Talk:Patrice Lumumba/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo

No photograph?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:29, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Assassination

Sidney Gottlieb's role in attempting to assassinate Lumumba should be mentioned. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgottlieb.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/gottlieb.html Ogg 10:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

National Leader

The definition of "national leader" is incorrect, his ideals were not nationalistic as we mean that definition today, but better described as "anti-apartheid" or "anti-colonialist". 217.19.30.147 11:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But he did actually aim to unite Congo and all the different tribes. So he sought to fight tribalism and unite a nation; in that sense he was a "nationalist", although not in the negative light in which we usually see the term. Mon 6 March 2005, 15:35 GMT

I have added a link to Ludo de Witte and listed him on the request list, because I wish to know more about who he is and what he did. Also, it would be good to have a little more about his background, his beliefs / political philosophy, in addition to all the information about his assassination. Will see what I can dig up. Paperflowergirl 03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fire, Blood, and Tears Speech

In Africa Within, the whole speech appears (in a diffent translation). Africa Within states that it simply collects material from other sources, but as far as the editors know, no copyright is breached. So perhaps someone could establish whether the speech as it appears there can be copied. Mon 6 March 2005, 15:35 GMT

My last revision (14:24, March 4, 2006 BadLeprechaun) is an effort to remove plagiarized content, blatantly lifted from

Lumumba: 'We shall show the world what the black man can do when he is allowed to work in freedom' Osei Boateng. New African. London: Feb 2000., Iss. 382; pg. 22, 4 pgs

I think the speech is important and should be left in. Or atleast perhaps the Lumumba part... So I've cut down a lot of the text peripheral to the speech itself and put footnotes on the pieces of the speeches. Now I'm not entirely convinced that this consitutes an acceptable break from the plagiarized version, by that I mean that I'm not still violating copyright if copyright there is and that good stuff. Also the form of my footnotes, I think is alright, but not 100% sure.

So I'm just asking that people take a look at what I've done, compare it to the previous version, and ensure that I'm not violating any intellectual property rules here, and that my formatting is alright.

Thanks, --BadLeprechaun 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your paraphrase of the New African article is pretty awkward. I'm not sure if it constitutes plagiarism, but it isn't really ideal. It would be preferable to rewrite this section from scratch using more than a single reference. Rhobite 18:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhobite. I'm gonna remove the whole section for now as the article can definitely survive without it and think of some better way to include his speech or snippets of it for later on. --BadLeprechaun 21:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

MORE ON PHILOSOPHY: Despite this great talk page, there's a noticeable lack of discussion of Lumumba's political philosophy here. At least a summary would be extremely useful to people like me -- reading something else that references this time period and is trying to contextualize it all. Thanks -- Kagillogly (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)kagillogly

Under DEATH OF LUMUMBA: This sentence appears to be an unnecessary and unsourced attempt to bolster the more supported statement that precedes it: "However, the plan is said to have failed because a local CIA member of staff had a conscience issue." Is said by whom? Citation? The sentence could be deleted without changing the substance of the material.

"Eisenhower's apparent call for Lumumba's elimination must have been brought on by this perception." "Must have been" is conjecture. Eliminating the sentence would not change the sense of the paragraph.

"He seemed to gravitate around Soviet Union. Arguably that was because that was the only place he could find support." Given that the article states earlier that Lumumba appealed to the Soviets for aid, "seemed" seems inappropriate. "Arguably" begs an argument--is it not "apparent", as in "He gravitated to the Soviet Union, apparently because that was the only place he found support?". Added later--Of course I meant "international" support. It is evident from his election as prime minister that he had significant internal support.

I didn't edit the article these ways, because I couldn't be sure there are no sources one could cite, only that there were no sources anyone did cite.Danoldh 01:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Definately much of the statements in this article need to be substantiated with citations. As far as the speech, at a bare minimum I added a bit at least mentioning the significance of the speech in the context of the independence and Lumumba's anti-colonial beliefs. Perhaps later when we clear up the plagiarism issue we could add the speech text itself. I hope so at least, its definately important. --A51Abductee 09:30, 20 June 2006 (GMT)

