Talk:Bantu peoples of South Africa/Archive 1

early history
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)

Tsk tsk
A few points: Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 19:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Á
 * 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?

Recent edit by User:Anlace
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)


 * "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)

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)


 * 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)

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

My Grand Master Plan!
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)

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

Article being renamed to correlate with actuality and the truth of the matter
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)


 * 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)

The problem with Black South African without clarity explanation to it Francoisdjvr
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Requested move 14 November 2019

 * 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: CONSENSUS NOT TO MOVE. No obvious title was presented as a target for the move. —C.Fred (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples in South Africa → ? – 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Your reason about not moving the page is based on emotional reasoning or just because you can oppose, not on reasoning the article soundly to your opposition. This is on the first paragraph what does it tell you "Bantu: The Oxford Dictionary of South African English describes its contemporary usage in a racial context as "obsolescent and offensive" because of its strong association with white minority rule and the apartheid system." The hyphen is meant to indicate how it's associated to the people spoken about.Untrammeled (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . I think you may have misunderstood what I'm trying to do. I have no opinion on the name of the article. But what I saw was Untrammeled moving Bantu peoples in South Africa to Indigenous people of South African Bantu languages then People of indigenous South African Bantu languages then People of Indigenous South African Bantu languages (all in one day). The  moves it to Bantu speaking peoples of South Africa followed by Untrammeled moving it to People of Indigenous South African Bantu languages. I saw all that but didn't do anything because editors can make mistakes moving things. However, the other days I see Untrammeled moving it to Southern Bantu speaking Indigenous South African people then People of Indigenous South African Bantu languages then People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages and that's when I saw how ridiculous this was getting and put it back to Bantu peoples in South Africa so a proper move discussion could be had. Unfortunately, Untrammeled didn't start a  move discussion but opened up two sections above. So I opened the discussion so we could get people who would know what the appropriate title is but moving it several times a day a few months apart is not the way to deal with it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I got your point, but if you weren't ready to propose a title then this discussion is just going to be more unfocused noise. Dicklyon (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, consistency with Bantu peoples article. SnowFire (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So an article named by a racial slur to these people seems logical to consistency, in their country they legislatively deem being called Bantu a racial slur Bantu_peoples and you oppose the move because it is consistent. Why write about them if you are not going to consider them as if you are writing about them. Your opposition isn't sound it's lazy or careless, how can it then be taken as a valid.Untrammeled (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. I'm not saying that your move is impossible.  I'm saying that if it was moved at all, you need to argue that the Bantu peoples article should be moved and open a RM there; then any child articles are moved for free.  If you can show that reliable sources use "Bantu-speaking" rather than "Bantu" unadorned, that'd be fine.  (Also, the fact that some people use this as a slur is only indirectly relevant for Wikipedia.  If the usage as a slur causes other reliable sources to change their use, it'll affect Wikipedia, but Wikipedia covers lots of uncomfortable topics by WP:NOT - which includes racial slurs.)  SnowFire (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Neither Could we perhaps find a compromise position such as 'Bantu language speaking peoples of South Africa'? Francoisdjvr (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Then taking from your reply to Dicklyon, just lock in People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages once, then anyone in the world who has a problem with it will open a discussion to change it. What does the title violate if it stands to make things clearer to readers because now we acting as deciders for a simple terms and many of the panel seem unfamiliar but stand to oppose or decide on change of the fact while my intentions weren't vandalism but improvement, this discussion is really unnecessary for the fact locking in People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages seems more valid to the latest. Untrammeled (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. What does "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages" even mean? It's bizarre English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp People of indigenous South African bantu-languages means speaking about those specifically of heritage to the bantu system languages Of South Africa, unique to South Africa, the indigenous South African --bantu-languages. 2nd, anyone can speak these languages then it's important to note you're speaking about the 'People of these languages' hence People of....Indigenous South African bantu-languages correlates. Bantu peoples in South Africa confuses about who's spoken of here, it can be a Kenyan bantu speaker or any other nationality than South Africans only which the article speaks of specifically indigenous South Africans, on top of that Bantu in South Africa isn't used to denote any indigenous group by law it is illegal and limited to it being used as a name of the languages these people speak and even that was also taken to little acceptance by the populace. My point is adding actuality and fact to the title of this article for this article to be of actual value than ignorance. Untrammeled (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I understand the sense. It's just appalling English (you don't say people of a language). And not the common name, which is the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I have been pinged I might as well join this discussion. The word "Bantu" (without any additional convoluted explification) is a perfectly legitimate and cogent ethnolinguistic term. It has been and currently is widely used by professional ethnologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists, and others, for many years. Just because it was for some time (in the past) used in an offensive way in one small part of the globe does not discredit it's proper meaning and correct use. There simply is no valid case for this move proposal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article we're speaking about is about that small part of the globe, it's not by mistake. These people legitimately recognize themselves and officially as speakers of bantu than being Bantu people in being their ethnic grouping, when using the word BANTU. To how others make convenience of their work as you mention professional ethnologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists, and others, bantu speakers (of South Africa) are not in the business of infringing others forcefully but affect their actual self, if you see the fact is bantu speaking then you decide in  your comforts to call them bantu people you prove yourself ignorant or trialing imposition on them. Now you want them to break your doors down to enforce obvious truth for you, I do not understand what do you want from them. It is by culture of Wikipedia I saw to add actual value here related to these people in terming them appropriately. Untrammeled (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 November 2019

