# Talk:Albert Luthuli

I have undone the recent IP edit again.  I checked the citation given for "gone to work" (the change in the body) and it does not support this wording.  IP, I will leave a message on your talk page as well, but see WP:EDITWAR; when your edits are reverted the right answer is to discuss the proposed edit on the talk page.  I don't have a strong opinion on your proposed edit but others have disagreed, so get consensus here before re-adding the information.  See also WP:3RR, which is a rule that explicitly forbids repeatedly reverting other editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 07:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I see you've moved on from the previously provided reasons in the first part, to the only minor change in the sentence in the Early life section. ("gone to work"). Well, the citation provided (Woodson, D) itself states, a) the family's origin of Cetwayo's household (Natal), b) the nature of the family's presence in Bulawayo, Southern Rhodesia at the  time of Albert's birth (i.e. father's work as missionary-interpreter at SDA-mission near Bulawayo) and, c) the family's return to Natal.
This is written explicitly in the citation provided [Albert Luthuli and the African National Congress: A Bio-Bibliography Author(s): Dorothy C. Woodson Source: History in Africa, Vol. 13 (1986), pp. 345-362], so saying an explicit statement does not support its own wording is an odd claim to make. 197.233.127.232 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
My main objection to your edit, and I can’t speak for @GeographicAccountant:, is that the phrase “South African Zulu family” seems redundant. The article already states that Luthuli’s family were from Natal and only temporarily living in Rhodesia. His roots in Natal are covered throughout the Early life section, and even in the header: “In 1908 he moved to Groutville, where his parents and grandparents had lived.” For clarity and conciseness, I suggest reverting to simply “Zulu family.” Thanks. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
So the reason I say South African Zulu family (and I explained this in a previous edit description) is that Zulu is an ethnonym. A Zulu person can exist anywhere, particularly in that region. But this article is about Albert Luthuli and his personal circumstances and origins.
He came from a South African Zulu family, was born ABROAD and moved back at age 10.This is the primary frame of reference of early importance in his life and was not mentioned before. If it didn't belong in the summation, then neither would the rest of the information in the summation section which was reverted back to.
(Also as an aside, in the later 'early life' section this would have to be inferred, rather than be explicitly clear to the casual browser. It belongs in the summation too, for as long as his birth location is mentioned in the summation.) 197.233.127.232 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
1.) “Zulu is an ethnonym. A Zulu person can exist anywhere, particularly in that region.”
That’s generally true, but it’s not relevant here. The article already clearly establishes that Luthuli and his family were South African. There is no ambiguity about the Zulu identity in this case.
2.) “But this article is about Albert Luthuli and his personal circumstances and origins.”
Every biographical article is about someone’s personal circumstances and origins. That doesn’t justify inserting every detail into the lead.
3.) “He came from a South African Zulu family, was born ABROAD and moved back at age 10.”
He moved to Groutville where his family was from. The lead already makes it clear that he is South African.
4.) “This is the primary frame of reference of early importance in his life and was not mentioned before.”
Wikipedia’s lead is not intended to carry every contextual detail or “frame of reference.” That is what the article body is for. Unless national identity is ambiguous or central to notability, adding redundant clarifications like “South African Zulu family” in the lead is unnecessary and inconsistent with Wikipedia norms.
5.) “If it didn’t belong in the summation, then neither would the rest of the information in the summation section which was reverted back to.”
Just because one detail was removed doesn't mean all lead content is invalid. The criterion isn’t “either everything stays or nothing does” it’s whether each element adds clarity, relevance, and efficiency to the summary
6.) “In the later 'early life' section this would have to be inferred, rather than be explicitly clear to the casual browser. It belongs in the summation too, for as long as his birth location is mentioned in the summation.”
a.) Wikipedia does not spoon-feed every contextual detail in the lead. It assumes a reasonable reader can navigate a page for themselves and explore for full context.
b.) We don’t need to mirror every nuance from the body in the lead. That’s why longer clarifications, such as family background, are deferred to the main text
c.) Plenty of bios list someone’s foreign birth without adding redundant ethnicity+nationality combos: Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi: “born in Iraq to Persian parents” (not “Iranian Persian.”)