Quality of article

I just noticed that much of this wiki article is taken directly from an amazon.com book review by Elijah Chingosho. This is perhaps a bit embarrasing for us. I intend to rewrite/revise/add to much of this article, citing my small collection of Lumumba books. I've already begun editing the Path to Prime Minister section and will move on to the rest of the article as time permits. Here's the amazon review if you care:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0901787310/sr=1-2/qid=1150793468/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-0611529-5287012?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

This article could use alot of improvement. Will do as much as possible before 30th June independence day! Thanks for your help. --A51Abductee 09:23, 20 June 2006 (GMT)

Actually the review lifted wikipedia

I have to say that if you look at the review's date: April 25, 2006, and then take a look at the history of this article, Revision as of 20:58, 23 March 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Patrice_Lumumba&oldid=45155531 you will see that the reviewer paraphrased the wikipedia article, along with some corrections to its language (the Soviet Union). Elijah Chingosho was free to do that, although I think he should have quoted wikipedia. Atavi 13:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition: You don't even have to look at the dates. The review writes "President Eisenhower's apparent call for Lumumba's elimination", when the reviewer had not mentioned Eisenhower anywhere. Obviously the writer of the wikipedia article, wrote that knowing that someone (or himself) had written about the Eisenhower story above. So not only did the reviewer lift the wikipedia article, he didn't even do a good job of clearing plagiarism tracks....

Changes

There is inconsistency with the country name, that is, Republic of Congo (Belgian Congo, the correct one) and Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo Brazaville, a different country, not Lumumba's).-sbarr

Ah, Atavi, you are quite right. Thank you for the correction. After we've finished improving on this article I hope it doesn't resemble the amazon.com review very much anyway. This article is missing so much contextual information that is desperately needed. For example, there is no mention at all of the ANC anti-colonial revolt of 5 July, or that on 7th September the Congolese chamber and senate completely rejected Kasa Vubu's dismissal of Lumumba and reconfirmed his legality as Prime Minister, or even the fact that it was Lumumba himself in good faith and trust who requested UN intervention in the Congo. I definately intend to make these additions and properly cite them. Onward to 30th June... --A51Abductee 13:21, 20 June 2006 (GMT)

A51Abductee, I completely agree that the facts that you mention should feature in any Lumumba article, and you should go forward with them. I also agree with you that the article is in need of a general revamp. However, I only want to note that making the article different from the amazon review shouldn't be a goal in itself. Of course, if the article is made different, for its own benefit, it is always welcome by any well meaning wikipedian. I will continue to take interest in the article and I think that the changes you intend to make are first priority. So I look forward to seeing the article radically improved! Atavi 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Death of Lumumba

There is a fragment: he was flown to _______ (?) Batula 05:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is need of cleanup. Right now, sections "Deposed and arrested" and "Death of Lumumba" overlap in their account of the facts. Maybe eventually I will get around to do it myself, but until then this is an open invitation to anyone interested to see what can be done to improve the article. --Atavi 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CongoDemRepP85a-1Franc-1997(1998)-donatedth b.jpg

Image:CongoDemRepP85a-1Franc-1997(1998)-donatedth b.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

lack of information

there appears to be a lot missing, apparently he had only one action as PM. What were his policies. He seems to have enemies, but no reasons are given for this, no reasons on why he was removed, or the role he played in the Katangan revolt, How he was viewed, by Congolese, Africans, as well as Europeans, such as those that protested him. Also, why did the Soviets like someone who said communism was deplorable? Rds865 (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is primarily a whitewash. Lumumba was a spectacular failure in numerous ways. He was not in any way better than the awful leaders of the Congo who have followed him. I am quite sure that the main contributors of this article have never been to DRC and none of the sources used real impressions of Congolese people - which are overwhelmingly negative (although at the time of independence he was very popular at least in his home region.)--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AssegaiAli, what does being from the Congo have to do with learning the history of the Congo? I live in Detroit, but I only notice what I am able to see and I only know about Detroit what I learn empirically. Furthermore, other people from Detroit may disagree with me about matters surrounding Detroit. Anyway, Detroit is a city of 1 million people and we don't all agree on the history of Detroit or present conflicts. Therefore, people from outside of Detroit can learn more about Detroit than me. Of course, this article is not about Detroit, yet the same principal holds true for Detroit & the Congo.--Willdw79 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO I would have thought it was pretty obvious that being in a place is a good qualification for making verifiable and authenticated opinions and reports on a place. (Why do you think that so much weight is given to reporters at the scene of an event?) Clear understanding of the context and repercussions of events is always going to be greater isn't it?Observers who are remoter from the scene can sometimes offer more objective analysis provided that they are sufficiently well-informed.--Mountwolseley (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be very anti-Lumumba, highlighting all of the negatives but none of the positives, very one-sided. Now i don't know enough about him to edit it myself, but surely he must have done some good things, otherwise why would people like him? this page needs to become a bit more balanced