 * 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: proposal withdrawn by nominator and superseded by the request below —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples in South Africa → Bantu peoples of South Africa – If BANTU people is to be taken as title to these South Africans we therefore clarify the article is for these people. Bantu peoples IN South Africa is an elusive title, confusing to about who's spoken of here Untrammeled (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Untrammeled (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current title is perfectly clear English. Unlike that of this proposal. --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Khajidha what is the meaning of Bantu peoples in South Africa are you talking about a Kenyan Bantu in South Africa, an Angolan Bantu in South Africa or, mistakenly taken so, a South African Bantu in South Africa as there are expatriates, tourists and refugees who are Bantu living in South Africa others who've gained citizenship of South Africa with their own unique cultures from their home countries intact? So can you elaborate as to 'perfectly clear English' reasoning to this article about now imposed Bantu people of South African origins as to who you're talking about in Bantu peoples in South Africa as a title for this specific article Untrammeled (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is normal English to speak of the experiences of an ethnic group in a country and such discussion is always understood to refer only to permanent inhabitants (regardless of citizenship) not transient tourists, businessmen and such. But if you are going to be deliberately obtuse and actively try to misinterpret things, perhaps you should consider that your own preferred title could similarly be misconstrued to refer to the experiences of South African Bantu tourists anywhere in the world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Bantu peoples of South Africa can be confused to speak about other people than South Africans that's why I put up People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages title that strangely got rejected. The point is that you relying on an assumption that it is automatically taken as 'referring to only permanent inhabitants' which is clearly not true because if you take someone who hasn't read the article at all the titles of Bantu peoples of South Africa & Bantu peoples in South Africa are confusing when one comes across them, about what is actually being spoken of. Bantu peoples of South Africa, using "of", is to at least try to be more apparent than Bantu peoples in South Africa as the title that was clear got rejected, I don't deny they are both incorrect but there's a better of the two. Bantu peoples in South Africa sends anyone straight to thinking about Bantu people in general in South Africa than the article's intentions. Untrammeled (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your suggested title was not strangely rejected, it was rejected because it is not actual English. The individual words are English, but that sequence is simply not a valid construction. The assumption that "Bantu peoples in South Africa" will be taken as referring to actual South Africans is based on general English language usage. As you seem to be the only one confused by that phrasing, perhaps the problem isn't with the title. --Khajidha (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How is People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages not actual English, an invalid construction you said? Untrammeled (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because people are not of languages. You don't say "People of Indo-European languages" and such. --Khajidha (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind you notice People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages is not People of Bantu languages so it means this title denotes accurately these people, no one else on Earth is of these languages therefore you instantly understand it's only possibly these South Africans spoken of here, only these particular Africans spoken of here. It's unique to them by origin but obviously not limited to them by usage. But what is this English rule in defining I don't know, how can people not be of native/indigenous languages category they are indigenous to, as an alternative in denoting them it doesn't make sense? Untrammeled (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again "people of" a language is not a sensible English phrase. Far from being instantly understood, it is instantly recognized as nonsensical. What you are struggling for is "Native speakers of South African bantu-languages". But that is not an ethnic identifier anymore than "Native speakers of English" is. --Khajidha (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Bantu-speaking peoples" would also be closer to what you are trying for. --Khajidha (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bantu speaking people of/in South Africa takes us back to the confusion of who is being spoken of, worse, it is extended now to include everyone who can speak these languages, will you be speaking of White people of South Africa who speak these languages OR the people spoken of in this article. It still seems nonsensical itself not to associate or id people by their indigenous lingual as an alternative as you seem to be asserting it without any reasoning as to 'why' behind it than telling me it's some rule without a 'why'. I wasn't aiming for "Native speakers of South African bantu-languages" because this term will be incorrect too because those of Khoisan groups are indigenous South Africans too and many from them can speak indigenous South African bantu-languages others even taking them as their home language yet they are not these people spoken of here as this article of