Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] old stuff
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)
-
-
- I don't understand why we don't refer to them as East Congo and West Congo. South Korea is actually the Republic of Korea and North Korea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. There is no mention of North or South in either official name. The same was also true of the old East & West Germany and North & South Yemen. Why has the world suddenly decided that the Democratic Republic of Congo has to be known by its formal name? Crico 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)hehe
-
-
-
-
- East and West are not appropriate: not all of Congo-Kin is West of Congo-Brazza. In the past few days I've often heard DPRK instead of North Korea. Most importantly, it's hard to consider that both Congo's we're one before, whereas Germany was one, Korea was one. --moyogo 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, they are east and west of each other and prior to European colonisation, there was a Kingdom of Kongo that covered area in both states if not the entirety. However, to clarify my original comment, I'm not arguing that Wikipedia should start calling them East and West Congo because nobody refers to them that way. I'm just idly curious as to why the world has adopted this terminology with DRC when we aren't so formal with any other country bar the possible exception of the United States of America. I suspect the answer is because Congo-Brazzaville was known as Congo for such a long time, that to start saying East and West Congo would imply it had split rather than Zaire changing its name. Crico 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- East and West are not appropriate: not all of Congo-Kin is West of Congo-Brazza. In the past few days I've often heard DPRK instead of North Korea. Most importantly, it's hard to consider that both Congo's we're one before, whereas Germany was one, Korea was one. --moyogo 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
The formatting appears messed up in Firefox, all other pages look fine. OMouse 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Doctor Congo
Is it me or does "DR Congo" conjure up an image of a tacky 1980s pop star? :-) Type "Doctor Congo" into Google and see what you find ..... :D
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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. — Instantnood 15:08 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
- Support - BanyanTree 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support.
-- Jordi·✆ 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)
[edit] 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.
- Ya pili Second Congo War: Very, very notable.
El_C 12:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
alright, i think that's an improvement. replaced with stated version of what happened. --Gozar 00:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, it now much better--Seanh 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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 '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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
- Some of the recent edits to the history section are dubious. "Red China" and "Communist terrorists" etc - Xed 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Population
That graph of smoothly rising population, census measurements every year: I don't believe it, does anybody?
- 2007 estimate 63,655,000
- 1984 census 29,916,800
- Can the population really have more than doubled in 23 years? --The monkeyhate 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes the population really can have more than doubled in 23 years. The UN estimates the fertility rate to be 6.7 and national sources put it at 7.3. There has not been a national census since 1984, but the 2006 elections had 25 millions electors enrolled, more than half of the population is very young. You do the math. ---moyogo 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 (
LéopoldvilleKinshasa) 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)
- 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)
- Thanks for the correction, Léopoldville was officially renamed Kinshasa 1966. Most sources say it was on June 30th (only a few give other dates in that year). It's funny to see other ressources [2][3] convey the mistake. ---moyogo 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The reference to People's Republic of the Congo was (again), a confusion between the two Congos. The Republic of the Congo was referred to as that in some atlases into the 1980s. Meateatingvegan 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction, Léopoldville was officially renamed Kinshasa 1966. Most sources say it was on June 30th (only a few give other dates in that year). It's funny to see other ressources [2][3] convey the mistake. ---moyogo 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
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).
Is it "The Democratic Republic of Congo" or "The Democratic Republic of the Congo", because various news networks use different names, the US government uses "...the Congo", but the U.N. uses "..of Congo". The article uses "...of the Congo." What causes the disperity?
- The official name in English is "Democratic Republic of the Congo", which is a direct translation of the French name (in French its always ".. du Congo" which means ".. of the Congo", and never ".. de Congo" which would be ".. of Congo). However you're right to point out that ".. of Congo" is common usage in English. The UN itself is not consistent; on their site there is a drop-down list of missions in New York that says ".. of Congo" but when you get to the page itself its ".. of the Congo"! Kahuzi 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Coat of Arms
The country has a new coat of arms which can be found here:
http://www.presidentrdc.cd/accueil.html
[edit] English state name?
Should the english name be included to the header? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.190.167 (talk)
- I think you mean the header to the country information box. I don't think that it's necessary as the full name of the country in English is the title of the article. If you look at Ethiopia, for example, the official name of the country differs from the name of the article. Now that you bring it up, there might be a case to make for the name in the four other official languages, but that would look pretty crowded. - BanyanTree 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- French is the only official languages of the DR Congo, the other four are national languages. ---moyogo 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- As with all other countries (with lengthy name or not), per the country wikiproject, I'm restoring the conventional (English) long-form name atop the infobox. Actually, I will also revise the lead (to include the French rendition) to conform to recent proposed changes for country article leads. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with EPA. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 26 provinces!?