I am taking a class on Africa at a University but I don't have time to edit the article myself (I would have to look up all the sources). But I do know that many people liked Lumumba, which is not represented in the article. He was very anti-colonialist and he wanted to kick out European and U.S. companies that were taking all the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He also wanted the Force Publique (read Belgian) officers to leave. Like many leaders in many countries, he was most likley killed because he would be taking money out of European and North American pockets. The problem is I don't have sources since I learned this in a class, so I can't edit the article. If someone could find the sources I am sure this side of the issue would even out the bias of the article.

Ambrosia Legume (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) (Ambrosia Legume)

well... talk to your Professor - ask what would be good sources, and post them here. That way, even if you don't take the time yourself to do the work (hint, hint), the sources will be made known to whoever else wants to take up the burden. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Scam warning

I just got an email from someone pretending to be Patrice's son, is it worth noting that scammers use this page to add credibility to their claims? - 80.47.226.92 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. This article should be about Patrice, not about scammers. Only if thete was a large scale usage of Patirce's name it would be worth noting. RockyMM (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

Lumumba bequeathed very few positive results from his term of office. He failed to promote development and alienated his colleagues and supporters alike. In addition he failed to stave off or quell a civil war that erupted within days of his appointment as prime minister. Instead he behaved impetuously and followed expedients rather than policies that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including himself.

This paragraph is sourced to Paul Johnson's A History of the Modern World. While I don't doubt that this is Johnson's POV, as his conservative views are well-known, it is a violation of WP:UNDUE for this to be the only viewpoint expressed, especially when stated as fact, not opinion, as here. I can't re-write it because I don't have the book so I'm not in a position to characterize what it says. I can get to the library next week but in the meantime I'd encourage anyone who does have it to jump in. And since other POVs are needed, I'm adding an unbalanced tag to the section. Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to invite both Willdw79 and AssegaiAli to join this discussion, and please refrain from edit warring. Don't worry about whether the wrong version is up right now; rather, let's work together to achieve a consensus that satisfies our core policies.

Willdw79, you've been saying 'there is no citation', yet there clearly is a citation to Paul Johnson's A History of the Modern World. What are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The passage above should stay in place because it highlights some serious problems that were left to Lumumba's successors to solve and appeared on his watch.The points relate to his specific responsibilities as PM. If 'another POV' is needed it should state some of those positive results and any development that he did actually promote (This was part of his job). The fact is that the civil war started on his watch and he did remarkably little at the outset to restore order. Perhaps this is why he was abandoned rather quickly by many of his colleagues and by the President.--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor has inserted 2 paragraphs into Legacy with a source that is too vague to be of any use. Please give useful details. In the meantime I shall integrate it with the rest of the section so that it flows.--Mountwolseley (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I implore someone with the time to edit this page to do so. It currently reflects a biased, one-sided position on Lumumba that could have come straight from the mouth of a Cecil Rhodes groupie. No one would stand for this kind of inaccuracy in an article about Yitzhak Rabin or Yasser Arafat, Mikhail Gorbachev or George Bush. --Jack, 19 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.143.5 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Boo hoo hoo... Lumumba was no Rabin, Gorbachev or Bush. Maybe an Arafat, if one takes into account that Arafat was a corrupt bloodstained terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.96.181.182 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

complicity of the governments of Belgium and the United States

User:Dreamreport, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to help. I see that this is your first attempt to edit Wikipedia. This article certainly needs a lot of improvement and I welcome your involvement. Please review WP:CITE to help you properly cite the De Witte book. It is important, for example, to include page numbers so that others can easily verify the reference. Belgium's involvement seems clear, the US, less so, as detailed in ref 21. Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DLABOT, you reverted my edit to the lede. The notion that the CIA was complicit in Lumumba's execution has been debunked by several sources, including a couple already quoted in the article. The link to the Guardian article notes that the Church Committee in 1975 concluded the CIA was not involved, and the CIA station chief for the Congo, Larry Devlin, has gone on the record on NPR that the CIA was not involved.