special interest isn't about indigenous South Africans in general but a People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages article. Untrammeled (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In English you just can't say that people are of a language. People are SPEAKERS of a language. "Indigenous South African bantu-language speaking peoples" would make sense, but is an incredibly uncommon way of phrasing it and is probably not actually used by anyone. --Khajidha (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Indigenous South African bantu-language speaking peoples" is the same as "Native speakers of South African bantu-languages" as bringing us to this limitation as I quote myself (Khoisan groups are indigenous South Africans too and many from them can speak indigenous South African bantu-languages others even take them as their home language(s) but they are not these people spoken of here(this article) as this article of special interest isn't about 'indigenous South Africans' in general but a People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages article). Untrammeled (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see the distinction you are trying to draw, I just do not see how to phrase it. Your suggestion of "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages" just isn't a valid English form, no matter how much you keep repeating it. --Khajidha (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indigenous South African peoples who speak bantu-languages might be what you are looking for, but it is still a massively tortured phrasing that would probably be rejected on the grounds of not actually being used in sources. --Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That will still bring us to this limitation(Khoisan groups are indigenous South Africans too and many from them can speak indigenous South African bantu-languages others even take them as their home language(s) but they are not these people spoken of here(this article) as this article of special interest isn't about 'indigenous South Africans' in general but a People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages article). 'People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages' its invalidity is based on a rule -quoting you that 'in English you just can't say that people are of a language, that People are SPEAKERS of a language'. There's nothing wrong with saying people are of particular languages when those languages are indigenous to those people by origin as in this case. Look at 'People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages' it helps to pin point exactly who's spoken of without any trouble and doesn't make the language usage limited to those people too if that's your problem about the title. It's by meaning that a language is mainly spoken noting it as being spoken is unnecessary, People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages is the correct answer for this article but you're disputing by a rule that emphasizes on the obvious in that language termed must be 'of spoken' that is invalid itself because it enforces redundancy. Now I can't say people of because I must say language spoken by. If you're still saying that English rule isn't invalid if it exists then what's the reason for it exactly? Untrammeled (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing it because it just isn't proper English phrasing. And I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you. Necrothesp also explained this to you. People aren't of languages. People speak languages. Forget your preferred phrasing, it just doesn't work. Find another way to phrase it. Perhaps Indigenous peoples of South Africa who are native speakers of Bantu languages. The problem is that they version you so vehemently object to "Bantu-speaking peoples of South Africa" actually carries the meaning that you are looking for. --Khajidha (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To avoid people thinking that all Indigenous South Africans only natively speak Bantu languages this can be used, Bantu-speaking peoples of Indigenous South Africans. "Bantu-speaking peoples of South Africa" is insufficient because it's not only people spoken of in this article that can speak Bantu languages in South Africa. Untrammeled (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not quite actual English. Try Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples. --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree "Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples" is the resolution. Untrammeled (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No Khajidha I retract "Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples" for Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples as a resolution to avoid the Khoisan groups confusion I mentioned. But I don't see how Bantu-speaking peoples of Indigenous South Africans is a problem. Untrammeled (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "...peoples of ....South Africans" is basically saying "peoples of peoples", it is nonsensical. Your latest version is fine, as far as English language construction goes, but is so long and unwieldy that I doubt that it has ever been used and is unlikely to gain support over the current title that means exactly the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is there now three move requests? This is why I move protected the page in the first place as Untrammeled can't settle on one name for the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha and looked to find something English worthy,CambridgeBayWeather lock in Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples that's all. Untrammeled (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have in the last open request, the other two are closed, I learned my errors about my first title from