Arnold Rodrigues was born in Dar es Salaam, Tanganyika, to Goan parents, before being sent to a boarding school Monte de Guirim School in Bardez, Goa, India. (not “Indian Goan parents.”) Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
As for the 3rd issue, @GeographicAccountant claimed that the phrase stating that he individually went "back" to Groutville was at issue, as he hadn't been proven to be before. Well, the word "back" had been removed.
This covers the given issues: 1)  citation/source needed for the changes in the summation section (was provided),
2) the statement "he went back to Groutville" (phrased instead as "he went to Groutville, where his family was from"),
3) the South African Zulu family (clarified as being a description of Luthuli's personal familial origins, not simply a mention of generic ethnicity which could be anywhere) and,
4) claim that his family having gone to Bulawayo for work in the "early life" section was not supported by citation (I show that it is not only supported by, but is explicitly stated by the citation source.) 197.233.127.232 (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
"That's generally true, but not relevant here" Of course it's relevant here, you reverted to his ethnicity, when what is of relevance is the context of his birth in Bulawayo. Him being a South African (Zulu) abroad is salient,not being Zulu.
"Every biographical article is about someone’s personal circumstances and origins. That doesn’t justify inserting every detail into the lead." At  issue is the reference of HIS individual family's origin, rather than a generic ethnonym  ALREADY IN THE LEAD. Again,  by that logic, the reverted text is far less relevant to the lead than simply stating that he is from a South African Zulu family. A person can be South African by any other circumstance. THE LEAD mentions his childhood circumstances far beyond this  concise fact about his individual defining circumstance.
"The lead already makes it clear that he is South African."  Again, a person can be South African by many circumstances. Him being from a South African family at birth abroad is concisely provided by the  edit, not by the reversion.
"Wikipedia’s lead is not intended to carry every contextual detail or “frame of reference." It isn't providing EVERY frame of reference. The reference was already provided IN THE LEAD before the edit: his birth/childhood.  The edit provides the salient point/frame of that birth/childhood context concisely.
"The criterion isn’t “either everything stays or nothing does” it’s whether each element adds clarity, relevance, and efficiency to the summary" Bingo! The summation IN THE  LEAD of the birth/chilhood is provided to the reader's understanding of Luthuli's birth circumstance far more CONCISELY, efficiently & clearly by the edit, than by the previous reversion.
"Wikipedia does not spoon-feed every detail in the lead...." No one said it does. Again, what it should do is provide relevant information  in concisely high-value summation, providing the relevant context as clearly summarized as possible. The information relevant to Luthuli's childhood context is provided most concisely and clearly by my edit.  The fact that his childhood context was in the lead at all wasn't my decision.
Also being born in Tanganyika of Goan parents implies Indian origins. It infers the context. Being born to South African Zulu parents most concisely imparts that he was a South African born abroad, not a later naturalized Zimbabwean, which the only pre-edit mention of "South African activist" could imply. Again my edit is therefore the most efficient, concise, high-value imparting of given information in the lead.
197.233.244.232 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
1.) "Of course it's relevant here, you reverted to his ethnicity, when what is of relevance is the context of his birth in Bulawayo. Him being a South African (Zulu) abroad is salient, not being Zulu."
The lead shouldn't over-explain why he’s South African if it’s not key to notability. Saying “Zulu” reflects a relevant cultural background; “South African Zulu” adds unnecessary nationality redundancy, especially when "South African" is already in the lead/article. “South African Zulu” is a modern political formulation applied to a pre-Union (1910) birth. It’s both anachronistic and verbose. You wouldn't say Julius Caesar was born to an Italian Roman family.
2.)"At issue is the reference of HIS individual family's origin, rather than a generic ethnonym ALREADY IN THE LEAD... the reverted text is far less relevant... A person can be South African by any other circumstance."
But his family’s national origin is not unique or defining unless it shaped his notability, which it didn’t. He wasn’t notable for being born to a "South African" family in Rhodesia. Him being born to a Zulu family is far more important because his father was a translator for the Ndebele people. Furthermore, he became notable as a Zulu chief and then a subsequent anti-apartheid activist. In other words, his Zulu identity, which shaped his chieftainship and political rise, has more notability weight than the detail of his parents' "citizenship" status at his birth. Lastly, again, South Africa didn't exist in 1898 so it's hard to say that his parents (probably born in the 1860s) were a South African family. Their ethnicity, especially living in such a traditional area, was more important.