"The committee concluded that the US was not involved in the murder, though it confirmed that the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba, possibly on Eisenhower's orders. Recent Belgian parliamentary inquiries into the murder implicated Belgium but failed to come up with a direct US link." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/aug/10/martinkettle

The article notes that the historian John Stockwell believed that Devlin was the person most in the position to know whether the US was complicit in PL's execution, and Devlin insists that the CIA didn't participate in Lumumba's murder, only that the CIA favoured his removal from office. Listen to Devlin's interview with Terry Gross and you can hear his frustration that he shot down plans to assassinate PL and yet is called a murderer. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7871892

The lede paragraph should simply state that the US supported the coup against Lumumba, and leave it up to the reader to decide whether that makes the US morally complicit in his death, rather than pronouncing it so, because that just isn't based on any facts, at least none which are sourced in the article. I see this again and again throughout wikipedia, editors pushing a critique of US foreign policy, blaming the US for things there is no evidence that it did, or which the evidence contradicts (such as blaming the US for directly causing the overthrow of Allende, Mossadegh, the rise to power of Saddam Hussein in the 1970s, the support of Osama Bin Laden in the 1980s, none of which happened. In each case, because US cold war agenda benefited from the event, it is assumed (without basis) that the US caused the event.).Walterego (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"it confirmed that the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba..." and "but failed to come up with a direct US link." seems to support the wording "circumstances suggesting the support and complicity of the governments of Belgium and the United States" in my opinion. Certainly just deleting mention of the US when in fact the US did conspire to kill Lummumba seems wrong, don't you think? The denial by Devlin seems irrelevant; the prisons are full of convicts who profess their innocence. Would you like to suggest an alternate wording that acknowledges the documented US part in the conspiracy and at the same time acknowledges that US complicity in the actual murder has never been proven? Dlabtot (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The lede's wording suggests that the CIA was involved in some mysterious, undefined way. It is documented that the CIA was not involved (by the Church Committee and other investigations). Devlin is far from irrelevant, in fact he is the only credible witness, his account should be viewed as authoritative. By comparing him with prisoners, you are implying he is a criminal trying to cover up a crime, he is not a criminal, it is documented that he committed no crime and in fact prevented the CIA from committing a crime. No US part in the "conspiracy" has been documented. That the CIA had come up with a plot to assassinate Lumumba is irrelevant because that plan was never put into action, it was shot down by the person in charge, and had nothing at all to do with the later killing of Lumumba by Mobutu's regime, with explicit approval from Belgium. The BBC report "Who killed Lumumba" http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/enwiki/static/audio_video/programmes/correspondent/transcripts/974745.txt makes it clear that the pressure on Mobutu forces to execute PL after his arrest came exclusively from Belguim. Walterego (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked if you wanted to suggest alternate wording. You yourself said that the Church Committee confirmed that the CIA had conspired to kill Lumumba. I think this a significant fact that should be included. Would you like to suggest some alternative wording or are you just dead set on deleting this veriable fact? It is also true that Devlin denied complicity in the assassination. Since it is what one would expect him to say no matter what the facts, I don't find his protestation of innocence to be remarkable but I don't have any objection to mentioning it. If you aren't willing to come to a compromise we can pursue some form of dispute resolution, such as an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 06:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm-if the article's information comes from a reference, then that section's meaning should not be changed as it implies that the new information is supported by the source. If it is not, then it should not be inserted.--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality

84.173.132.118 deleted some content, that they probably thought was duplicated and in so doing they tried to clean up the article. Some of it, however, was not present in other points in the article. I have attempted to restore that content. In the process, I have noticed big problems in the article's quality. Content that might have been plagiarized from other pages, conflicting information (Specifically, was he flown to Elizabethville or Jadotville on the eve of his death?), prose that is not suited to an encyclopedia, weasel words, and the list goes on. The task of shaping the article up is no small one.--Atavi 13:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By web searching, I have uncovered this link and its transcript subpage, which has probably served as the source of much of the article.--Atavi 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