 * . No I will not. There is no consensus for that title at all. You suggested it and two people opposed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather so grounds on how they oppose it isn't relevant, they can wake up from some hole get an account and oppose is that what you mean about proposing things, look at the second person who opposed it. He doesn't even know why he's opposing it. Untrammeled (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason people keep opposing all of these moves is that you are creating complicated formulations to avoid saying what is perfectly normal English. Just stop. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Khajidha Okay before I stop what's the meaning of "Bantu peoples in South Africa" in your English understanding? Just paragraph it up Untrammeled (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you before, the long, rambling, never before used phrase that you are attempting to change the title to is the exact meaning of the actual phrase "Bantu peoples in South Africa". That's why we don't need to move it. Just like we don't need to move (for example) fork to "utensil with multiple prongs used to transport food from the plate to the mouth". See how silly that looks? THAT'S what your requests look like. --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How does 'Bantu peoples in South Africa' cater to be the latest term proposed, before we speak of it Khajidha just tell me what does 'Bantu people in South Africa' mean to you, I want to understand. Untrammeled (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say with "cater to be the latest term proposed". And I told you, "Bantu people in South Africa" means exactly what your proposal of Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples means, only it is something that someone would actually say. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ...and you imply you know English. There's no way Bantu peoples in South Africa can mean Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples, it's not as exclusive, it does cater to the title (includes it in the the Bantu people...title) but it's not the title, it talks of Bantus in South Africa but the article itself is exclusive to speak of Bantus/speakers of it from or of South Africa and you then tell me Bantu peoples in South Africa means that. This Wikipedia can be used for whatever intentions irregardless as long as this is the quality of participants it has to protect its content. You might have maybe taken to say my errors in my first title but I think you're not seeing things very well, look at Bantu peoples in South Africa to how does it define to be only about the local Bantu speakers of South Africa, this is ridiculous. Untrammeled (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * English phrases don't have to spell out their exact limitations in their wording, they are defined by their usage. And general usage shows that "Bantu peoples in South Africa" means exactly what I said. --Khajidha (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * General usage where, in South Africa or just people assuming it, imposing it. Some South Africans I know have never used Bantu as something related to their ethnicity, all actually, they are Black or African or whatever related to their micro terms. When you say general usage where is this used by South Africans? Let me not go off to earlier points, the point here is that you can see Bantu peoples in South Africa isn't speaking only of local South African native Bantu people so how can it title these people. Untrammeled (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 November 2019