3.)"Again, what it should do is provide relevant information in concisely high-value summation"
That’s exactly why “Zulu” is fine and “South African Zulu” is excessive. His birthplace is relevant and already covered. His ethnic identity is relevant and clearly expressed as “Zulu”. Adding "South African Zulu" doesn’t clarify anything new. It tries to resolve a problem that doesn’t exist.
4.)"Also being born in Tanganyika of Goan parents implies Indian origins..."
Great. If being born to Goan parents in Tanganyika is understood to imply Indian origins without needing to spell out ‘Indian Goan,’ then the same logic applies to Zulu. Zulu is overwhelmingly associated with South Africa, it’s not a diasporic or ambiguous identity. So yes, it’s just as obvious that Luthuli was born to Zulus from South Africa. Adding ‘South African’ before Zulu doesn’t clarify anything; it restates what’s already evident.
5.)"Being born to South African Zulu parents most concisely imparts that he was a South African born abroad, not a later naturalized Zimbabwean, which the only pre-edit mention of "South African activist" could imply."
Your concern that people could misunderstand Luthuli as a naturalized South African citizen from Zimbabwe is unfounded. First, there is no evidence, in scholarship or public understanding, that Luthuli’s South African identity has ever been misunderstood or debated in that way. Second, the lead already specifies his place of birth (Bulawayo) and his upbringing in South Africa, which together provide more than enough clarity. Wikipedia does not preempt hypothetical misunderstandings with redundant labels in the lead. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
1)"The lead shouldn't over-explain..."
It doesn't. It states the circumstances of his birth.There is nothing redundant about the core circumstances of a Natal chief's birth abroad in a lead that goes into all sorts of other elements of his childhood.
Also "South African" is commonly used for references belonging to the Empire mining economy-affiliated colonies (ZAR, OFS, Natal & Cape) prior to the Union of South Africa. Rome was millennia ago.
But equally it's irrelevant: I have no problem stating from a 'Natal Zulu family'  instead.
2) "But his family’s national origin is not unique..."
At issue isn't his family origin being unique, but the point of HIS (individual) birth circumstance being salient in the lead, in which his birth condition is mentioned.
To the person of Albert Luthuli, being born abroad is salient, not being Zulu like millions of other people.
Contrary to your claim, their ethnicity, as common as it is here, isn't more important at all.
And saying he was notable  for being a Zulu CHIEF makes my point for me. His Chieftaincy is tied to a geographical location in Natal. That a person of the lineage who would take it up was outside of the community at the time of his birth is the concise, salient point of his birth.
Far more relevant than rambling about his uncle..., or about being a sole teacher..., or about accepting a bursary once...., all of which is in the lead.
3) "Zulu is fine-- birthplace covered & ethnicity relevant...."
Again this isn't the salient point. The circumstances of the future chief being born abroad instead of Natal is far more  relevant and the information is provided in concise form by simply stating it.
4) "...If being born to Goan parents in Tanganyika is understood to imply Indian origins without needing to spell out ‘Indian Goan,’ then the same logic applies to Zulu."
There is no Goa in Africa. It implies a location in India. Zulu is not a location, nor were Zulu-speaking people confined to one.
Going back 200 years, there are Zulus that moved all the way up to Malawi & Tanganyika. Saying "born to Zulu parents" only implies what language they speak. At issue is Chief Albert Luthuli (the individual this article is about) and the circumstance of his birth abroad.
(Also this in fact was NOT mentioned before that point, as this is the first mention of the salient circumstance of his birth, so cannot be called stating it again.) 197.233.0.9 (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I’ve noticed that your attempts to insert a geographic label, first “South African,” now “Natal”, into “Zulu family” seem to shift depending on the argument: is it meant to clarify ethnicity, birthplace/nationality, or chieftaincy? None of these reasons hold up and it seems like you're backpedaling. This shift from insisting on “South African Zulu family” to proposing “Natal Zulu family” just reveals inconsistencies. It looks like your primary goal is simply to add a geographic label, even though neither “South African” nor “Natal” is historically precise or necessary to convey Luthuli’s identity or notability. This change suggests the label is more a matter of personal preference than essential context. Again, for consistency with comparable biographies, simply using “Zulu family” is the most accurate and appropriate choice.