However, plagiarism has not happened. In fact, it's the other way around: web pages all over have taken text from wikipedia, fortunately they have credited it.--Atavi 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

as someone who does not know much about this man, and would like to, i can tell you that after reading the article i still don't feel like i have a grasp on his political or social views. also, plagiarism shmlagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.101.20 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. involvement in assassination

The source given regarding US documents about the assassination at US news [1] directly contradicted the statement which was provided. It is unclear the extent of US involvement in cooperation with Belgian authorities. The only clear information is that a previous US assassination plot was not attempted. Rowan C. Duffy (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a WP:RS which says that (1) Eisenhower and the C.I.A. ordered Lumumba's assassination and that (2) the C.I.A. station chief knew about it and made no objection. I'll have to listen to that Terry Gross interview with Devlin carefully. Was Devlin defying Eisenhower's orders?

An Assassination’s Long Shadow

By ADAM HOCHSCHILD

New York Times

January 16, 2011

Shortly after he took office as prime minister, the C.I.A., with White House approval, ordered his assassination and dispatched an undercover agent with poison.

`The would-be poisoners could not get close enough to Lumumba to do the job, so instead the United States and Belgium covertly funneled cash and aid to rival politicians who seized power and arrested the prime minister....

The Congolese politicians who planned Lumumba’s murder checked all their major moves with their Belgian and American backers, and the local C.I.A. station chief made no objection when they told him they were going to turn Lumumba over — render him, in today’s parlance — to the breakaway government of Katanga, which, everyone knew, could be counted on to kill him.

Nbauman (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would that have been so clear to everyone, that the Katangese would kill him? --41.151.92.80 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not a news story, but an opinion piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.245.194 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality / Objectivity

I think the objectivity of some statements is dubious. --41.151.4.49 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

They can be fixed, but only if you identify them. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Street names

A street was named for him in Jakarta, Indonesia in 1945 when he was a twenty-year-old beer salesman in the Congo? I'd like to see the reference on that!! Somehow, I can't help but think that maybe it happened in 1965 under the ardently nationalistic Sukarno, and was undone in 1967 under the equally-ardent anti-Communist Suharto. 75.216.113.149 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Patrice Lumumba: 50 Years Later, Remembering the USA-Backed Assassination of Congo’s First Democratically Elected Leader

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected leader of what is now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lumumba’s pan-Africanism and his vision of a united Congo gained him many enemies. Both Belgium and the United States actively sought to have him killed. The CIA ordered his assassination but could not complete the job. Instead, the United States and Belgium covertly funneled cash and aid to rival politicians who seized power and arrested Lumumba. On January 17, 1961, after being beaten and tortured, Lumumba was shot and killed.

AMY GOODMAN: On January 17th, 1961, after being beaten and tortured, the Congolese prime minister, Patrice Lumumba, was shot and killed.

For more, we go to Adam Hochschild. He’s the author of King Leopold’s Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa and the forthcoming book To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion. He teaches at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, is co-founder of Mother Jones magazine, had an op-ed in the New York Times this week called "An Assassination’s Long Shadow."

Explain this "long shadow," Adam.

ADAM HOCHSCHILD: Well, Amy, I think the assassination of Lumumba was something that was felt by many people to be a sort of pivotal turning point in the saga of Africa gaining its independence. In the 1950s, there were movements for independence all over Africa. There was a great deal of idealism in the air. There was a great deal of hope in the air, both among Africans and among their supporters in the United States and Europe, that at last these colonies would become independent. And I think people imagined real independence—that is, that these countries would be able to set off on their own and control their own destiny economically as well as politically. And the assassination of Lumumba really signaled that that was not to be, because, for Belgium, as for the other major European colonial powers, like Britain and France, giving independence to an African colony was OK for them as long as it didn’t disturb existing business arrangements. As long as the European country could continue to own the mines, the factories, the plantations, well, OK, let them have their politics.

But Lumumba spoke very loudly, very dramatically, saying Africa needs to be economically independent, as well. And it was a fiery speech on this subject that he gave at the actual independence ceremonies, June 30th, 1960, where he was replying to an extremely arrogant speech by King Baudouin of Belgium. It was a speech he gave on this subject that I think really began the process that ended two months later with the CIA, with White House approval, decreeing that he should be assassinated.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/21/patrice_lumumba_50_years_later_remembering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.208.254 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.194 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The point, clearly, is to provide a citation to support the portion of the article that claims the CIA couldn't complete it's assignment to assassinate Lumumba. So cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.124.21 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Readability

The Belgian investigation section relies on heavy use of parenthetical citations which make the article difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.127.240 (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The section about Britain repeats the same thing essentially twice.

