Talk:Congolese Independence Speech

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Congolese Independence Speech/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good from an initial read and I have a modest understanding of the D.R. Congo and its history, so this looks like a good article for my first GA review. I will probably get around to reviewing this within a week or two. AHeneen (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Double GAC review

I would like to start this review by saying that article was interesting and very readable. Nice work. I see no reason why I can't promote this to GA shortly so some of the below are suggestions (marked as no action needed). The prose are more than adequate. (no action needed) I don't think verification is a concern. However, I typically would be wary of some of the more politically biased sources used. For example, Intal and CongoForum appear to have a point to make. I believe the article incorporated them in an appropriate manner overall and don't see an issue for GA. (no action needed) Similarly, do we need to link to the Marxist Internet Archive? It looks scholarly enough but I assume the speech is archived through one of the countries involved. (bordering on action needed) There are some things in the coverage that would be great if expanded. The first paragraph after the lead is very short: "The speech was given as part of the official ceremony...". Another line or two with the years Belgium was involved or other historical information would round it out and give a slightly better understanding to the uninitiated reader. In the same section "...who begun the colonisation of the Congo on his own initiative in the 1880s." Is that intended to be cynical? It reads a little off and a sentence verifying could be useful. " civilising mission" is wikilinked twice. A line describing it would be helpful instead of going to another page. Neither Thomas Kanza or Jean Van Lierde are familiar to me and they have redlinks. I would consider expanding or completely removing - especially the latter since it is not confirmed. In the content section, the first paragraph could use a bit more. Also in the content section, the lie regarding it being in French should be integrated somewhere above or elsewhere in the article. It reads odd by itself. In analysis, it would be usefl to give more of an explanation of the speech an political rhetoric. I might just be missing it so only a suggestion. (no action needed) Who is Jean-Claude Willame? "diplomtic incident" is wikilinked but doesn't help my understanding of what happened. Was the speech important enough to the arrest and execution to give more information? Similarly with the Congo Crisis. It almost reads like there are a couple paragraph missing. It might be OK as is (and doesn't shift it POV wise) but wanted to throw it out there. (no action needed) Neutrality is something I would watch out for going forward. I could see this article slipping either way pretty easily. (no action needed) Stability is good (no action needed) Images: Anefo 910-9740 De Congolese2.jpg needs to be right aligned so that the subject is not facing away from the text Anefo 910-5002 Staatsbezoek.jpg as well small notes: Does international press need to be wikilinked? Sources directly after quotes might be an issue. I have conflicting requests from reviewers and had no problem following. This could pop up if you go to FAC.(no action needed) "The speech has been hailed as a 'classic of African nationalism' and praised for providing a response to the 'patronizing' speech given by Baudouin or as an example of speaking the truth to power It was also praised as a public exposé of traits of colonialism glossed over during the independence ceremonies" needs attribution. Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi AHeneen. We actually edit conflicted while I was also typing a review. I have one ready now if it is going to take you a bit.

Well, if you want to finish the review, that's ok. However, after reading the article and thinking about it, I feel that it isn't quite ready to be promoted. One major issue that needs to be addressed is (and you've mentioned this to a small extent) insufficient background/context. This article needs to be placed in the context of Congolese independence and the speech as a response to Belgian rule. I think there should be a "Background" section before the "Speech" section to provide a brief overview of Belgian colonial rule and the events leading to independence. Of course, this would be written in WP:Summary style, but I think this article needs to better establish:

No worries. You mentioned that you haven't tried reviewing out before so I collapsed my comments. It looks like you already have a good grasp of it. Ignore my comments and take your time.Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you (both!) for taking on the review! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1.Why was Baudouin's speech so offensive? This is the most important issue that needs to be addressed, because it is the reason for Lumumba's speech and the reason this speech received so much fame/notoriety. I'm sure that there were many great speeches made by African leaders concerning Pan-Africanism and the end of colonialism as African countries gained independence. The reason this speech is so famous is because it was made directly to the king of the former colonial power, and not just any king, but one who praised his great-granduncle Leopold II as 'genius'. Belgian rule of the Congo is one of the most notoriously oppressive colonial powers on the continent and for most of the period of colonial rule, the Congo was the personal property of the Belgian king (not Belgium) and there's good reason the territory was given the name Heart of Darkness (and no, that does not come from demonic natives but the Belgian colonists). There could be more quotes from Baudouin's speech to further support/emphasize why his speech was so offensive.