The constitution is clear on this, the 26 provinces will be in place in the 36 months after the installations of the institutions defined in it, see Article 226, also at [4].
- Les dispositions de l’alinéa premier de l’article 2 de la présente Constitution entreront en vigueur endéans trente six mois qui suivront l’installation effective des institutions politiques prévues par la présente Constitution.
- En attendant, la République Démocratique du Congo est composée de la ville de Kinshasa et de dix provinces suivantes dotées de la personnalité juridique : Bandundu, Bas-Congo, Equateur, Kasaï-Occidental, Kasaï-Oriental, Katanga, Maniema, Nord-Kivu, Province Orientale, Sud-Kivu.
When were the 26 provinces set up when the institutions defined in the Constitution aren't even in place considering the elections haven't gone throught yet? ---
- I agree with brother Moyogo. Legally, starting in February 2006, the DRC has 26 provinces, even though they have not been set-up yet. Themalau 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no intimation from Government or any official document including the constitution that Congo DRC will be having 26 provinces. They are only 11 and will remain so for now. I am currently fixing the geographical classification data of the country with Provinces, Districts, Territories and Sectors. Anyone wish to have them is welcome.Adeelzafarbioid 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Map of DRC
Mbɔ́tɛ na bínó, or Mbóte na bínó - à la kinoise ;-)
I started improvements on the Image:Congo Kinshasa Template.svg. I'd like it to be a template for most general maps on the Congo. Eventually it should be able to generate a map like Image:Cg-map.png and its translated forms.The SVG file already contains layers with different data. The Provinces' contours currently in the file are those of 2006, 1988, 1966, and 1960. I do not have access to a map of the provinces of 1963 at the moment. I'm currently working on adding major cities. I'd like to add the same Geo data as the CIA WorldBook map (latitude and longitude, scale, labels, Congo river) and maybe more for more detailed maps (rivers, territories, small cities, major roads, train tracks and resources). Please let me know if you're interested. ---moyogo 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict Section Opener
The first line of the section on recent conflicts reads: Since 1994, the Congo has been rent by ethnic strife and civil war, touched off by a massive inflow of refugees fleeing the Rwandan Genocide. This sentence might easily contain the addendum, "which they participated in". Most Western readers will interpret this, as currently worded, to imply that the victims of the Rwandan genocide are thr refugees who touched off strife. In fact, the refugees are the Hutu Power government and Interahamwe militia who planned and commited the genocide, as while as anyone they could bully or trick into crossing the border with them. One wouldn't want an article on the Nuremburg trials to read "Many victims of World War II were hanged at Nuremberg", even though that might in the strictest sense be true. I suggest a change reflecing the fact that the refugees were largely from the groups participating in the genocide and that much of the "ethnic strife" they touched off was a continuation of their genocidal politics.
- Your suggested opener is not correct/accurate either (despite what some would have people believe), and in fact could be seen as insulting and inflammatory. Using that opener would imply that the entire Hutu population was hellbent on killing Tutsis. Which is fundamentally untrue. Those that perpetrated the genocide were of Hutu ethnic background, Yes. And they did it in the name of Hutu power, Yes. But it is wrong, untrue, and not to mention dangerous to give out the impression that every Hutu is guilty of the genocide, simply for being Hutu. The vast majority of the Hutus who fled to Congo were innocent civilians, fearing blanket retribution by the mainly-Tutsi RPF (Which eventually came, by the way, during the First Congo War of 1996-97). And the Interahamwe, and other perpetrators of the genocide used these civilians as "human shield" to escape Rwanda, and in fact terrorized these people (their fellow) while they were in the refugee camps in Congo. The plights of the genocide are very real, and quite tragic. But let us not be cavalier in placing the blame. And if you are going to make such statements, please sign your comments.Themalau 08:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Official language
According to Book of the Year2006(Encyclopaedia Britannica), Official languages:"French, English" This is an error. http://www.britannica.com/nations/Congo,-Democratic-Republic-Of-The
- They apperently read LD Kabila's draft constitution and figured it was the new one that passed last february. --moyogo 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- You have got to looooove Britannica, right? :) Themalau 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- A month later they still haven't fixed that mistake. --moyogo 09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- The same applies for the CD version of the Larouse Enciclopedic Dictionary, they say the only official language is French. Camahuetos 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- A month later they still haven't fixed that mistake. --moyogo 09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- You have got to looooove Britannica, right? :) Themalau 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political and Administrative divisions
Why does the DRC article have two sections, "Political divisions" and "Administrative divisions", both providing similar information?
The only content in the former is "Main article: Political divisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo", which takes you to a text beginning "The administrative hierarchy of Political subdivisions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is as follows:". Anyone oppose merging these two sections? Kahuzi 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quality Issues / Grammar
There are a lot of glaring grammatical errors in the article that make it extremely hard to read.
