Talk:Rhodesian Bush War

message: This page should absolutely be moved. The only internationally comprehensible term is the 'Zimbabwe War of Liberation'. The '(Rhodesian) Bush War' will not be understod by anyone except a small (white) minority in South Africa and the UK"--LRO 05:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move is contested

message: :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)
replies: text: Rhodesian Bush War →  – 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

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

text: Seconded.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , It would appear to me then, that you are saying that . 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:  [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)
replies: text:  I find it rather interesting that you say that  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 October 2023 

message: Could someone verify that the cited sources actually state that Portuguese and Zambian forces were involved in combat in this war? The latter is behind a paywall. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Zambia was used a stageing-point for Guerilla forces to move into Rhodesia territory, But Zambian Forces themselves were not, While Portugal was. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Kinda Mad your questioning Belligerents in this case, When you obviously are not fully sure who was even fighting in the War. 86.7.30.90 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to be Kinda Mad, but did you verify what the sources said? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal and Zambia 

message: Why Can't support from the Soviet Union and China be listed on the Page just because they're not belligerents, But Yet for say the South Africa Border War they're allowed to be listed for the same thing (Material support) even though they weren't Belligerents either, Doesn't really seem to be a real reason why it's not allowed? 86.7.30.90 (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is for belligerents. "Supported by" was deprecated by the community. See Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents