Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congo (area)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. At issue here is the subjective question of whether the region known as "Congo" should have an article describing its cultural and political heritage, in the fashion of Eastern Europe. This has been relisted often enough, and without any sign of consensus or progress towards consensus that I think we have to admit it's not going to happen. This should not be viewed as an endorsement of the current article content, and some good suggestions have been made in this discussion as to how that content might be improved upon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congo (area)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an unsourced mélange of different conceptions constituting a new term (contrary to WP:NOR). The map depicts a culturalist conception of “culture areas” by Herskovits, adapting conceptions by Bernhard Ankermann and Bernhard Struck, later adapted by Henry S. Wilson. However the Bakongo are only dominant in the very western part of this region. Because of colonial politics the word “Kongo”/“Congo”, originating from the Bakongo/the Kongo kingdom has been employed for various political territories and American and European anthropologists used it to designate “culture areas”, “Kulturkreise”. However, that does not mean that there is any close tie between these various regions and the Bakongo, the Bakongo do not constitute these terms. It is completely unclear what “Present-day Congolese regions” shall mean. Bakongo are still living in Angola, not only in Cabinda. Delete. Chricho ∀ (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Presently there is no Wikipedia article where we are talking about someone of Congolese origin in general terms. Without this Congolese (area) concept (we are not being very specific geographically as the general boundaries were always superfluous and changing over time), we are many times at a loss where to link for people of Congolese origin if we don't know which specific country he or she may be coming from. Let's say we are talking about a scientist, an academician, a music artist or a Congolese music band. These may be American or French or German of Congolese origin with no specific tie to any of the Congos of today.... This page, despite its deficiencies, which colleague Chricho ∀ wants to highlight, this article I am saying does provide quite adequately to my mind for this Congolese concept of Congolese general "origin" and "belongingness". This article certainly not about a specific "ethnic people" or a specific political / social / historic entity as like colleague Chricho ∀ wants to assert. This page is talking about general Congolese areas beyond ethnic and political / historic specific entities, an article that has its place and should remain to accommodate for a general Congolese belongingness. Congolese of the diaspora in say various European countries or the Americas or Asian countries would not, after leaving their country, or forming communities in Europe/Asia/Africa or for being born in these new countries for many generations would not identify specifically with say Republic of the Congo, or Democratic Republic of the Congo, or Cabinda (they might be highly critical and express great misgivings about them in strong terms), but would rather advocate "a Congolese" beyond those present-day entities. The concept of a "Congo area" where "Congolese people or peoples" generate or come from is the best way to describe the Congolese of the diaspora beyond ethnic, linguistic divides the present-day Congos or as a matter of fact some earlier historic Bakongo/the Kongo kingdom or others in the past would imply. Let us keep the article and develop in this sense rather than suggest deleting and going back to very specific present-day political areas created basically to cater for the European imperialistic past like zones of influence for France, Belgium or Portugal. Hopefully one day, all these will be alleviated in favour of one Congolese nation and state which all Congolese can proudly call their own Congo homeland. werldwayd (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is unspecifically called “Congolese” there is usually no connection at all to the notion of the Bakongo ethnic group as suggested by the article, but any citizens of DRC or RC or descendants are called “Congolese”. They are not called “Congolese” because of some inherent connection to the Bakongo, but just because of colonial history, where the word “Kongo” was used as a name for new states. In French Germans are called allemand, but this does not mean that Germany is the “historical living space” of the Alemanni. If you want to have an article describing how people “are talking about someone of Congolese origin” you need linguistic studies as sources investigating the usage of the word.