Except one time it's under Belgium and America for whatever reason. You're awesome bots prevent anyone from cleaning it up including this vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.58.101 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Body was cut up and dissolved in acid so there was no grave

I happen to own the book that is being cited as the sole source, "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochchild, for Lumumba's death.

It said he was buried in a unmarked grave but this is what the book says.

Two Belgians then cut up his body and dissolved it in acid, to leave no martyr's grave.

Source: Hochschild, Adam (1999-09-03). King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (p. 302). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

I changed it accordingly. Meme3234 (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Poor content organization

On re-reading it, I was struck by the poor organization of the existing content. E.g. there were two separate sections entitled 'British Involvement', with nearly identical content! The whole thing looked like the result of a series of 'drive-by' edits where nobody stopped to review the overall content and flow, just dropped in their new bit and rode off.

I have re-factored the content, removing nothing except some duplicate content (e.g. the British stuff). I have attempted to sort the material out into i) what is known about his death, and ii) the various reports of foreign involvement, which I have tried to separate out into separate a) Belgian, b) US and c) UK sections.

All citations that were there are still there. Only the organization has been changed - hopefully to a more logical one. Noel (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I found (and removed) several more instances of duplicate content: the CIA poison toothbrush, and the report that a CIA agent had the body in his car trunk. It's quite clear that the people who added that stuff didn't bother to look to see if it was already there - probably the poor organization of the content made it hard to see if it was already there. Noel (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting theories

Many of the theories for his death listed here are mutually exclusive. As a result, the page winds up sounding like a mad hatter's parody of a conspiracy theory site. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

Just because someone can find one cite for some theory, that doesn't mean it's worth noting here on an equal basis from all the rest. Hey, I can probably find printed books that say that Apollo 11 never landed on the Moon. Should I give that claim equal prominence in the Apollo 11 article?

For instance, the theory that the UK did it appears to rest on hearsay evidence from a single person - in a conversation with someone who is now, conveniently, dead. One would like to see a little more evidence before this sort of claim is given equal weight.

I have no idea who really killed him (I'm not a Lumumba expert), I just came here to read more about it. I also don't really care who actually killed him. But the current disorganized mish-mosh of theories is incredibly unprofessional, and makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of ignorant, conspiracy-theory boobs. Noel (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have detected a pattern. I once heard that Lumumba wanted to either nationalize the mining sector or at least get higher royalties. If that is true, he disgraced himself just as much as Mossadegh (Iran), Allende (Chile), and Whitlam (Australia). There may be others who I have not come across. The methods to remove them from the power switches are different, but mining revenue is a common thread. 144.136.192.37 (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this talk about the British involvement is just hearsay. Even the involvement of the CIA is circumstantial. There is some clear evidence of Belgian involvement, in that they flew the plane that took him to Katanga. I also have concern about the claim that he "won the 1960 elections". His MNC was the largest party, but with a plurality, far from a majority. This should be made clear. 05:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Speculation

The article is riddled with unfounded speculation. And that starts in the first section. --105.236.3.220 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Care to offer any detail for this?Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation 68

I just tried to follow citation 68, "Who killed Lumumba Africa Within". It went through several redirects before landing me on a page filled with ads. I'm not sure what the proper protocol in this situation is. Saffronsnail (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it's some kind of spam link now, so I've just removed it - both of the things it was being used for have multiple citations, so it's not leaving anything unsourced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Death