You keep emphasizing the salience of Luthuli’s birth circumstances, but his birth in Rhodesia is already mentioned clearly in both the lead and body of the article. What’s salient, and what justifies his notability, is his public identity as a South African, a Zulu chief, and an anti-apartheid leader. The fact that he was born outside South Africa may be interesting, but it did not shape his public life or legacy in any enduring way. It’s a biographical detail, not the defining feature of his significance. The idea that a Zulu chief was born abroad might be surprising, but it’s not notable. At best, it’s a trivia question at a pub, not the cornerstone of the lead. Also, saying that I'm "rambling about his uncle..., being a sole teacher..., accepting a bursary once..." doesn’t make the info less relevant, nor does it prove that his birth location is more important.
Also, “Zulu” is not just a linguistic label, it’s an ethnic identity with deep historical and geographic roots in South Africa. The term carries clear cultural and political associations, especially with the old Zulu Kingdom in what is now KwaZulu-Natal. That legacy doesn’t extend meaningfully to places like Malawi or Tanganyika, where scattered Zulu-speaking individuals may have existed.
Your mention of distant Zulu migrations actually reinforces my point. If Luthuli had been part of a long-standing Zulu diaspora rooted in Malawi and distinct from the core South African population then identifying him as a Malawian Zulu might be necessary. But he wasn’t. His family were Zulus from South Africa temporarily living abroad. That’s already made clear by stating he was born in Southern Rhodesia to Zulu parents. No additional geographic label like “Natal Zulu” is needed in the lead unless the goal is to insert redundant details. I'll give a real example. In the article Tamer Hassan we see: "Hassan was born and brought up in New Cross, London into a Turkish Cypriot family." On Josef Altin's page we see: "Altin was born in London, to a Turkish family" which illustrates that a geographic or sub-ethnic label is only added when it meaningfully distinguishes the group (mainly a minority), and not by default (For example, it doesn’t say Altin was born to an Ankara Turkish or Istanbul Turkish family, because when we read ‘Turkish’ we understand it to mean from Turkey, the Turkish homeland, not from diaspora or minority communities like those in Cyprus or Germany).
"Zulu family" is clear and sufficient unless there's a compelling reason (diasporic distinction) to say otherwise. But I've yet to hear it. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
"I’ve noticed that your attempts to insert a geographic label, first “South African,” now “Natal”, into “Zulu family” seem to shift depending on the argument...backpeddling"
You seem to have lost the logic thread here. Your M.O. is transparent: You present an issue and then, after it having been adressed, argue about that  which you brought up in your next reply, as if it was the other party who brought it up:
Newsflash: YOU were the one who had a problem with the Union of South Africa not having been formed (despite South Africa being common historic geographic descriptor). I stated that I have no problem referring to either Natal family or South African family. Scroll up.
Both provide the same geographical location for the same CONSISTENT purpose. On the contrary, it appears that you have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE in claiming that a context clearly relevant to the individual, is not relevant to the individual. Namely his birth abroad, as has CONSISTENTLY been the given reason, despite your bizarre, unsubstantiated claim that it hasn't, or that the reason has changed. It is literally mentioned as the CONSISTENT reason in EVERY reply of mine. You don't have a valid argument against it, so have to pretend that my reasons have changed.
You don't want the circumstances of his birth abroad, the first pivotal salient contextual point of his life mentioned, out of PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
You have no good argument why such a first point of relevance in his life doesn't belong in the lead. Your rambling about his  uncle..being a sole  teacher... or accepting a bursary once...in the lead IS the PUB TRIVIA, not a Natal Zulu chief being born abroad & returning, which gives the most relevant information of his life at the mentioned point, so again, you're very transparently engaging in arbitrary PERSONAL PREFERENCE to not provide relevant information to the reader in a summation of Luthuli's life. And the only mention of the initial South African in the lead, seperated entirely from the salient detail of the subject's specific birth circumstance, is generic: a South African [by whatever means, possibly naturalization]  activist... A possibly administrative description, like how British-born Helen Joseph is a "South African anti-apartheid activist" on Wikipedia.