• There's a real risk of POV here I feel - I think saying that Baudouin praised the institution of colonialism is really sufficient. I do hope the fact that the speech was offensive because it was uttered "at" the King is already covered. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, the fact the speech was made at the king is covered. However, NPOV does not mean that the content cannot be negative. NPOV means that the content reflects the viewpoints of all reliable sources. In this case, the new "Background" section is ok. I don't think there is any risk of POV, because the viewpoint of most historians/academics is that the rule of Leopold II and companies operating in the Congo was very bad, much worse than other territories in Africa. AHeneen (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

2.Who is Lumumba and why is he important? The article doesn't explain who Lumumba is besides the fact that he is the first Congolese Prime Minister. It would be useful to the reader to understand that he played a role in the DRC's independence.

• This should be sorted in the new introduction. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue is fixed with the new introduction.AHeneen (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

3.In my opinion, there should be more quoted material from both Lumumba's and Baudouin's speeches and the quote from Lumumba's speech should use Template:Quote and be a part of the prose, not off to the side where it can be overlooked. Parts of Lumumba's speech that are worth including are "We are no longer your monkeys" and in response to Baudouin's praise of Leopold II, he described the former rule as "humiliating slavery that was imposed on us by force" (both come from the book The Fate of Africa, by Marin Meredith). AHeneen (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• We already have one lengthy quote (the speech itself is really short!) and I'm worried about Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing quotations. It is a non-free source and, after all, we are not Wikisource. Plus, quite a lot of the known quotations seem to come from the edited version in the mid 1960s. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK.AHeneen (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	No issues.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Complies with MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	I can't find the specific policy, but I recall reading somewhere that "Bibliography" sections are deprecated and references should be in a section called references. The "Notes and references" could be changed to "Footnotes" with no subsection for the two footnotes and the "References" section renamed "Citations". I will ask for a second opinion about this and leave this "undetermined" for now. The formatting is correct, sorry.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The English transcript of the speech does not appear to be a neutral translation. It is a translation in a book subtitled "The Truth about a Monstrous Crime of the Colonialists" published in the Soviet Union, so the choice of words are questionable. The text that this source references is not very controversial, including the quotations, and the translation is very close to the partial French transcript in the external links. I will give this criteria a "pass", but the English transcript from Marxists Internet Archive should be replaced with a better reference.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No apparent original research.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This has been fixed with the addition of the "Background" section.	Pass
(b) (focused)	No issues.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
See above remark about neutrality/reliability of the English translation of the speech.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No stability issues.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The fair use rationale template for File:"TKM Lumumba Independance" (1972).jpg is not complete. Since the fair use rationale says it is discussed in the "Legacy" section, it should be placed in that section. Done, though I'm not sure if it's actually essential as long as they're in the same article. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC) There were still two sections of the fair use template that were "n.a.", but were required. This is a simple issue to fix, so I made the additions myself. No more problems, so pass.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Fair use rationale incomplete for image. I will ask another editor about the format of the references. See below for some fixes/suggestions that don't keep this article from promotion to GA. Issues have been resolved.

Discussion

These are some issues with the article and some suggestions for content to be added that don't affect its promotion to GA:

• In the lead, there is the phrase "civilising mission" in quotation marks but without a reference. In the "Background and context" section, the term appears without quotation marks. Is it a quote? If so, it needs quotation marks in both locations and needs a reference in the lead.
• There is no explanation of who Thomas Kanza and Jean-Claude Willame are.
• There are a lot of red wikilinks for people. Are all of these people notable enough that they will likely have an English Wikipedia article someday? In my opinion, Joseph Kasongo and academics Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja and Jean-Claude Willame likely won't get a Wikipedia article and should not be wikilinked. Cathedral of Notre-Dame-du-Congo is also an article that is unlikely to be created.
• The excerpt from the speech in the "Content" section should be left-aligned to get readers' attention.
• Because the painting is discussed in the "Legacy" section, it should be moved there, especially since it is used as "fair use". It is ok to have no image in the lead or move the photo of Lumumba to the top.
• Is a transcript of King Bauduoin's speech available? If so, it should be added to the external links section.