User: Indy beetle persistently erase everything concerning Lumumba's death, under the pretext that it doesn't belong here (I don't see why in the first place), and that it should be the matter of "a separate article". Well, that might be, but for the time being this hypothetical "separate article" doesn't exist. And it will never exist if the matter is completely erased as a preliminary in this one. Sapphorain (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: It should be noted that the material I was removing is easily accessible through the article's history, so I do not believe that, as was said in your second reversion edit summary, "[t]he "separate article" will never exist if [I] erase everything on the matter". I'm curious as to why you chose to use the word "pretext" to describe my justification... Also, I did not remove everything concerning Lumumba's death, just the "Foreign involvement in his death" section; "Final days and execution" I left untouched. My concern with this article is that it gives WP:UNDUE weight to all of the foreign activity that led up to his death. This view was expressed in the peer review nearly seven years ago. The John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and Barthélemy Boganda articles don't devote nearly as much attention to the conspiracies behind their subjects' deaths. Lumumba's death did certainly play an important role in shaping his legacy as a Pan-African martyr, but such martyrdom status emerged long before the extent of Western involvement was really known. People of course did, at the time, blame the United States and Belgium, but British involvement is something of an afterthought. It is noted in the section that I did not remove that he was transferred by Mobutu on the advice of a Belgian official to Katanga, where he was executed at the hands of Katangese authorities and their Belgian advisers. Why on Earth do we need a whole section so we can flesh out all the information on the Church Committee and "U.S. government documents"? Do we really need to know the identity of the chemist who designed the toothpaste poison that was never used? Belgian and American actions can be more accurately addressed in the rest of the article (with perhaps a brief mention of the British) and I'm sure we can make a comment about the Belgian Commission and the Belgian apology in the disappointingly narrow "Legacy" section. In summary, I'm trying to clear away all of the junk material in this article so I can get along with adding more info on Lumumba's life, career, and legacy (think semi-WP:TNT). -Indy beetle (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sure the material is easily accessible in many places to someone wanting to access to it. The point is that somebody who doesn’t know that it exists in the first place will less likely try to find it.

The argument that seven years ago there was a view according to which undue weight was given to foreign involvements in his death is not valid in my opinion: seven years ago the article was completely different and much shorter than now. And in the current article this aspect doesn’t strike me as being given undue weight compared to other aspects. And after all, Lumumba’s death and everything related to it is and should remain one of the most important points in the article.

So an important section concerning the foreign involvements in his death should remain. Imperfect sections should be improved, not erased. Sapphorain (talk)

@Sapphorain: This [2] is a diff from the same month the peer review was completed. This [3] is a diff from September 2016 right before I made a series of expansions to the article (this brought a more balanced look to the structure of the article, but I think the material is out of scope, regardless of the ratio between it and material about Lumumba's life and legacy). In both cases the text concerning foreign involvement in his death is not much different than how it is now. So I'd say the point is valid. I'm sure we can bring an RfC if we want more opinions on this matter. And I'm not arguing that the section is merely imperfect (though it is); I say its UNDUE. Not just when "compared to other aspects", but in general I think this much about all the death plots is not relevant enough to all be included in an article focused on the person of Patrice Lumumba. Like I said above, do we really need to know the identity of the chemist who designed the toothpaste poison that was never used? That's only one example, but with so many different parties actions' being discussed with varying motivations, levels of evidence (ranging from paper documents to conflicting anecdote) and actual immpactfulness I strongly support a split to create a "Death of Patrice Lumumba" page. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: I am not in favor of a splitting. If we had two pages, we would either have twice the same page, or two very incomplete pages. His death is not dissociable from his person. Like for instance the disappearance of Mehdi Ben Barka is not dissociable from Ben Barka. Sapphorain (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they're dissociable, I'm saying that they both need to be fleshed out on their own respective pages. To report on all the plots and all the ensuing investigations here and their various discrepancies would be out of topic (like the poison toothpaste). This article needs more stuff on Lumumba's person and tenure anyway, and I mean to eventually include stuff here that I've been putting in a draft on the Lumumba Government that discusses his time in power: User:Indy beetle/Lumumba Government. At risk of sounding redundant, I assert that it makes sense for the article about him to focus on his actions, not the actions of others. I don't think we're reaching any consensus, so I'm taking this to WP:THIRD. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute on splitting the article):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Patrice Lumumba and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I believe the main dispute is about whether the article should be split to form a separate article for his death. The article currently sits at about 64kb which is just about a good length to be split if more content is there to be added. I believe brief information about his death could be added here while the remaining details can be moved to another page with an apt hat note left in the section. However, till the process is complete, I believe the relevant information on his death should not be removed from this article as it could be of use to a reader. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sapphorain: I agree with Yashovardhan's line of thinking. Also I think its fair to note that Thomas Kanza's memoir on Lumumba also accuses the South Africans, Rhodesians, Portuguese, and Fulbert Youlou of Congo-Brazza of all having involvement in Lumumba's death. If we restrict all our writing on Lumumba's death to here instead of migrating it to its own page and leaving a basic summary we will be quickly overwhelmed by material not pertinent to his life and/or legacy. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I’m still not convinced this splitting is necessary and useful, but I will not object if it is done. Provided of course no sourced information is dropped in the process, and provided the section title « Foreign involvement in his death » stays with a «  main article » template below. Sapphorain (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrice Lumumba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105230238/http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur01292005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/mazur01292005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirect

I have redirected the page "Lumumba" (which is what a reader who types "Lumumba" into the search bar will find) to this page. The disambiguation page previously found at "Lumumba" is now named "Lumumba (disambiguation)."

This makes sense because readers who search for "Lumumba" are probably looking for "Patrice Lumumba." This article, "Patrice Lumumba," receives 10, 100, or 1000 times more traffic than available alternatives. Furthermore most other possibilities listed at "Lumumba (disambiguation)" relate somehow to Patrice Lumumba.

I've produced a notice at the top of this page that will direct readers to the relevant disambiguation page. -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Quotes

I see no "Quotes" section.

Certainly, an orator and politician of Lumumba's stature would have several significant quotes. Other wikipedia entries about those close to Lumumba and the struggle for independence in the Congo, like Mobutu, have "Quotes" sections.

In fairness, I think that the briefness of Lumumba's office didn't really allow for many quotes to be recorded, not to mention that those that could have recorded or recalled such quotes were often complicit with deposing and/or killing him. Not that that excuses the lack thereof, but still, you can expect there to be many more quotes from Mobutu, simply because of contemporary fame and duration of rule, regardless of him being a much less savory character historically. 107.11.136.170 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well this is awkward

Plagiarism at its finest: [4]. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Size and detail

Sorry, but this article is practically illegible: it lays out in excruciating detail the entire process of the transfer of power, the formation and dissolution of alliances, the worldwide bickering, and the fall of the government and the collapse of the institutions. Surely that detail fits better in a “History of...” article, not in a biography of a single person. I find also that his literary production is very much underrepresented, and I cannot in good conscience suggest my African Lit students read this article. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Drmies: In terms of where the detail fits better, that would be Lumumba Government, where all of this detail actually came from in the first place. I wrote that article, and then moved the content most directly relevant to Lumumba himself to here, as there was very little about his government career at the time. It does need additional revision, which you are more than welcome to perform. I wasn't using sources that described his writing career in much detail, so that may be why it is "underrepresented". The only section of this article which I feel is complete is the "Legacy" part, which I spent a long and deliberate time crafting. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Overstatement on Eisenhower involvement in death

The sources referenced here, and elsewhere, indicate that Eisenhower said in an NSA briefing that Lumumba should be “eliminated” and that the CIA began working on plans to assassinate him, but that nothing came of it. He died for other reasons. Yet the article overstates the case by saying that his death “was possibly ordered by” Eisenhower. The evidence does not support this assertion. Sych (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The article actually states: "The 2001 report by the Belgian Commission describes previous U.S. and Belgian plots to kill Lumumba. Among them was a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored attempt to poison him, which was possibly ordered by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. ... The plot was abandoned ... " This account is not controversial in reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologia

Isn't it kind of interesting that the section on his death starts with "Both Belgium and the US were affected by the Cold War in their attitude to Lumumba, as they feared he was increasingly subject to communist influence. " ... kind of like an apology/excuse for his murder? - Francis Tyers · 03:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Francis Tyers: Definitely looks like it could be interpreted that way. While it's certainly true that they were accustomed to a Cold War binary by that point, particularly the US, the phrasing could be a little more graceful, although the author hasn't justified Lumumba's murder by gracelessly crying "commie." Ludo de Witte even argues that the Cold War argument is a smokescreen for Western post-colonial desires for compliant independent regimes. Might could do with a slight rewrite. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That background is part of the motivation. Pointing to motivation is not 'apology/excuse'. And to suggest that cold war paranoia is a smokescreen for anything, in 1960, is frankly absurd. It was the cornerstone of US foreign policy. The very documents that revealed the planned assassination, according to this wikipedia article, show that 'The same disclosure showed that, at the time, the U.S. government believed that Lumumba was a communist, and feared him because of what it considered the threat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War.' LastDodo (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)