 * 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. There are leanings toward changing the title, but discussion on that matter never reached a conclusion before launched a fourth RM. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples in South Africa → Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples – Proper titling for this article Untrammeled (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 * Support. Untrammeled (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - proposed name is unwieldy and not actually in use. Current title is simple, clear, and common. --Khajidha (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Khajidha common where? Name one/two more articles in Wikipedia named "Bantu peoples in...." than this one, you can't term indigenous people this way even more confusing Bantu speakers are all over the world who are you talking, an indigenous Tanzanian or an indigenous Malian who happen to be living in South Africa or an indigenous South African, this titling of yours or mine is for understanding not naming these people who never imposed on naming themselves together but put more respect in micro concepts of theirs but what I'm sure about is that they are not Bantu people but assure they speak Bantu languages if they are to use the term and on top of that you term them like tourists in South Africa. Untrammeled (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ethnic group in country" is the normal way of referring to ANY such group anywhere in the world, not just Bantu peoples. You are simply looking to misinterpret things. "Bantu peoples in South Africa" is understood by anyone who is actually competent in English to mean EXACTLY what you are trying to say. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Patronizing isn't going to go anywhere I asked multiple South Africans even an English speaking South African, out of 15 15 confused it for Generally talking of Bantu people while they carried on to admonish that Bantu people isn't used in South Africa. Here you talking about these people Wikipedia is not your diary or anyone else's diary yet you all confuse they correct term into some officiation, I'm not correctly titling this article for officiation but to correctly mean the content of the article, this title of Bantu peoples in South Africa has ulterior motives. Untrammeled (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, so only one of those 15 South Africans you asked was English speaking? How are the opinions of non-English speaking people relevant to the meaning of an English phrase? And given your own obvious deficiencies in understanding English, I doubt even the competence of the one person you identified as English speaking. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be more clearer than earlier all these people take English as their first language (meaning they use it more than any other language they know very well), the one person who I mentioned takes English as his home language that's the difference, therefore he speaks it beyond the activities he does with it, that isn't the point. The point is that at any point calling them or saying Bantu peoples in South Africa confuses them as to thinking you're generally speaking of Bantu speakers in South Africa, all of them including expatriates, refugees etc. with Bantu peoples of South Africa they mention more to themselves not being Bantu people but speakers of Bantu. I myself can't put Bantu people in South Africa meaning only Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples, it only includes them in the title Bantu peoples in South Africa and this ARTICLE is not about every bantu person or bantu speaking person in South Africa. Untrammeled (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are getting confused between "people" (individuals) and "peoples" (ethnic groups). --Khajidha (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Peoples is a plural for People, peoples doesn't mean ethnic groups usage in this article even if it did there are ethnic groups of expatriate bantu speaking people in South Africa, it doesn't, so this isn't error in semantics. Bantu ethnic groups of South Africa would even be much more sense than "IN" being used; Bantu ethnic groups in South Africa, if taken the way you put it. Bantu ethnic groups of South Africa is the same as Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples than Bantu ethnic groups in South Africa meaning exactly Bantu peoples in South Africa Untrammeled (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "People" meaning individuals is already plural. One person, two people. "People" is only singular in the sense of "an ethnic group" or "a nation". --Khajidha (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It should have been person than people on my previous talk: But then the issue becomes how would you distinguish between the indigenous Bantu speakers and migration of other Bantu nations in South Africa as time goes, this title relies on a weak stance, this term will eventually become outdated why not use "Bantu peoples of South Africa" it seems even more needed to being the title used. Untrammeled (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * so it is agreeable that Bantu peoples of South Africa is much more up to date and more reasonable within the changing world than Bantu peoples in South Africa. Untrammeled (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of a difference between those two options. The "of" version might have more of a historical overview feel, while the "in" might have more of a current events and conditions feel. But it's a very, very, very slight difference (if any).--Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That slight difference matters, taking in that the article is about these people if we ever reach a point of having to choose between two choices the one that seems to emphasize them must be the first. The "IN" version will become obsolete over time because it relies on things to remain unchanged the "OF" version can't really be tampered by time events, it can also be considered that these people consider themselves officially as Bantu speakers than Bantu nations, even though Bantu nations of South Africa is still imposing it's rather more regarding in historical lines. This though brings back the significance of Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples title as being the correct title even though Bantu peoples in South Africa might in its own way serve the purpose. Therefore Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is the correct title for this article don't you think even when you note the accommodating factor of this current title it's still incorrect. Untrammeled (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and again in a way from how South Africans take the usage of Bantu, Bantu peoples in South Africa or Bantu peoples of South Africa is the same as my "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages", it's calling people by a language(s) they speak. Untrammeled (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is a possible construction, I doubt that you will get much support for that name. "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages" is simply not a valid formulation in English. I don't know why you cannot seem to understand that. --Khajidha (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've long accepted "People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages" as invalid but I'm taking that it intended to name people by language, so as according to South Africans take on themselves Bantu peoples in South Africa does the same. Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is not really meant to be taken as to be officiated but intended to be for this particular article to be of a proper title meaning, on what logical sense would it not be worth supporting for this particular objective if everything is considered, opposing it would mean you're using insufficient information to form your opposition judgement. Untrammeled (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose of course. Another proposal for a garbled, verbose title to replace the perfectly good one we have now. Will you please stop opening RMs before the last one has closed! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is laughable you know nothing about these people and the title yet you think this is a perfectly good title, you think. Untrammeled (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And you apparently know little about the English language. So my suggestion would be not proposing titles on English Wikipedia until you learn a little more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages intended to name people by language than them speaking them, which isn't really English which you seem to know, so as according to South Africans's take on themselves Bantu peoples in South Africa does the same thing, naming them by language. Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples is not really meant to be taken as to be officiated but intended to be for this particular article to be of a proper title meaning, on what logical sense would it not be worth supporting for this particular objective if everything relevant to this subject is considered, opposing it would mean you're using insufficient information to form your opposition judgement. Untrammeled (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please just give it up! As has been pointed out to you again and again, the current title is both correct English and the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * yes it has been defended as correct English but mind I say how is this a common name, where in South Africa is this a common name because that's what you're inferring, no one from there refers to themselves as Bantu as a people but Bantu speakers and it's official not some hearsay, this is what makes this title incorrect as it changes to mean something else it becomes exactly like my first nominated title of People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages. What's confusing about what I'm saying. Untrammeled (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You do know this is English Wikipedia, not Bantu Wikipedia? All that matters is what the common name in English-language sources is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So how can an incorrect be taken as fitting because it's popular, so things do not change with better understanding they must remain ignorant is that what you're saying? Updated sources of definitions take these people as speakers of Bantu, it's not limited to any Wikipedia but more like common sense dictates it, but you insist on an obsolete prevailing, that's what is strange here. Another main point was directed in that "Natively Bantu..." title is not to officiate but specifically for this article of special interest's development and understanding. Untrammeled (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Its article titles reflect common usage. It is not a medium to change the world. Similar arguments are used in the endless attempts to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv". They don't wash there and they won't wash here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I definitely think you know you don't have any point you're even lying now, saying this is similar to Kiev (English) and Kyiv (romanticized) issues, which I won't go into. The outline is over these dialog(s) it was broken down that Bantu represents languages spoken by over 400 DIFFERENT ethnic groups of Africa, over and over again, it is not common usage applying to these natively Bantu speakers of South Africa, for specifics not even legislatively, than mistakenly taken so in this current usage, it's not only outdated but also not a correct form of English per the reasons given here, therefore Bantu peoples in South Africa is no different to my invalid proposal of People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages title, as you yourself opposed correctly so as I quote YOU: Yes, yes, I understand the sense. It's just appalling English (you don't say people of a language). And not the common name, which is the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48 am, 22 November 2019, Friday (9 days ago) (UTC+2), Bantu peoples in South Africa is appalling English you didn't realize before because you likely lacked more information, now you know this title is not only incorrect you're just opposing on "just because you want to" grounds, you have no valid point for it. Untrammeled (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And those 400 ethnic groups are collectively called "Bantu peoples". This is the common English term. --Khajidha (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These 400+ ethnic groups overall in Africa are different that's what you're not saying, others as different as Dutch and Germans, others as English and Spaniards, others more traditionally relate-able like other groups related in the world, indigenous South African bantu speakers are of that respect too, they are about 8+ ethnic groups and primarily declare they speak Bantu, some traditionally share a language but different ethnically e.g. Xhosa and Thembu, others are of the same Ethnic group but traditionally don't share a language e.g. Zulu and Shangana/e of Soshangane (Gaza empire) now of Tsonga speakers. This article is about them, only them. Bantu as explained is an umbrella term of the languages spoken by these people to these specific people, in old common English it was taken like that like many terms around the world likely derogatory or disregarding of how these people are to themselves, the point here is about the facts of the title and understanding, an English speaking person not knowing anything about these people is likely to confuse the article by the title as to who's spoken of here. Adding to that Bantu peoples in South Africa when applied to these specific people is exactly like People of Indigenous South African bantu-languages (saying people of a language(s)), if taken as in the old or what you call common English I guess as you're forcing the stance which is outdated it's derogatory to them, unless this article was involving more than the indigenous