Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo

Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template See also Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo

I removed ": the Belgians are the only European power that built a university in their colony and the colonists were carefully picked by the Belgian Government, to name only a few examples". I know, for example, that the British built Universities in India. Probably the sentence needs rewording to something more exact. DJ Clayworth 13:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should rename this page Congo (Kinshasa). "Democratic Republic of Congo" is confusing, jguk 16:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree - Democratic Republic of (the) Congo is its official name, and has been referred to as such for the last several years. And anyway, Congo (Kinshasa) redirects to here - plus, in the first paragraph there is a mention of the Republic of Congo just in case someone got the wrong Congo. -- QuantumEleven | (talk) 10:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

The formatting appears messed up in Firefox, all other pages look fine. OMouse 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consistency moves

The following was originally discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves and has been moved here until a list of relevant articles can be compiled.

article and categories about the Democratic Republic of the Congo → made consistent

Various article and categories (see Category:Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo and Category:Congolese_culture have inconsistent naming conventions, referring the Democratic Republic of the Congo variously as Congo (DR), Congo (DRC), Congo (Kinshasa). Also, some use the term Congolese, which as an article or category title is confusing as it can refer to the nearby Republic of Congo. I think all of the articles should read x of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. - XED.talk 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List all the articles in question. I have grave concerns over these recent bulk requests, and I doubt administrators like to hunt and peck for the articles you want to see moved. Besides, how can we adequately vote without a list to see the extent of this request? —ExplorerCDT 06:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support (conditional). The content of the articles or categories titled "Congo" or "Congolese" related to the Republic of the Congo should not be moved. — Insta ntnood 15:08 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
Support - Banyan Tree 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. User:Anárion/sig 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose at present. Please confirm that you have placed the required notice on the talk pages of all the articles you contemplate moving, that there has been ample (weeks) time for discussion and that there is no existing controversy for any of them which has not yet been resolved in your favor on the talk pages concerned. Jamesday 09:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Please provide a list of pages to be moved. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would be better to refer to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as Congo (Kinshasa), and the Republic of Congo as Congo (Brazzaville). That's what always happened before Congo (Kinshasa) was renamed Zaire, and is the least confusing approach now, jguk 11:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

It's a lengthy lead, but I felt several key items needed to be mentioned. These are, and the length of the lead is, therefore, compunded by:

Size: Very sizable area, 3rd largest in Africa.

Bordering countries: fairly large amount.

Access to sea: Tenuous, close to being land-locked compartively; the river.

Origin of name: The Bakongo tribe (and literal meaning); Congo river basin.

Predominant colonial form: Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo.

Country rename: Twice since the above; and correction with sometimes called Kongo-Kinshasa to the given name during 1960-1971 (that it may still be called that sometimes is, historically, an aside to the lead in that sense), including contrasting with Congo-Brazzaville ala Guinea-Bissau viz. Guinea.

Second Congo War: Very, very notable.

El_C 12:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zaire

Zaire is 3rd largest in Africa.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is Zaire, the country was renamed in 1997.--Gozar 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

table on right

i spent a good hour attempting to reformat the table on the right with all the stats and information and it refused to cooperate, i have most of it done and saved in Word if anyone wants to work on it and see if they cant get it functioning, i however am not competent enough in the code to do so. also, I had a numbered map of the provinces with corresponding names, as well as changing the picture for the geography section from the river basin satellite image to the political map of the country. more to come! --Gozar 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lumumba's Assassination

In the article it states; "Lumumba escaped to join his supporters in Stanleyville but was recaptured and then flown (January, 1961), on orders from the Belgian Minister for African affairs, to his sworn enemies in Katanga. On the way he and two of his assistants were harshly tortured and shot by a Belgian-Congolese command."

This makes it sound like Lumumba and his two assistants were killed on the plane. To my understanding Lumumba and his assistants were killed after arriving in Elizabethville, as they were taken out to a clearing in the jungle and faced a firing squad.

Any thoughts?

