Talk:Northern Ndebele people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Zimbabwe (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Northern Ndebele people 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Africa / Botswana (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


For the time being I have removed the reference to "animist" beliefs. It appears to be used in Wikipedia exclusively to describe supernatural beliefs held by black people -- white British, American or German people who believe in ghosts and spirits are not generally referred to as animists. If anyone can suggest a more neutral term I'd be grateful. Humansdorpie 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible text for later incorporation[edit]

The text below was removed from the article on April 9, 2007, without any discussion. I'm not sure of the facts, so I'm moving the text here so that others can weigh in. Ctatkinson 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"There is a general misconception that Ndebele are of Nguni or Zulu origin. In fact the Ndebele nation as created by its founder Mzilikazi Khumalo was made of a three tier system, people of Nguni origin (Zulu, Xhosa, Swati), Abenhla (Suthus, Tswana's and other tribes predomonantly found in South Africa) and Amahole'consisting of tribes like Kalangas, Vendas, Tongas, Nambyas). Ndebeles are a nation, not a tribe and within this nation there are common surnames like Khumalo, Nxumalo, Ncube, Sibanda, Moyo, Ndlovu, Mkhwananzi, Bhebhe, Dlodlo,Dube, Nkala, Nkomo, Tshuma, Mvundla, Ndebele, Khuphe, Nkiwane, Sibindi, Nyathi, Mpofu, Hlabangane, Siziba, Ngwenya, Mathuthu etc."

....All the above is not true.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Please, what ever you do, DON'T DO COPY-PASTE MOVES, like what happened yesterday. Now I moved Ndebele people (Zimbabwe) here since the Northern Ndebeles aren't only in Zimbabwe but also in South Africa; the old title led to confusion and stated thing that simply weren't true. ChrisDHDR 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, but you need to return the article to the way it was before. You cannot just move the Ndebele to a new name that you think looks better without checking with other editors. This must be discussed first - not afterwards. As it happens there is no such thing as the "Northern Ndebele". There is the Ndebele, who are an historically important and numerous people and there is a much less well-known and culturally separate group who are called the "South Ndebele". There is no confusion as the two groups have very little in common and are hardly connected. Nobody refers to the Ndebele as the "northern" tribe so we should not have an article by that name.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(Just being bold, but we can talk now) The thing is these two peoples need to be disambiguated. Now some Northern Ndebeles live in South Africa so the old name had to go, and since their languages are called S./N. Ndebele I considered it natural that this would be, and even should be, their name. ChrisDHDR 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
One problem with your idea. The Ndebele of Zimbabwe don't call themselves northern and neither does anyone else so this new name has to go. You are basically making this name up and in fact creating confusion by inventing it so I agree it should go-- (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Chris but they are alraedy disambiguated on the disambiguation page and no one has commented anywhere on being confused. What is your source for the renaming as Northern Ndebele?-- (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is that you can't have two pages both called Ndebele people. So you have a disambiguation page there which links to the two types of Ndebeles. The two Ndebele pages therefore need different titles: having Ndebele people (South Africa) and Ndebele people (Zimbabwe) isn't good since there are the South African type in Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean type in South Africa. And considering their languages are Southern and Northern Ndebele, I thought it natural that the ethnic groups had the same names. However, the if you're really not happy with those names, then we could call them the Ndebele and the Matabele; what's important is that they are disambiguated with names that are correct. ChrisDHDR 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The correct names are not the ones that you make up. You have rearranged both Articles without any discussions. This is not the right way to work on WP. You have failed to prove that you have any primary sources or even first-hand knowledge of this subject to back up your actions so once more.. return the articles to their original titles and provide a convincing argument based on fact rather than your subjective perceptions.--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
[I'm sorry I didn't talk about it first, but I still don't think I did anything wrong in accordance with WP:BOLD]
I haven't made up the name! Zulus speak Zulu, Sothos Sotho, Vendas Venda, Tswanas Tswana, Shonas Shona — and so I though it natural that the speakers of Northern Ndebele were the Northern Ndebeles. I doesn't have to be that, the only reason I moved it here was that they are also present in SA, so the old title had to go; but otherwise anything correct will go, do you know a better one? (what about Matabele like in Matabeleland?) ChrisDHDR 17:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:BOLD isn't a licence to do whatever you like. Just because the languages are called that (and that is not correct either) doesn't mean that the people follow. While the articles should be clear and informative, they cannot adopt simplistic titles to suit the editors; and the titles must be real ones. The connection between the two Ndebele peoples is purely historical-they are not northern and southern versions of one another; any more than the Saxons of medieval England and Germany were connected. The South Ndebele call themselves Nrebele and Matabele Ndebele call themselves Amandebele but these facts are no use to us because these labels have never been used by English speakers. The name Matabele is a valid one but I have a feeling that it has colonial overtones so I suspect that others might object if we went ahead with that name.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also what is your source that South Ndebeles live in Zimbabwe?--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I admit my mistake; I was wrong to have just moved the page like that. I thought it was fine in accordance with BOLD. Now lets get to the matter in hand, the names. I'll put my point of view and then you put yours. ChrisDHDR 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Idea Southerners Northerners Pros Cons
Ndebele people (South Africa) Ndebele people (Zimbabwe)
  • Incorrect since the Northerners aren't just in Zim[1]
  • title just looks bad and unprofessional (Chris at least)
Southern Ndebele People Northern Ndebele People
  • Easy to identify thanks to geographical names
  • corresponds to language names like other tribes in the area
  • Well sourced:[2], [3], [4]/[5] (forget the second bit which is taken from wp)
 ? Matabele people
  • Corresponds nicely to Matabeleland, a current term, so not colonial (as some might suspect)
  • Instantly helps user localize them bacause of link with Matabeleland
  • What do you call the Southerners? Maybe simple Ndebeles with a link at the top for those who want Matabeles (probable stiring up the dust, this one)
Perhaps we might call the Zimbabwean Ndebele Matabele (as no one has made any further comments on this) but the South African group is the more minor one of the two. They are generally referred to as South Ndebele (from my memory of living in SA in the early 1990s) so probably they should be called that. One note about your references in the table above. I checked them and none of them is an authority. They all use the same wording and appear to use either WP text or each other's and they do not quote their own sources (most importantly). South African Ndebele are less important both in terms of history and in terms of numbers and influence so the WP article should not imply otherwise.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting you right, they'll be the Southern Ndebele and the Matabele? ChrisDHDR 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well almost, it must be South (not southern) Ndebele and Matabele.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it's done - sorry I took so long to reply. I've done the moves/edits ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]), but a WP:RM needs to be done for the Matabele. Plus do we change the languages also? ChrisDHDR 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems there are no objectors so let's change the languages names in harmony.--AssegaiAli (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Twentieth Century"[edit]