This has nothing to do with his origins, which is undoubtedly what a person who clicks an article about Albert Luthuli would want to know.
Claiming that they wouldn't, holds no water.  It is exactly the type of info about a person's  life that provides snapshot context, more so than ...uncle....
And again, Zulu is an ethnicity not a  geographic location. Goa and Cyprus are geographical locations. So is Natal.You don't get to decide that Zulu refers to Natal, when that is factually not the only place Zulus were found.  Also the individual who IS of Natal extraction, has being outside of it relevant to him. ("...distinguishes a group..") You seem not to grasp that the article isn't about some generic idea you can cobble together about describing a "group" or where it's "commonly" found , but about HIM and HIS personal circumstances and background. 197.233.25.15 (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
"You seem to have lost the logic thread here. Your M.O. is transparent: You present an issue and then, after it having been adressed, argue about that  which you brought up in your next reply, as if it was the other party who brought it up"
My initial objection was that “Zulu family” already conveys both ethnicity and, through context, geographic origin. That you are now switching from “South African Zulu” to “Natal Zulu” illustrates the instability of the label you're trying to apply.
Luthuli’s notability lies in his role as a Zulu chief and anti-apartheid leader, not in being born abroad to a South African family. “Zulu family” already reflects his ethnic and cultural background, and the article clearly states that he was born in Rhodesia and raised in Groutville. There is no ambiguity.
I’ve also supported my points with multiple Wikipedia biographies and parallels. Your rebuttals focus on speculation (“the reader might not know…”) or personal preference, not standards. My objections haven't changed. I'm against any geographic labels.
"Both provide the same geographical location for the same CONSISTENT purpose".
The purpose of being redundant?
"On the contrary, it appears that you have a PERSONAL PREFERENCE in claiming that a context clearly relevant to the individual, is not relevant to the individual."
I have never argued that we should remove the fact that Luthuli was born in Rhodesia. I am arguing against shoehorning a geographic label onto his family. Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:LEAD) states: "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
"You don't want the circumstances of his birth abroad, the first pivotal salient contextual point of his life mentioned, out of PERSONAL PREFERENCE."
Saying that the circumstances of Luthuli’s birth in Rhodesia was "pivotal" to his political identity or life’s work is just an opinion. He moved to Groutville as a child, where he was raised and educated. No major biography positions his foreign birth to "South African" or "Natal" parents as a defining feature.
"You have no good argument why such a first point of relevance in his life doesn't belong in the lead. Your rambling about his  uncle..being a sole  teacher... or accepting a bursary once...in the lead IS the PUB TRIVIA, not a Natal Zulu chief being born abroad & returning, which gives the most relevant information of his life at the mentioned point, so again, you're very transparently engaging in arbitrary PERSONAL PREFERENCE to not provide relevant information to the reader in a summation of Luthuli's life."
Because the info about his uncle raising him in Groutville as well as being a teacher (leads into political activism) is far more important to learning who Albert Luthuli is than a minor detail that his parents were Natal Zulus, a reader can easily find this out if they read one more sentence and learn he moved to Groutville, where his parents and grandparents were from.
"This has nothing to do with his origins, which is undoubtedly what a person who clicks an article about Albert Luthuli would want to know."
According to who? Did you ask everyone who opens this article?
"Claiming that they wouldn't, holds no water.  It is exactly the type of info about a person's  life that provides snapshot context, more so than ...uncle...."
You’re arguing that Luthuli’s parents’ geographic origin should be included in the lead as “snapshot context,” but MOS:LEAD says the lead should “avoid overly specific descriptions.”
Anyway, if you believe “Natal Zulu family” is appropriate for the lead, please provide reliable secondary sources that actually use that phrase when referencing him. I’ve encountered a few biographical sources, and they simply describe Luthuli as being a Zulu chief, born to a Zulu family [1] or having Zulu heritage ('in addition to his Zulu heritage, Luthuli was very proud of his Christian...')[2] We should stick to what the sources actually say, per WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable about Luthuli -- my involvement here is because I provided the GA review.  However, I agree with Iamawesomeautomatic's comments about the importance or otherwise of specifying "Natal" or "South African".  Unless there are reliable secondary sources that treat this as important information, I think this should be removed from the lead as unnecessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
>"my initial objection was zulu family conveys ethnicity and geographic/switch to Natal illustrates instability"
Jumping between YOUR  objection  to what is common use of South African ["we left Rhodesia and returned  to what was soon to become the Union of South Africa"-Luthuli (Let my People Go) ] and  your "initial objection" is disingenuous.
