This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: African / Cold War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Zimbabwe: Rhodesia B‑class Top‑importance Rhodesian Bush War is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as Top-importance). WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks: Zimbabwe-related tasks You can help! Here are some Zimbabwe related tasks you can do: Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more... Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs Category sorting: Verify or Factual Accuracy: Update: NPOV : Citations: Copyedit, Style or Cleanup: Expand: Related Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project view • • discuss • history • watch Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Empire B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2006–2008 2009–

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bradburyc (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Srenman, Andrew32198.

The origin of the Second Chimurenga is in Ian Smith's refusal to go along with the Wind Of Change that saw indirect rule replace direct colonial rule among the former British colonies in Africa and Asia. The result was 15 years of war and 50,000 dead, which ended in April 1980. The problem with this article is that it only relies on Rhodesian and white South African sources. Add to this the use of the term 'Rhodesian Bush War', which only rhodesians use. It is very much like renaming the American Civil War the 'War Of Rights', or the 'War Of Northern Aggression'. Or calling WWII the 'War Of The Reich'. This article is highly biased, and should be rewritten in a way that includes the views of the actual Zimbabwean people who fought for their freedom, not the rhodesian British minority, who were never more than 5% of the population. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the anonymous author of this paragraph, who is clearing Zimbabwean and also clearly took no part in the war, a couple of points:

(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader.

(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias.

(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin. The fact is that there are virtually no reliable sources of information from ZIPRA or ZANLA combatants, and even the published materiel from those sources of the time, even their internal documents, were what can charitably be called "light" on hard facts. This makes them unreliable for use as sources for factual articles.

(4) Show us any good sources with verified information from authors of any other group than European, ex-Rhodesian or South African ethnicities and nationalities, and we will happily include the information from those sources. Or better yet, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account here on Wikipedia to become an editor, and make the changes yourself, but and here's the thing: cite your sources always, with verifiable references.

Cadar (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

":(1) Only black Zimbabweans refer to the Rhodesian Bush War as the "Second Chimurenga", nobody else, and certainly nobody outside of Zimbabwe. Renaming the article to that name would only cause confusion for any non-Zimbabwean reader." Nobody except rhodesians call the Zimbabwean War of Independence the Rhodesian Bush War.

"(2) The current content of the article shows a remarkable bias towards modern thinking on the causes and course of the war, as does much of the other related content on the subject in the Wikipedia archive. Recent efforts at editing it have sought to redress that balance and remove bias." The bias of 'modern thinking' has been replaced with what, regressive thinking?

"(3) The fact that the content on the war in this article is derived from largely European, possibly Rhodesian sources is not a matter of bias. It's because the majority of content available in print and on the internet is of that origin." That is exactly the same as saying that the article is one-sided. You just explained why you think it is one-sided. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@83.84.100.133: If you cannot be civil and cannot accept the edits or input of other editors here on Wikipedia in good faith - as amply demonstrated by the numerous complaints on your talk page - then you have no business wasting the time of editors who are working to improve Wikipedia. I will not dignify your unfounded accusations with a discussion. If you want to make changes to the page in question, as previously requested, stop hiding behind your anonymity, register an account and take responsibility. Otherwise stop wasting our time.

Cadar (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to use the name that is most common in Zimbabwe, especially if it is impartial? The Rhodesian Bush War name implies partiality towards Rhodesians, and since Zimbabwe is an English-speaking country it makes sense to use the most common impartial term (Second Chimurenga War).Rivere123 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this referred to as a stalemate on the side box? Why wouldn't it be a ZANU victory,as that party has governed Zimbabwe ever sinze this war and Rhodesia hasn't existed since? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.13.185 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess this is because the war wasn't actually won by force of arms by either side. The country was turned over to the British government and the British government then formed a new country with elections. After these elections were concluded, the country was granted full independence. Sf46 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody 'gave' anything to anyone. It doesn't matter if there is never a military victory during a guerilla war. (Although the Cubans did beat the Southafricans in Angola.) All guerillas have to do is make the there side run out of new recruits, money, or political will. Or frustrate their strategy. Thinking that in 1979, the British government 'miraculously' thought to give away independence is typical rhodesian thinking. Also, your statement that "the country was granted full independence" is naive at best. The Imperial Crown/Rothschild Baron funded De Beers still owns the mines, just like in South Africa, Namibia, etc. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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".

This was even acknowledged by Mugabe.207.225.131.141 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A political settlement that lead to the withdrawal of Rhodesian military forces, that is per definition a military retreat. Thus the war ended with a Rhodesian military retreat and not a military stalemate. Hongon (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source says "military statemate", verbatim. If you disagree, please add other sources. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edited info box per Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Rhodesian Bush War. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Malawi provided the Rhodesian Government with support, shouldn't they be shown in purple, the color for "Government Allies"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox are mentioned "1,120 Rhodesian security forces members killed", while in the "Aftermath"-section again it is stated that "from December 1972 to December 1979, 4,160 members of the Rhodesian security forces were killed". This conflict requires clarification. Particularly as the dated and patchwork look for the source of the first number, "GlobalSecurity.org", does not (on a passing and uneducated look) earn much trust, while the other is completely unavailable. --88.113.198.23 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]