Would anyone care to explain in what way they think it's unbalanced? It needs expansion, but the tag doesn't seem warranted to me. (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Take for example the line "the illegal economic sanctions" that is opinion and not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Bantu category edit war[edit]

See Bantu category hierarchy on Commons for how it should be. The categories here may need renaming rather than recategorising articles in them and edit warring over it. If you look at the main article linked to Category:Bantu people, you will see it is intended for Bantu peoples not Bantu people (individuals). HelenOnline 07:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that there is only a Bantu peoples article give as the 'catmain' does not mean that the ethno category title should be "Bantu people"....singular; I contemplated a CFDS on this to match that main article name, i.e. Category:Bantu peoples, but Category:Bantu exists and that is the normal form for main ethno categories; NOT "FOO people" in the singular, which overwhelmingly is for "individuals who are FOO". The edit war is a nuisance and made completely with illogical edit comments = "just the opposite: there are no individual Bantu people"....if that is the case, then Category:Bantu people should be deleted; Category:Bantu is not about one or two articles, it's about all peoples classed as Bantu peoples; not about singular-people individuals.Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, your edit comment also makes no sense "Bantu cat is broader than peoples" so? Category:Bantu is for "all things Bantu, including subgroups and more; of which "people who are Bantu" is a subset; since, as the edit warrior who opposed all things Skookum1, is correct in his assertion that "there are no Bantu people" i.e. "Bantu individuals", then there should be no such cat; the subcats may be poorly titled relative to normal category tree standards for ethno articles, e.g. there is no Category:Ovambo parent for Category:Ovambo people, but that is easily remedied. The "FOO people" ambiguity is why that disambiguation was avoided for category and main article titles; FOO was used, very widely, to avoid any such complications, and to leave "FOO people" for "people who are FOO" or "people who are from FOO" individual bios to be subcatted.Skookum1 (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 24#Category:Bantu people. HelenOnline 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Based on your comments above, you clearly haven't read through my comment above or the Commons link in it or the CFD proposal. Edit warring and flying off the handle without even listening first is pretty pointless and unconstructive. I am trying to sort this mess out, not gatecrash your edit warring party. HelenOnline 16:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Launching a CfD when all you had to do was create Category:Bantu peoples and move some things around is "flying off the handle"; I moved articles about peoples into the main cat where they belong; they do not belong in "Bantu people"; it's you that's making the fuss.....and the other edit-warrior whose agenda is that "FOO people" should be for everything "FOO". You partook in his edit war, rather than simply make the needed Category:Bantu peoples. Shut down your needless CfD and just make the category and start sorting out what belongs where; I might have myself by now if not busy elsewhere; dragging things to discussion boards when there are simple actions to take is all too common and is a waste of time and energy.Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)