Talk:Bunda people

Query
Does anybody know whether (or not) this ethnic group is part of the Mbunda people living in Angola and Zambia?? -- Aflis (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Aflis (talk), Without doubt the following source explains the connection; Almanac of African Peoples & Nations, page 523. By Muḥammad Zuhdī Yakan, Transaction Publishers, Putgers - The State University, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, New Jersey 008854-8042, ISBN 1-56000-433, apart from "Robert Papstein, 1994, The History and Cultural Life of the Mbunda Speaking People, Lusaka Cheke Cultural Writers Association, page 5, ISBN 99 820 3006X". I have done some edits regarding the same. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pages 104 and 105
Yes, these pages do mention Mbunda and Sudan. However, SEPARATELY - it mentions the Mbunda arriving in Southern Africa and it mentions that grain cultivation was invented in Sudan. I really fail to understand how that possibly somehow says to you that "the Mbunda people come from Sudan". If you could build up a case at Bantu migrations/ Bantu migration theory about an ALTERNATIVE theory about where the Bantu peoples come from, that would be interesting. However, trying to single out the Mbunda as coming from Sudan/ Egypt, is really only working against your credibility and bona fides. You are really becoming very tiring and confirming that your motives are Mbunda-centric, whereas we work towards an encyclopedia that is as neutral and unabiased as possible. You could help by contributing your knowledge, but unfortunately you are hellbent on carving out a place in the sun for the Mbunda. After all, it is your job, so I guess I have to accept that I will never see any neutral edits out of you. You are paid to do this, unlike the rest of us who give up of our time to do this. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I can assure you no one is paid for what here. It is all voluntary. We are all trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. It is good to see that you are explaining these sources. thanks once more. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Rui Gabriel Correia: Emerging slowly from a long spell of health problems, I am returning to, i.a., the Mbunda articles in which I became interested more than a year ago. Here I should like to try and clarify a bit the situation that gave rise to the above controversy. The point is that Nandula Libingi and his group have carried out most impressive research among Mbunda elders about whate these "know" about the Mbunda and especially their history. The main results have been published in a book edited by the (British? American?) anthropologist Robert Papstein. The problem is that these oral history sources are by the group considered as infallible, and what they say as a kind of reveiled truth. Now, as historians are well aware, oral traditions are almost never reliable, at least not entirely, and thus can thus not be used as trustworthy sources. What the can is suggest alleys for historical research based on other sources. Thus the question is not one of the group being deliberately biased in favour of Mbunda grandeur, and much less of their being paid for such a "job", but it is one of a fundamental methodological error. Which leads i.a. to the baffling assertion you are pointing out: the Mbunda oral traditions has it that they originally come from the Sudan, but this flatly contradicts everything the long standing historical research on the Bantu migrations has found out until today....Now, what is the best way to go about this situation. I confess I am somewhat uncomfortable with the radical way in which you have now cut out a long paragraph on the origina of the Mbunda. My feeling is that this kind auf "cleaning" is goint too far. I would prefer to maintain that text, changing perhaps some of its wording, and specifying that the information is given by oral tradition. In this manner, oral tradition can be put to use as a suggestion for historical research. De acordo? Aflis (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Aflis: Firstly, glad to hear that your health is on the up. The very very short answer to your question is very simple. There is also a long answer. The short answer is this: Yes, "Bunda" is an alternative spelling for "Mbunda", a Bantu people living in south-eastern Angola and western Zambia. However, the article in question, is about the "Bunda" a people of and living in the DRC. The two share a name, they are not related.
 * The long answer: Ndandulanlibingi has been polluting the project with his folklore theories of the migration of the Mbunda from the Sundan, to the DRC, from the DRC to south-eastern Angola. Just because there is a people called Bunda in the DRC, his band of merry men have cobbled together a whole tale for the move from the DRC to Angola. This claim rested on an error in an entry in Ethnologue. I challenged Ethnologue, they admitted the error and as you and he can personally confirm, Ethnologue has since removed any connection between the two groups. It saddens me that you are prepared to believe Ndandulalibingi's fanciful notions and the damage he has been doing to Wikipedia, with arrogant claims about how superior the Mbunda were and how easily they conquered their way through inferior peoples - yes, he calls them them "inferior". He has in at least seven articles claimed that the Mbunda are "one of the largest ethinc groups in Southern Africa"? Are you going to defend that? He also has the habit of including on any page vaguely associated with the Mbundas large tracts of highly irrelevant information about the Munda people, sometimes twice as much information as the article as a whole, which is against WP:UNDUE, WP:WEIGHT, etc.. Just like he adds his usual fice entries on Mbunda issues under the "See also" section of such articles. Imagine adding similar entries for all the other peoples/ languages/ tribes? He also uses people like you - as he has done on a number of occasions that I personally read, some in response to me - to validate what he does, claiming that the two of you had an understanding on accepting his claims and his sources. It is said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I'd like to challenge you and Ndandulalibingi to go to Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples and include the theory of the migration from Sudan. It is not the first time that I have asked him to do this, which he obviously ignored. Also please quote Papstein, whose book was written as job paid commissioned by the Mbunda Cultural Council, which constitutes blatant WP:COI. Please also quote Pélissier and the other sources that Ndandulalibingi repeatedly uses and let's [see] how it goes. It is very easy to get away with fringe sources on obscure articles, so let's see how these sources are viewed in an article of high visibility such as Bantu expansion and Bantu peoples, where a lot of serious experienced editors are continuously involved. Besides sources, much of the editor in question's writing is thumb-sucked and would fail the mildest of tests of impartiality, unless you feel that this and this is the kind of stuff that an encyclopedia should be proud of. So I do sincerely hope that when you come back, "returning to, i.a., the Mbunda articles in which I became interested" you will endeavour to make them look and sound professional. Which reminds me, it is on record that you tried to get Ndandulalibingi to work to the rules and style of the project. Where did that get you? As far as I recall (no time to look it up now), his reply was not what you were expecting. Two other people that tried to help him also cut ties with him and left it very clear that they were no longer prepared to work with him. They left him very stern messages about his repeat behaviour in violation of the project rules. I am surprised that you are not aware of this. This will do for now. I, for one, will not put up with this sort of folklore and myth and legends dressed up as history. I welcome your suggestion on information obtained from oral tradition "specifying that the information is given by oral tradition", but this is not for us to decide, but for the project - a section of the folklore history of a people. I bet you that once we get that for all the peoples in Angola you will see that each will be claiming to have been the most powerful with a huge territory, and when you add up all the territory that each claims to have controlled, it will not fit in the whole of Africa. Tenho dito Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) Please leave your infallible statements to yourself. They are not gospel truth. You claimed under Mbunda languange that Mbunda was never chosen as one of the National languages of Angola. The number of sources since given prove you wrong. What makes the world believe your concocted claims above? You want to destroy the empirical of the Mbunda and their kingdom having originated from Congo and the confluence of of Kwilu and Kasai rivers, when there is a source reference to it. Come own, don't hide behind the sheep skin. Who is paid by the Emil Pearson Foundation to promote Nganguela language?????? Until a consensus is reached, I will notallow you to polute my articles. Eastern Angola ethnic groups are not adequately researched. Every effort to do so must be encouraged. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bunda of the DRC and the Mbunda
@ Aflis: You might also at your leisure compare the infoboxes for Mbunda language and Mpuono language spoken by the Bunda of the DRC. I do believe these speak for themselves. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

..Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) I am supprised you are mixing Mbunda language or Mpuono language and Mbunda people and Bunda people. You are supposed to know that better. Even the Mbunda spoken in Angola and Zambia by the same Mbunda people is not the same. So you cannot conclude therefore that because the Mbunda people of Angola and Congo speak different languages, then they are not from the same origin. Ndandulalibingi (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ndandulalibingi, you are the one who is confused - you are the one who filled the page about the Bunda with information about the Mbunda. Must I pull up the history for you, or could you look it up by yourself? 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

.. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) Pull it up!!!! You know nothing about the Mbunda, the Lunda, the Bemba, the Luvale and others that they originate from KOla, in the now Congo. The Portuguese had no interest in the history of the Eastern part now Angola, until the early 1900s. Who could have researched the history you claim to pull out. Respect other researchers. Robert Papstern is a respected researcher than you, he has done a lot to bring out the history of these ethnicity. What have you done? Pull it out men!!! The source René Pélissier was inroduced by Aflis not me. Let us be factual, the Bantu migration or expansion remains a debatable issue. Don't you that? Ndandulalibingi (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, let's remove Pélissier. I'll remove him from the request I made for you to test your sources. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mbunda - Bunda
Hi Aflis. I find it extremely odd that you seem to be confused about the difference between Mbunda and Bunda, when you yourself added a note to this effect, alerting readers to the fact that there are different languages. Please see your edit here in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Except that the spelling of the two is diffent and the reference to Ethnologue is wrong - either your error or theirs, as they also had it all mixed up, but have since corrected it. Regrads, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't you mixing language and people yourself? Ndandulalibingi (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)