AHeneen (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential unreliable source

I've noticed that this article cites the following source: Mbu-Mputu, Norbert X (2010). Patrice Lumumba: Discours, Lettres, Textes. Paris: Lulu. ISBN 1-4092-9381-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) Isn't Lulu only for self-published material? -Indy beetle (talk)

• @Brigade Piron: I don't mean to be threatening, but I don't think this is good enough for GA status as per the provision that it is "Verifiable with no original research". Why is this a reliable source and if not, can the info be found elsewhere? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is the speech of King Baudouin, and Joseph Kasavubu???

Where is the speech of King Baudouin, and Joseph Kasavubu??? this page is a complete fake made by cultural marxist to frame the events of 1960, shame on you people... this is not an encyclopedia this is a propaganda website for international woke/decolonization marxists 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:F1DE:8F3B:318B:8BC4 (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

can someone make a page for King Baudoins speech

Much attention has been given to the significance of Lumumbas speech, including rhetorical analysis. I don’t think there’s enough material to prove the kings speech is independently notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to rewrite history here by highlighting certain events, and silencing others, with the cultural marxist, self hating, far left, anti-colonial, the past is evil narative... claiming that the independance speech of king Baudouin is not relevant or naotable, is simply ridiculous and false! KingBaudoin (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia with its "The people's history' narative is becoming a copy of this website: https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/lumumba/1960/06/independence.htm KingBaudoin (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide sources instead of being a whiny little bitch? I’m no Marxist, and your complaints do not strengthen your argument. Show me some sources, and I’ll consider writing an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and WP:NOTFORUM and keep this discussion constructive. However, I have to admire the expertise of someone standing up for historical truth but apparently unable to spell Baudouin. We do not address his speech here in detail because it is not the subject of this particular article - plenty of people, complimentary or not, have written on Lumumba's text and this makes it WP:NOTABLE. Even if this were not the case, however, we could still not include the entire text of the speech which is still subject to copyright and we are also required to follow WP:NOFULLTEXT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

so that is your answer? a personal attack? i think personal attacks are a reason to get blocked on wikipedia, so i would be careful if i was you... KingBaudoin (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd consider an unsupported accusation that I'm engaging in Marxist revisionism a personal attack. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

there where 3 speeches at that event, 1 from the king, 1 from the president, and 1 from lumumba, yet this article only talks about about 1 speech, if this is not revisionism, then what is it? KingBaudoin (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There were 3 speeches, one of which was notable. This is ... not hard to understand. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so 1 speech attracted more attention then the other 2 in a 1960's revolutionary, anti-colonial, anti-war hippie era, and therefore the other 2 speeches dont exist anymore and are illegitimate?, The other 2 speeches were also independence speeches, this page should be either called congolese independence speech by Lumumba, and 2 new pages should be added about each of the 2 other speches or there should be content added about the other 2 speeches on this page, now it is asif this is the only speech, the only legitimate speech, wich it is not, it is just 1 of 3, and yes that is a form of revisionism ... not hard to understand.

And btw, by adding content about the other 2 speeches, it will even make Lumumba's speech come out even more powerful, so you win always, give the people the right and FULL information, and have trust in the common sense judgement of people.

KingBaudoin (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @KingBaudoin: We do not write articles about things because they exist or are "legitimate", so us not having an article on those two does not mean "therefore the other 2 speeches dont exist anymore and are illegitimate". It has nothing to do with that. This is not about making "Lumumba's speech come out even more powerful" either. A lot of the attention brought to his speech was negative at the time, so your invoking of "a 1960's revolutionary, anti-colonial, anti-war hippie era" is misleading at best. Please read our general notability guideline: WP:GNG. This governs what we write articles on. There is not enough in-depth source material about either Baudouin's or Kasa-Vubus speeches to give them their own article, as they did not attract enough devoted attention in sources. The parts about them deemed most important by the sources (such as the Belgian King's praises for his predecessor) are summarized here. You could change our minds by finding in-depth sources about these speeches, but if you can't, please stop arguing as it will go nowhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)