Talk:Bhunu

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mswati III of Swaziland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2026

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Ngwane V → Bhunu – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. ZS Khumalo (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I propose that this article be moved to "Bhunu", as this is the name by which the king is overwhelmingly known in Swazi history, by current commoners in Eswatini Kingdom and confirmed also by all oral tradition and scholarly works which refer to him Bhunu.

While "Ngwane V" appears as a regnal classification, it was not the primary name used during his lifetime, nor is it the name by which he is commonly referred to in historical narratives.

Within the many academic articles, the subject is consistently referred to as "Bhunu" or "Mahlokohla", with "Ngwane V" appearing mainly in confirming who the subject is.

The name "Bhunu" (meaning "Boer") reflects the historical context of his birth in 1876, a period marked by intensified interaction between the Swazi kingdom and Boer settlers. He was the son of King Mbandzeni, the first Swazi king to have sustained direct dealings with Dutch ('Boers') and British colonial authorities.

Per Wikipedia’s article title policy (WP:COMMONNAME), articles should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. This approach is consistent with naming practices for other Swazi monarchs such as King Ndvungunye (Mavuso II), Sobhuza I (Ngwane IV) and Sobhuza II (Ngwane V), whose articles are not titled using Ngwane regnal numbers.

Please consider moving, "Ngwane V" to "Bhunu". ZS Khumalo (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment. As the new page reviwer who reverted the undiscussed move, I did so because the page had been at "Ngwane V" for virtually its entire history until moved on 26 January and it seemed appropriate to discuss a page move related to a monarch. Wikipedia articles on monarchs often use the regnal name, although I will admit I am unfamiliar with Eswatini royal naming conventions and WP:SOVEREIGN does not address that specifically. As for WP:COMMONNAME, it does appear that "Bhunu" is more common in the literature (see the Dictionary of African Biography, Dictionary of African Historical Biography) although there is also literature that favors Ngwane V as the primary identifer (see Eldredge, Encyclopedia of African Religion. Based on my search of the sources, I think a move to Bhunu would likely be the best outcome but I would like to hear input from other editors with expertise in Eswatini and/or royal naming conventions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  For Bhunu I strongly believe the Ngwana V name is not appropriate. I actually live in the Mpumalanga village of Badplaas, near the border with Eswatini and we speak the language and culturally share everything with people of the Kingdom of Eswatini.

  I know that most people are aware that at some time Eswatini had a King called 'Bhunu'.

  Most are not even aware that he was also called Mahlokoka and Hhili; they just know Bhunu. ZS Khumalo (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Support as the common name per analysis by Dclemens1971, worth noting the Encyclopedia of African Religion is by Molefi Asante et al. and is borderline fringe (it has so many errors, and imo resembles pseudohistory, shocking it got published by SAGE) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency, if naught else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.