Talk:Rhodesian Bush War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Contradictory Sentence?
I find the following sentence contradictory:
"In 1976, Rhodesian Selous Scout soldiers destroyed a United Nations refugee camp, containing many hundreds of terrorist trainees, called cadres."
Surely it was either a refugee camp or it was a terrorist training camp, but not both -- or was/is the UN in the business of housing refugees and training terrorists in the same location?
Anyone have any comments?
--Craig 18:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Since I received no response, I went ahead and edited that sentence at the same time as cleaning up the article significantly. --Craig 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
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)