South Africa issue is YOUR objection, which was addressed by Natal in lieu of South Africa.
you made that objection and then claim that objection being addressed is instabilty.
I stated clearly I don't have a problem using either term for a fixed geographical location. THAT is CONSISTENT. Not what "instability" means.
Claiming that the same location, that YOU demanded differently described, is my switch or instability is hillariously transparent on your part.
And again, jumping between union/natal objection and your "initial objection" is transparent, too.
Anyway, on the initial  objection: that natal is not the same as ethnicity has  been adressed ad nauseum.  
The Wikipedia parallels you provided erroneously compared geographical locations  with ethnicity, as has been stated, so repeating these points isn't meaningful.
>"...Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:LEAD) states: "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources...."
Reliable published Sources provide the  circumstances of his birth. The point of the lead is to provide concise
summation of pivotal snapshots in a persons life.There is no ambiguity in that. There is providing that information clearly or not providing it.
His circumstances abroad aren't "shoehorning" information about his family. It provides the information that HE wasn't from there and that this would decide the article's subject's early life trajectory.
Claiming that information, not before provided, is redundant is transparently false. Not what redundant means.
Arguing that  you never argued that being born in Rhodesia should be removed is meaningless.  
No one said you did.  (You state a lot of strawman claims no one made). At issue is a separate piece of information "from  reliable published sources" namely his early circumstance.
>"...saying circumstances of Luthuli's birth is pivotal to his political identity or life's work..."
Again, only a statement YOU made. I didn't say it's pivotal to his political identity or life's work,  I said  its pivotal to his early life story. The article is about the person of Albert Luthuli.
His  uncle  or bursary or isn't his political identity or life's work either, which you placed in the lead. (A person  can "easily find this out" in  the next section too.)
A  person being born abroad and their father dying and returning to familial origins as a child is a key point to an article about the path of ANY person's life.
Deciding at that point an article about a  person's life is ONLY about his political work is an argument transparently lacking in substance.
>"...uncle is far more important than..."
ACCORDING TO WHOM?? did YOU ask everyone who opens this article, using your own  logic?
>"...You’re arguing that Luthuli’s parents’ geographic origin should be included in the lead as “snapshot context,” but MOS:LEAD says the lead should “avoid overly specific descriptions...”
I'm stating considely  circumstances relevant to Luthuli. This article is about him. It is what leads him to leave Rhodesia,a country he was only born in  DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES  MENTIONED, after the  death of his father, to go to Natal.
In Let My People Go - Luthuli's biography, the fact that the FIRST Chapter is  "The land of my fathers"  an exposition of events in Natal and the geographical chieftancy in question, shows how  pivotal the location is to the person's life story.This is immediately followed by a second chapter about his parents in Natal,and his return to Natal. This immediate familial circumstance is pivotal to the individual at that stage,  not overly specific.
Again this is an article (and summation) about Albert Luthuli, not just one strand of it (e.g political). 197.233.0.196 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
The argument you're making, that because Luthuli's autobiography discusses Natal and his family is from there, it’s appropriate to label him a “Natal Zulu,” is a clear example of WP:SYNTH, which goes against Wikipedia guidelines. We can’t combine facts (even from the same source) to imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in any reliable source. Unless a reliable secondary source refers to Luthuli as a “Natal Zulu,” we cannot include that phrase in the lead. As of now, sources describe him as “Zulu” or state that he was born to a Zulu family, and that is what we should reflect.
Also, please keep in mind that there is an WP:ONUS (on you) to establish a WP:CONSENSUS for your contested edit(s). At this point, at least three users have objected to the term, so I would strongly advise against continuing to revert the lead on the main article. Your changes currently do not have community support. Thanks. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
The reason I reverted this time was that the "gone to work" phrase was not supported by the given citation, which is to page 345 of the relevant journal article.  I just looked again and I see it's covered at the top of the next page, 346.  If you add it again, please change the citation so it includes p. 346. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)