Most of my info on his assassination comes from Ludo De Witte's book, "The Assassination of Lumumba". --Seanh 14:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i was under the impression that this was the case as well, i hadnt noticed the error in the text though.--Gozar 14:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

alright, i think that's an improvement. replaced with stated version of what happened. --Gozar 00:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it now much better--Seanh 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV regarding colonization

We have to be careful not to call thing with the colonisation as the post of reference, i.e. post-colonization, pre-colonization. The history of the Congo shouldn't be build around the occupation/administration of the country by Europeans. (occupation and administration are a bit extreme but could be more accurate than colonization). The historian Ndaywel è Nziem suggests calling the periods: "ancient period", "colonization (exploitation and administration)", "indepedance" and etc... What do you think? ---moyogo

Since colonisation started in the late 19th century, i don't think the whole pre-colonial period can be called "ancient", though the "pre-colonial" section could be split into ancient and pre-colonial. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put yourself into a normal Congolese's shoes for a minute... The period before the 19th century has only two major parts. The second one being the develpment of local bantu societies. This has to have a name, whether we call it ancient or not. Relative to the actual time, I think it's ancient (from a Congolese point of view), then came colonization and modern time (as in more technology), not to confuse with what Europeans call their modern period. ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. In fact, when I came up with the title Precolonial Congo for the History of the DRC series, I was concerned about the implications of the title (see [1]). I suppose Precolonial Congo could be split into Prehistoric Congo and Rise of Bantu Societies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ... or something a bit simpler like the History of Sweden series, just Pre-history of Congo and Early Congolese History - Xed 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think 'Early Congolese History' has a nice ring to it, ulimately im going to be for anything that makes the articles less centered around European colonization, i just could not conceive of how it would be done. that said, renaming "pre-colonial" to "Early Congolese History" seems like a good first step. also, more Congolese input is definately needed, but i assume that this is also unlikely due to a lack of internet accessibility in the country. i guess the question now is, who wants to do all the changing of names!? (if you agree, that is)--Gozar 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article name changed to Early Congolese History. I think we need a post-Second Congo War article soon too. The French wikipedia has one. Also, the history section on this page needs to be smaller, while the History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo page could do with being a little longer - Xed 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, the article on the main page is mostly pasted material from the section on the kongo. i think we should condense the section on the Kongo, as well as add info on the kuba, luba, and other groups (which Xed mentioned on the Early History talk page) so we may want to make it slightly longer to accomadate for more information.i definately want to make it fairly thourough to make up for the lack of information on the period as opposed to the post-colonial period. as Moyogo said, a lot of emphasis should be put on this section because it will be the only one containing much information on the country as a nation not defined solely by the European portion of its history. Congolese history certainly did not begin with the arrival of Europeans and I think this needs to drive that point home.--Gozar 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do the colonial names of the cities really have to be in the main article? Should there be a different article or in the articles about each city? Who still uses those names nowdays? How are they relevant on the main article about the whole country? ---moyogo 10:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming is within living memory, so I think it makes sense to keep those names, especially when talking about the free state and belgian congo time period. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, although i understand exactly where you're coming from (i put up most of the pre-colonial history, there was NOTHING there before, which was naturally just disgusting) i cant really come up with anything else to call the period. the fact of the matter is the area's history is split between two periods with a sharp dividing line: pre-colonial and post-colonial. and if you really read the whole page(i'm not saying you didnt, just pointing it out), it's pretty obvious that the brutality of European rule is definately not being glossed over.--Gozar 13:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should change everything, it's just that we could try to have a less european centered history or version of the article. I think we need more congolese contributing here ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I want to make a remark: please mind that there is a big difference between The Congo Free state-period and the Congo colonisation-period. During The Congo Free state, King Leopold II was the personal owner of the Congo, the Belgian Government had nothing to say there. Many reports, testimonies,... indicated that life situations improved very well when Belgium took over the Congo from its king.

Btw, the old names of the cities are still used somethimes in reports, etc. So I'm sure it's necessary to keep them in the article.

Early Congolese history

im seriously considering an earlier suggestion that the Early Congolese History should be split in two(at least on the main page) with one section one pre-/ancient history and one with a title similar to the one on the Early Congolese page (On the Eve of Colonial Rule doesnt seem academic enough for its own section on the main page). i will likely wait for the input of others before updating. also, i created the geography, politics, and wildlife sections for the main page and havent had much feedback. if anyone could let me know what they think (i feel like i have a tendency to add a lot of unneccessary information) it would be appreciated. thanks. --Gozar 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've no strong feelings either way about splitting the early history section. the geog , politics, and wildlife sections are good. wildlife should probably be renamed "flora and fauna" (see South Africa and Australia), shortened, and made broader in scope. the full length version of wildlife could go in a separate articles - 'fauna in the drc' and 'flora in the drc'- Xed 10:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said that you wanted some Congolese input here. I wonder why you all assumed that none of the people already here was Congolese. But if you want one extra, here I am. I like the title "Early Congolese History", much more considerate of the Congolese equal status in the human family (as opposed to being some savages who were lost until the mighty colonizer came to give them a meaning, and a purpose). I am also for plumping up the separate "main articles", and streamlining some of the section on the main page.Themalau 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save typing "Democratic Republic of the Congo"