South Africans of natively Bantu speaking terms (meaning if this article involved extraneous Bantu speakers), there won't really be any issues than consolidating for them because I strongly assume(as I've never heard or confident in guarantee there are people taking themselves as Bantus in Africa), that other Bantu speakers take themselves as Bantus, id. Untrammeled (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are making less and less sense. "Bantu peoples" can easily contain groups as different as Dutch and German, just as both of those are contained in the terms "Germanic peoples" or "Teutonic peoples". If I hadn't seen you so massively confused by this title, I would confidently have stated that no English speaker would be confused by it. But that says more about you than the title. --Khajidha (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How I take English linguistics isn't really any definition to me in my priorities, as to how good I am with it. But you telling me Bantu peoples in South Africa or elaborated to Bantu nations in South Africa means to you as speaking of Indigenous South African PEOPLE only, as this article, is dubious as to thinking time has stopped, maybe Bantu peoples of South Africa might have grounds to meaning natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans, but Bantu peoples in South Africa. I don't see it and Bantu peoples/nations in South Africa seems more undermining or condescending to these people it makes them more detached from their homeland/country of South Africa, let alone them taking only Bantu as languages they speak. I also noticed there are no other articles in ENGLISH Wikipedia named Bantu peoples in... primarily, when speaking of such people other than this article it talks of their actual Ethnic groupings and emphasizes of them being of a place, Bantu peoples in South Africa in titling is so insufficient it's obvious. So I'm going to ask you between Bantu peoples in South Africa and Bantu peoples of South Africa which is is more correct to name these people . Untrammeled (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you before, there is little to no difference between these two phrasings. Some authors might use one, while others use the other. Some might draw a distinction (as I described to you before), others might not. But, overall, you can't really say that one is "more correct". --Khajidha (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if you're denying there's difference between IN and OF in this instance or just forcing your stance, Bantu peoples of South Africa is more Correct for consistency this article must be Bantu peoples of South Africa and it isn't something to be argued, it doesn't change the article it even puts more basic understanding. It will be inline like the articles of Bantu peoples of Somalia, and I don't really mind subjective authors who write about these people I'd like to enjoy reading articles off of Wikipedia than nonsense of detached titles that seem to have ulterior motives than the facts. I noticed you poked some sort of vandalism as if the addition was actually wrong and noticed you thought of it nonsensical than really having points about basis to probably formulation of basic English, that wasn't vandalism probably clarity of some sort. Untrammeled (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I told you, I have no preference between "in" and "of" here, both mean the same people. However, "elaborately" is an adverb. Something can be "elaborately decorated" but "elaborately Bantu peoples" doesn't mean anything. If it wasn't vandalism, it was still an unneeded and incomprehensible addition. --Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is there now three move requests? This is why I move protected the page in the first place as Untrammeled can't settle on one name for the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have in the last open request, the other two are closed, I learned my errors about my first title from Khajidha and looked to find something English worthy,CambridgeBayWeather lock in Natively Bantu-speaking Indigenous South African peoples that's all. Untrammeled (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And as I told you in that discussion, while this phrasing is comprehensible, it is not something that would actually be used in English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they're not closed just because you say so. It's always a good idea to learn about Wikipedia procedure before you start doing things like opening RMs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Necrothesp Maybe that can happen when sense starts really existing in these sensitive articles, I wouldn't really know how they look closed but notice 'WAS' is used on the previous two, it isn't that the time has lapsed because the second one is about two days old. Untrammeled (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: What title meets WP guidelines and best reflects this article's contents?
I just formally closed the two prior RMs: one because there was clear consensus in the discussion against the move, and one because the proposer withdrew their proposal (or created this one to supersede it). Looking at the discussion, here's what I'm seeing: Rather than focus on a specific name, I want to refocus discussion around a number of points. Again, I see why there are legitimate concerns about the article remaining at this title. However, I think we need to work to generate consensus among a wide number of editors for a new title, and a discussion about what title would work is the best way forward. Until such consensus is reached, however, the status quo ante will be maintained, and the article will remain at this title. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * has legitimate concerns about the phrasing of "Bantu peoples" in the title, based on the current meaning and implications of the term in South Africa.
 * Untrammeled has proposed various names, many of which have been objected to because they are cumbersome in English or are outright grammatically incorrect.
 * Discussion has proceeded around a pattern of objections to the new name.
 * 1) Is the article about peoples based upon ethnicity/lineage, or is it based on their first language?
 * 2) How are these people(s) identified in other articles? Can we harmonize the terminology? I notice that in a template at the bottom of the article, "Bantu-speaking" is used with the link to this article.
 * 3) If it is based upon ethnicity, what term do we need to use in the article to reflect current accepted usage? (By comparison: One of my most recent edits was an article about indigenous peoples in the United States. An unregistered editor had changed the article to the outdated term "Indians"; I reverted back to "Native Americans", which is the most common name for such people in the US.)
 * 4) If it is based upon language, do we need some qualifier such as "native speakers of" to specify people(s) for whom these are their native languages?
 * 5) Does the term reflect common usage? WP:COMMONNAME provides guidance for this area of article naming.
 * Answers --