"The chopping tools and choppers are estimated to date back to before -200,000 years [200,000 years ago or 200,000 BCE], though we cannot be more specific today [?? what does that mean??]. The country was peopled in very ancient times by groups of hunter-collectors, some of them maybe ancestors of today's pygmies. In the large time period between the earliest hunter-gatherer inhabitants and the coming of the first villagers, Congo will always [will always be? should it be "was settled"?] be settled by various stone knapping nomad groups of different Traditions."
"Formerly the Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo, the country's post-independence name was changed in 1971, from Congo-Kinshasa (after its capital, to distinguish it from the Republic of Congo, or Congo-Brazzaville) to Zaire, until 1997. Since 1998, the country has suffered greatly from the devastating Second Congo War (sometimes referred to as the African World War[2][3]), the world's deadliest conflict since World War II."
I will return and try and correct some of these errors, but all in all I think this article needs to be tagged as not up to WIki's quality standards. If anyone knows how to, please do so.
[edit] Languages
Would be great to include the old ways of greeting in French that were taught the indigenous, e.g. the first two or three lessons on how to greet or introduce oneself. It is practically the didactic language (sorry, didnt know how best to contribute). --- User:147.142.186.54
[edit] Location map...
The location map shows a very old map of the world, with Austria-Hungary and the German Empire among others, and so shows the DRC as part of Belgium. The map is currently being used in other articles as a map for the Congo Free State, so I don't think another map should be uploaded unless there isn't one already. So does anyone know if there is a modern-day map with the DRC highlighted? (And, if possible, one with the new border between Serbia and Montenegro?) Thank you! - Lewis R « т · c » 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed, for some reason the map was set for the Congo Free State. --moyogo 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed WikiProject
In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Middle Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Middle Africa whose scope would include the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Error in the section "Belgian Congo (1908-1960)"
Belgian Congo mines supplied the uranium for the Hiroshima bomb but not the Nagasaki bomb because the latter was a plutonium weapon.
[edit] Major Cities
the table header is misleading. The French and Dutch names are the same as the Congolese ones. What is indicated are the pre-independence or pre-zairianisation names. Please adjust accordingly. --moyogo 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major cities old names
I'm replacing the table showing the major cities. It misleads to think the Congolese column names are used in Congolese languages, French column names are used in French, and that Dutch is used in the country. Such a table should be in a History pages not in a section displaying a liste of current major cities. Or is should be clearer. --moyogo 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
|
|
I'll move this table to the History Page, and change the column headings to make it clearer. Kahuzi 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text
[edit] Definite article
Should articles on DRC include the word "The" in their title? I'm thinking of National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others which have recently been moved. Personally I think yes they should, as this is what english speakers normally say (despite the general ban on articles in wikipedia). What do others think? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Usage with "the" in front and without is about 50/50. Personally I favour the informal name Congo-Kinshasa. --moyogo 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course they should include the definite article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Velours du Kasaï
I would like to add this article to one of your country's categories, but I can't decide which one. I notice everything has been neatly organised and I don't want to drop it somewhere arbitrary. Can someone help out? Bards 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? --moyogo 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks! Bards 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cannibalism
In regards to Congolese pre-colonial history, is it true that cannibalism was rampant? The only reliable accounts I can think of are those of the Begian government- well, if they really did have to deal with eliminating it during colonization- so what's the consensus on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.64 (talk) 01:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Bloodiest conflict"
I absolutely don't want to demean the situation in the Congo, obviously it's atrocious and something needs to be done about it, and immediately. But in the interests of accuracy and clarity: "This period of conflict has been the bloodiest in history since World War II.[10] Almost four million people have died as a result of the fighting." Almost four million, which is probably a pretty accurate number considering the inherent inaccuracies of reporting in such messy parts of the world, is really pretty close to a reasonable estimate of the deaths resultant from the complex of American actions in Southeast Asia many of which are called "the Vietnam War", in fact it may even be a little lower. Depending on your definitions and sources, a guess about Southeast Asian deaths strictly due to American actions ranges anywhere between 2 million and 6.
Further, I checked the link given as a source, and all it did was simply state the assertion "bloodiest conflict since WWII", at least in the part of the article not requiring subscription. I get that a statement made in the Economist is generally regarded as of sufficient reliability for inclusion in a Wiki article, but I wouldn't be so credulous. While the Congo situation is among a teeny handful of the worst, and may indeed be the worst, I think we should be a little more careful in making bold and certain claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammoe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adjectival form of country name
There is a debate on categories for discussion about whether it is appropriate to use "Democratic Republic of the Congo" as an adjective. For example, it is ok to refer to "Democratic Republic of the Congo writers," or should they be called "Writers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." If you have an opinion on or information about this matter, please comment here. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)