Tired of typing "the Democratic Republic of the Congo"? Me too. I've created a bunch of redirecting articles to which mean you can just type DRC instead, with or without the the, ie History of DRC, Politics of the DRC etc. As a precedent, the USA articles have a similar thing. It's almost as complicated as the China/Taiwan thing. (Taiwan can also be known as ROC, which can also be the name for Republic of Congo, which can also be the name for Congo-Kinshasa's first republic etc etc - confused?)- Xed 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, id noticed that you pretty much had to type the whole thing, but i think 'DR Congo' was the fastest previously. i had considered making some more pages just to redirect but never got around to it. also, after looking over other history pages, i think you're right about the history on the main page. it needs to be shortened, id never noticed but all the other national pages have just one section for the history, DRC has like 9 sections. we should probably try to reduce to one section (as difficult as that will be) and concentrate most of the stuff from this main page onto the History of the DRC page as you stated previously.--Gozar 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history

i think the history is getting pretty out of control and needs to be condensed, there's simply too much information. it takes up almost half the DRC page, most of other national history pages are very terse. we can simply transfer most of it the History of the DRC article.--Gozar 00:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the recent edits to the history section are dubious. "Red China" and "Communist terrorists" etc - Xed 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geography, Mountains of the Moon

Article mentions the high mountains at north east of DRC territory. Are these the mysterious 'Mountains of the Moon' that provide the annual surge/flood in the White Nile? If so then the link is worth mentioning -- Egypt and Sudan would be very different without this regular phenomenon. Wikipedia's only article on Mountains of the Moon concerns a film.

we do have an article on the phyiscal Mountains of the Moon, but for some reason that search paged sent you to the film, the article can be found here (ive editted the page so it does a link disambiguation). Also, you can find more info in the Ruwenzori_Range article.--Gozar 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population

That graph of smoothly rising population, census measurements every year: I don't believe it, does anybody?

History of the country's official name

What was this country's official name when it achieved independence? Was it "Democratic Republic of Congo" or was it "Republic of Congo"?

The Wikipedia article Heads of state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo indicates that the country began as "Republic of Congo", became "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1966, became "Zaire" in 1971, and reverted to "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1997.

So, in 1960, at the moment of independence, what was the country called? Were there two countries called "Republic of Congo"?

At independance in 1960 the were both called the Republic of the Congo or Congo for short; see UN admission resolutions, Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) or Congo (Brazzaville) vs Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) or Congo (Léopoldville) for disambiguation. This is verifiable in the UN documents.

According to About.com the Congo (Léopoldville) was renamed "People's Republic of the Congo" in 1964, and to "Democratic Republic of the Congo" in 1966. However I believe this is false.

The UN has a repertoire of Security Council practices, look at this document. On page number 39 (pdf page 17) you can see Congo (Brazzaville) and Congo (Kinshasa) mentionned with text from 1963. Further down on page 41 (pdf 19) you'll see Congo (Brazzaville) and Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) in 1964. Some following documents event simple mention Congo and Dem. Rep. of the Congo

The Congo-Brazzaville was then renamed "People's Republic of the Congo" cerca 1969-1970, until 1991 when it returned to "Republic of the Congo" as before 1970.

In 1971, Léopoldville was renamed Kinshasa and the Congo (~~Léopoldville~~Kinshasa) became Zaïre, until 1997 when it returned to 'Democratic Republic of the Congo as between 1966 and 1971 (according to About.com).

So both were called "Republic of the Congo" between 1960 and 1964. According to About.com the Congo (Kinshasa) was called People's Republic of the Congo from 1964 to 1966, which is false. According to the UN documents the Congo (Kinshasa) was renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1964, and Zaire in 1971, while the Congo (Brazzaville) was still "Republic of the Congo" until being rename in 1970 but only the Congo (Kinshasa) has ever been called "Democratic Republic of the Congo". ----moyogo 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction, brother Moyogo. Leopoldville was renamed Kinshasa in 1964 or 5, while the big Congo was still DRC. Themalau 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Congo was the private property of King Leopold II of Belgium, the name was The Congo Free State (1887-1908). From 1908 untill 1960, when it was a Belgian Colony, its official name was Belgian Congo (Congo belge, Belgisch Congo).

New Coat of Arms

The country has a new coat of arms which can be found here:

http://www.presidentrdc.cd/accueil.html

Imperial78