# Talk:Congolese Independence Speech

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)

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
### Review
Well-written:

Verifiable with no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

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

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

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


#### Result
#### 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)


### Additional notes
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??? 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)

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)