1- The article is about indigenous South African Ethnic groups that speak languages under the umbrella term called Bantu.

2-They are identified as Black South African (with a elaboration besides it), African which is fading to reason as it is ridiculous for South Africa is in Africa, never have these people id themselves as Bantus but they take it as their languages that's where it ends.

3-They aren't of a single Ethicity. Bantu nations in South Africa titling is outdated and derogatory to these specific people. We also find out it isn't the right usage of English if Bantu is taken as languages because people speak languages they are not of languages when you id them

4-It was explained in a dialog that native South African is somewhat outdated based on that native terminologies are outdated in South Africa hence using Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South African peoples titling, and not all native South Africans speak Bantu traditionally

5-This Bantu peoples/nations isn't really common but mistakenly taken so, what's common is Bantu speakers when using Bantu even across other African countries as far as I know. Untrammeled (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would say that it is the common usage. Britannica has an article on "Bantu peoples". The Institut Pasteur conducted genomic research on these people and reported the results using Bantus, Bantu peoples, and Bantu-speaking peoples in free variation in their press release. "Bantu peoples" was even used in direct quotations from the researchers themselves. This is normal anthropological terminology. --Khajidha (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Between Bantu peoples of South Africa/Bantu peoples from South Africa and Bantu peoples in South Africa, which should be for this article ? Untrammeled (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no preference among those options, they are all equivalent. --Khajidha (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ghf Second.jpg
 * Gold-anklet-coils from Maphungubwe.jpg
 * Maphungubwe art.jpg
 * PrvNguni cattle 7.jpg

Requested move 2 December 2019

 * 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: procedural close. No comments on this requested move other than the nominator, who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, in almost three weeks. Kinu t/c 16:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bantu peoples in South Africa → Bantu peoples of South Africa – In this instance there is significance in using OF and IN, they do not change the article but for this article to be inline to articles like Bantu peoples of Somalia, consistency and standard of Wikipedia Untrammeled (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm abandoning the Natively Bantu-speaking indigenous South Africans request as participants deny how South Africans take themselves on basis of something common among English first language speakers, I won't trouble it as I've noticed other African countries seem to accept that they are ethnically Bantu from the articles written here so that might automate the assumption across the board, wrong, right, imposition or origin I won't really do more than this. This latest request is more based on Wikipedia standards. Untrammeled (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It is implicit that the nominator supports their own proposal. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maybe the real issue is what links here?
An article of this name should be entirely reasonable and innocent. The topic is notable and not intrinsically value-laden. For me, the shock was to arrive at this article via a wp:pipe from 'black South African'. For US readers, this is equivalent of clicking on 'black American' and ending up at the N word. The Apartheid regime used the term Bantu pejoratively for all black South Africans, irrespective of their language or ethnic group. It invented the Bantustans to make black South Africans effectively stateless and without even vestigial rights in their own country. The word carries a huge burden of history.

But can we move forward? Can we begin to treat this article like Swahili people, just factual? I suggest that maybe we can, but only if we rigorously police what links here for sloppy/lazy pipes. Does that make sense? --Red King (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by this discussion. Black South Africans and Black South African both redirect to Indigenous_people_of_South_Africa - not to 'Bantu peoples in South Africa'.


 * Also, if the article introduction is true, and referring to a group of people as 'Bantu people(s)' is considered offensive, then the content about those people should probably be moved to an article title that is neutral. Content about the racist term could be a section in that article, or its own article, as suggested above.


 * There is also an article section related to this here: Ethnic_groups_in_South_Africa.  Not sure how that fits in. LaTeeDa (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently, someone came up with a clever solution to the problem, just look a 'what links here' and link it to something neutral. Like all good ideas, so simple that I want to know why I didn't think of it first. --Red King (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A bigger problem with this article
The topic of this article is an important one, in part because the untruth that the Bantu-culture people only arrived in South Africa around the same time as the European people is widely believed and propagated in English speaking countries if not also elsewhere.

The article reads as though it was first written embodying that untruth, and then others have then added material to debunk that. However, the truth would be much better represented by beginning with the idea that the Bantu-culture people have been living in South Africa for at least 2000 years, and providing as equal a weight to each of those years as possible.

Regarding the name of this entry: outside of southern Africa, the term "Bantu" completely lacks the derogatory associations it has within it. As this article is written in South African English however, the use of the word is problematic. Unfortunately, there is no sufficiently specific alternate word that exists to describe the topic. Hence the use of it throughout the South African history articles on Wikipedia.

This article might be productively merged with Early history of South Africa to lessen the perceived differentiation between "Bantu" and "Khoisan" people, but the term "Bantu" would still be necessary within that article.Transient-understanding (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)