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a platform for propagating your ideas of some “Congolese nationalism”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no so-called "agenda" to propagate so-called "my ideas of some Congolese nationalism" and I quite resent that you imply my creation of the page was for this specific purpose. If this is the logic we will apply in you proposing deletion of "an agenda driven article", can we assume in equal measure of logic that your deletion request is sort of your agenda of "supressing Congolese nationalism" for example? Wikipedia is a community where we assume good faith in fellow editors. You may request deletion, but please don't insert ill-perceived notions into your comments of my actual intentions. As a matter of fact and of utility, we do categorically need a "geographical" notion of a Congolese presence beyond ethnicity and nationality (if any) despite your misgivings. In any case, the presence of Congolese in even ancient history is well-documented. We even have the Wikipedia article Early Congolese history where it explains the existence of Congolese far beyond what we have today. It's just that this specific article is about history, and all I attempted was to put some geographical understanding of the historic Congolese nation or group of nations / peoples. It would not have been appropriate to direct links of 21st century Congolese living in the United States or France or Germany to a historic page like Early Congolese history, that's all, thus the page I created which can be subject to further development and clean-up deemed necessary rather than deleting it once and for all. My argument is, the article can stay as it serves an important purpose, with further necessary clean-up and possible expansion of material rather than a deletion werldwayd (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my words were inappropriate. I do not want to speculate about your motivation to write the article, but reacted to your sentence “Hopefully one day, all these will be alleviated in favour of one Congolese nation and state which all Congolese can proudly call their own Congo homeland.”

The article Early Congolese history tries to describe history restricted to the Congo basin. There was no “Congolese presence” in this early history, but the presence of a multitude of cultures, people, peoples is today classified by some people using the term “Congolese”. There did not exist any “Congolese peoples” (supposing that we are not talking about Bakongo, but a wider term spreading (at least) over the whole Congo basin), not to mention a “Congolese nation”. Even in Europe nations are primarily an invention of the 18th and 19th century. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. You do have considerable knowledge about these matters and your well-articulated points are well-received. I just wish there was more participation from other colleagues in this rather than a two way discussion between us two. Colleague Gene93k inviting more people from other interested groups is welcome. I would particularly be interested in colleagues from within the Congolese communities worldwide who could comment as well on this notion of "being Congolese" past and present and aspirations for a future. Clearly Congolese have linguistic as well as ethnic and cultural diversity, but what is that holds them together as Congolese or as an identity beyond politics and present borders? Even if this article does get deleted eventually, it is a clear possibility, we still would need some useful suggestions of how to indicate in various Wikipedia article the relationship of 20th and 21st century personalities of Congolese roots, plus music bands, artists, who identify as Congolese beyond present-day political borders or when in so many cases simply verifying which present-day Congo they supposedly come from cannot be ascertained. Next time the Congolese communities in our city do organize a cultural event, I will make sure to ask them some valid questions precisely about their being classified as Congolese and I will certainly show them the article (deleted or not) to get their opinion on it. werldwayd (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the links pointing to the article and for Dry (rapper) it seems to be actually difficult to find out what is meant by “Congolese”. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dry is a perfect case of what I am saying. Dry (actually Landry Delica) was born in France. But when he is asked his origin, he says I'm French of Congolese origin, probably because his parents were from Congo but they established long time ago in France. The question rises, but of which Congo? We would have no way of knowing... Perhaps one parent comes from one area, the other from another area. What is clear though is that he is of Congolese heritage and mentions this in his rap. Congo (area) is a very convenient article to link to as it is not bound by land or language restrictions and is more accommodating for all Congolese. Anges d'Afrik is a French afro-beat / afro-pop music collective of Congolese origin. They have names like Keva Keva, Stone Warley, Charnel Playboy and Manolo. All its members are Congolese but we don't know from where? Your guess is my guess. Check group 2 Bal for one. The editor there has given up and doesn't even link "Congolese origin" sentence to anything. In article Congolese American, US census, 3,886 people of Congolese descent were reported. Another 1,602 specified that they were descended from people from "Zaire" and less than 300 people indicated that they hailed from the Republic of Congo. The absolute majority didn't specify an area but just said he is of Congolese descent... Congolese people in France is an interesting read particularly as you go over the infobox names.... Frankly some of our editors do not bother much and at times would arbitrarily tie in