South Africa Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

this people has a vibrant early history, which needs much more detail in this article. ive added a little. please help. Covalent 05:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• The article claims that "the two language groups are easi to distinguish" basically since the Nguni languages have clicks and the Sotho languages don't. This is completely false, since Sesotho does have click consonants.
• The languages are not "dialects of Bantu language". There is no such thing as the "Bantu language".
• Should this article, which in the introduction says that the use of the term "Bantu" as an ethnic label is insulting (at least in South Africa), then use "Bantu" as an ethnic label throughout the rest of the article?

Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Á[reply]

This edit is problematic for two reasons:

1. Calling the people "Stone Age" is obviously incorrect.
2. The part about the Waterberg looks suspiciously like the apparently Original Research edits I reverted from Nguni after discussing them with User:Mark Dingemanse on my talk page.

Any thoughts? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stone Age" is the term used for this aspect of Bantu migration by: William Taylor, Gerald Hinde and David Holt-Biddle, The Waterberg, Struik Publishers, Capetown, South Africa (2003) ISBN 1-86872-822-6. Anlace 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously incorrect, isn't it? "Stone age" Nguni groups less than 300 years ago? Am I missing something here? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oops my mistake. i checked the Taylor source and it says "Iron Age" and attributes the reference time frame as 450AD. i have altered the text accordingly. thanks for your help on this. Anlace 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, kewl. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article which claims that the ethnic label is insulting should not then use it repeatedly. These South African articles shouldn't all be repeating the exact same history about Difaqane etc. since it is redundant. If the ethnic label is insulting then the title shouldn't use it as if it is valid (that's your fault too, Ezeu).

My Grand Master Plan Eagle 150X7 will try to fix all these problems, beginning with moving this article to Bantu speaking peoples of South Africa in a few days if no one objects.

Any thoughts? Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 1 of The Plan complete. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renaming this article to denote Bantu as an adjective in South Africa than a noun it is mistakenly taken as by lots of people who are ignorant of the matter, it is not only insulting but really deliberately thoughtless if imposed to the people spoken of, thanks for understanding. It article name will be People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages to achieve what I've said and also consolidate which exactly are the people we are speaking of as anyone can speak Bantu, any race or backgrounds, so this naming notes accurately who are we speaking of when we read of reading to others, I'll add more citations later.Untrammeled (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untrammeled is right that the current title is not acceptable, but at the same time you cannot make up whole categories on your own either. I propose 'Bantu language speaking peoples of South Africa' if you want to use a ethnic linguistic approach which the article's previous title were based on. But why not simply 'Black South Africans' which is the term people are most likely to actually use or search for and does not rely on any dubious and dated linguistic or ethnic categorizations. Francoisdjvr (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that any African or nationality can fall under being named Black South African, a Namiban Black, an Angolan, a Mozambican, Lesotho-an of Lesotho, a Nigerian Black person can become a Black South African even a European, American, Asian Black person with all their heritage of their homelands intact (without them being anything of a Nguni, Sotho-Tswana, Venda, Tsonga of South Africa) and this article isn't talking about that or generally a Black person in South Africa but specifically the actual locals or the indigenous Blacks of South Africa. This problem because Black South African is based on citizenry. I'm not inventing but terming to be specific using correct English words correlating with fact to the people spoken of.Untrammeled (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. I checked the article on White South Africans and there is for example quite a bit of content on Portuguese speaking South Africans too. The article in turn links to more specific groups like Afrikaner and English or Portuguese. That way the article can avoid ethnic and linguistic classification but be inclusive to citizenship? So, could we not use the title Black South African, but expand the article's content with reference to groups like say Nigerian South Africans? Francoisdjvr (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francoisdjvr If the article expands to generally be about Black people in South Africa than those indigenous to it it defeats the point of the article about the specific people being spoken of. This article is meant to speak of these people specifically it isn't about Africans generally. This article is like the insight article of Khoisan grouping (Khoikhoi and San people), the Cape Coloureds article, the Coloureds of South Africa, the Chinese South Africans, Indian South Africans etc. articles of special interest not an wide encompassing of the Black people term in South Africa. It is a special interest article.Untrammeled (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bantu peoples in South Africa → ? – Untrammeled has moved this page several times now and can't seem to decide on what it should be called. They have been told to open a talk request but seem unable to do that. Thus I'm opening it for them. I have no opinion on the correct name but it needs to stop moving. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bantu peoples in South Africa → People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages – 'People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages' clearly indicates specifically the people spoken of in the article than creating a confusion of semantics to who is this article written for, what and who, and it to grow into that regard. Black South African (without further explaining it), Bantu-speaking people of South Africa and Bantu peoples in South Africa are insufficient to indicate exactly who's spoken of than this proposal. I wasn't confused per say as I constantly traditionally moved this page but trying to find the best term for the article, doing it wrong, and constantly reviewing it myself and surely unwarranted to the readers and other editors attention as even my sufficient reasons for it seemed to be ignored somehow, and for that I extend my apologies Untrammeled (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – If it needs to stop moving, leave it alone. If it moves somewhere you object to and have an opinion of what the best title is, then propose it. As for Untrammeled's latest proposal, I oppose that, too. Needlessly long perhaps, and certainly doesn't need that hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]