet union as a ZIPRA ally. Can the People’s Republic of China, Yugoslavia, and Romania be listed as backers of ZANLA, and can the soviet union be listed as a backer to ZIPRA in the “belligerents” section? Can the soviet union be listed as an ally to ZIPRA on the ZIPRA article? Yugoslavia and Romania should be listed as allies for ZANLA on the ZANLA article as well. IanUnggoy2000 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 May 2026

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) HurricaneZetaC 01:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesian Bush War → Second ChimurengaSecond Chimurenga – WP:COMMONNAME (to my surprise). On Google Scholar there are 2490 hits for "second chimurenga" and 759 hits for "rhodesian bush war". Ngrams gives Second Chimurenga a 2x lead when case-insensitive [1], and a 1.5x lead when case-sensitive [2]. Could also make a WP:TIES argument but don't need to Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 11:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 11:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. msk 19:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 2023 RM on this, and there's a similar RM at Talk:Second Matabele War#Requested move 5 May 2026 Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe that "Rhodesian Bush War" is the COMMONNAME; using regular Google Search shows 215k results for "Rhodesian Bush War" and 128k results for "Second Chimurenga". Filtering to Google Scholar might be a sampling bias, in the same way that the article on Lion is at the title "Lion", instead of "Panthera leo". However, copying the citation text of the Lion article shows 130 uses of "lion" (case insensitive) and 45 uses of Panthera leo, so I'm actually not sure here. But I'm more familiar with "Rhodesian Bush War" (though again, not everyone might...) A diehard editor (talk | edits) 09:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @A diehard editor, anecdotal evidence usually isn’t considered for RMs, for a Zimbabwean editor "Second Chimurenga" would seem like the obvious common name, but editors in the UK for instance would be much less familiar with it. Because most editors are from the UK or US, this approach risks reinforcing systemic bias.
WP:COMMONNAME says A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books)., regular Google searches include lots of unreliable sources, including Wikipedia mirrors (WP:CIRCULAR). Ngrams surveys Google Books, and Google Scholar hits are imo the best metric because they best concentrate reliable sources. Happy to consider other metrics, though I’m not aware of any more good ones Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair enough.. I'll just temporarily switch to "no comment" until I find better evidence, if I even decide to do so. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 10:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Zambia, WikiProject Mozambique, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Zimbabwe, WikiProject South Africa, and WikiProject European history have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is a POV name not used outside Zimbabwe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you've arrived at opposing based on COMMONNAME? COMMONNAME is based on English-language sources, which the nom shows clearly favour "second chimurenga". Whether a title is POV or not doesn't matter so long as it is the common name. WP:POVNAME says When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, 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. Also, it's a topic that predominantly has national ties to Zimbabwe (WP:TIES), meaning we should favour the common name in Zimbabwean-English-language sources anyway. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    When one country uses a POV title that other countries do not then WP:TIES is highly suspect. The problem with events in former colonial countries is that the name used by the current incarnation of the country is often not the name used in wider literature and we have to be careful to take this into consideration. That's why we don't use First Indian War of Independence, the name commonly used in modern India, for the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (we also don't use the common British name, the Indian Mutiny, which would also be seen as POV). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll defer to what others say, but imo if we’re just to follow PAGs to the letter this’d be moved. I guess WP:COMMONALITY in an abstract way favours the current title (and by extension WP:RECOGNISABLE), though it isn’t based on something objective like data and I don’t think I’ve seen that applied to article titles Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I was a bit astonished at the idea that this term I haven't heard of before was the WP:COMMONNAME for this conflict considering I've only heard of it referred to as the Rhodesian Bush War in English, and in my own language (Swedish, for the record) we just call it the translation of Rhodesian Bush War. That said, it could obviously be a case of regional bias, but considering Ngrams and Scholar can be unreliable I felt I just had to dig into this one.
Looking at the Google Books results (as in searching for books) on both titles I can find tons of English-language books about the Rhodesian Bush War, but only one about the Second Chimurenga.Yes they're the same thing but you get what I'm saying. Searching for news articles using the names I'm seeing Rhodesian Bush War give a wide variety of RS results while Second Chimurenga is giving me plenty results from The Herald of Zimbabwe, a state-owned publication, and not a whole lot else. Also, the self-publication usage (which, like it or not, despite not being RS still is giving you information about what the common usage is) is very much favouring Rhodesian Bush War over Second Chimurenga.
Considering that Ngrams and Scholar aren't perfect ways of establishing what the common name for something is, and the fact that the edge they're giving to Second Chimurenga isn't overwhelming to begin with, I don't feel comfortable favouring the numbers they have spat out over what I'm actually seeing and experiencing when I look into it.
As for some of the above arguments, WP:TIES is more about differences in spelling and formatting conventions between various types of English than it is about choosing between titles that mean entirely different things. The fact it's called Second Chimurenga in Zimbabwe doesn't overrule WP:COMMONNAME. The POV name concerns do also appear to have some validity, and I'd be hesitant to use a "local name" when the name is local to a place ran by a dictatorship interested in seeing that name be used. That said, it ends up being a bit of a moot point in this particular situation since we go off what the common name is rather than what the local name is. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.