some "Congolese" to Republic of the Congo some other Congolese to Democratic Republic of the Congo and sometimes leave it without any link. I am not saying all as some do check the "actual" country, but some others just use an area arbitrarily without verifying actually he is from where. In articles I am involved in I usually tie such people to the "Congo (area)", but don't touch other articles who have tied in for some reason to a specific area. I don't have details to confirm or deny, so I let them be. But you have to understand, we have at times no such assurance what is claimed is true of being from RC or DRC. Many such citations would be taken with some very deserved reservation at least, thus the need for a general term for what is termed "Congolese origin" particularly in the "Congolese world diaspora" which comes from all areas actually. And frankly they don't care once they are settled in Europe or the States. They are well and content with Congolese origin or Congolese descent with no attachment to a country and at many times, clearly resenting the actual Congolese political leaders and their divisive and undemocratic practices. werldwayd (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject overlaps significantly with the already existing Kingdom of Kongo and Kongo people. Since it's unsourced and apparently original research, it does not seem to be merge-worthy.- Mr X 16:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for improvement. The number of different articles listed at Congo suggests that we need an overarching article dealing with the subject, not just a disambiguation page. The articles on the Kongo people, the hisotric kingdom of Kongo, and the three successor polities (two republics and Cabinda) are not capable of providing an overview. Nevertheless this is not a good article and needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain me using which sources which well-established term could be described there?

Furthermore these polities are not “the three successors” of the Kongo kingdom. There is no legal, political or any reasonably constructable continuity, but the name of the Kongo people simply got used to designate the river and the name of the river was used for some colonies. These three polities are successors of colonies but not of the Kongo kingdom which gets a lot of emphasize in the current article. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have articles on the Congo basin and each nation and notable ethnic group living there and their histories. There is no need for a general article on the "area," especially when secondary sources have not designated it a notable concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Werldwayd: @Peterkingiron: Could anybody of the proponents of keeping this article give some ideas which sources to use if we want to describe some well-established term in the article? I have outlined above what would be necessary and I do not think there are such sources. The current state is unbearable, I have listed all kinds of factual errors. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that Congo basin pretty much covers the useful ground here. We don't seem to have the same difficulties with the concept of "Germany" which has only existed since 1871... That aside too, the article is pretty poor and virtually unsourced. If we apply the (admittedly absurdly high) criteria used in WP:AFC, this article should never have been created in the first place. Some of the content can be merged. I disagree with werldwayd about the ambiguousness of the term "Congolese". Since you'll find precious non-explicitly-historical content about the Congo pre-1870s (whether this is a good thing) the confusion does not really arise in peripheral articles. Congo-Kinshasa's borders have been remarkably static since its first colonization anyhow. A possible alternative solution would be to bulk up Congolese diaspora which is currently a redirect. And in answer to your question "what is [it] that holds them together as Congolese...?" The answer's simple - colonialism (see Congo Crisis) and international pressure. In the Congo itself, from my experience, the notion of being Congolese is not that great - ethnicity, religion etc. is much more important.-Brigade Piron (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the dire state of the article, particularly the lack of references, I am going to recommend keep. I don't agree that the Congo basin article covers the same material, that is purely a geographical article whereas this article attempts to cover as well political, historical, and demographic aspects of the region; in fact, all aspects. Is the Congo limited to just the Congo river watershed or is it a broader term than that? The article is more comparable to, say, Eastern Europe, or Southeast Asia. Eastern Europe has great diversity of language, nations, and ethnicities and a poorly defined geographic boundary, just like the Congo. Nevertheless, there are some common threads running through its history and culture (such as the Orhtodox Christian religion and its domination by the communist bloc) that allow a meaningful article to be written. I know little about the Congo and the article currently makes a pretty poor job of this, but it seems likely that similar threads can be found to build a decent article. SpinningSpark 21:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.