Talk:Berlin Conference

message: Its unclear why the views of David Olusoga are of sufficent import to have a subtitle within the main discussion. As it stands it simply reads as an effort to minimise colonialism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.170.26 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Olusoga

message: Someone had placed Zanzibar among the attendees. This seems to be wrong (and is also therefore now mirrored all over the net). See . The attendees were His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, Otho, Prince von Bismarck, his President of the Prussian Council of Ministers, Chancellor of the Empire; Paul, Count von Hatzfeldt, his Minister of State and Secretary for Foreign Affairs; Auguste Busch, his Acting Privy Councillor of Legation and Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and Henri von Kusserow, Privy Councillor of Legation in the Department for Foreign Affairs ; 
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary, Emeric, Count Szechenyi de Sarvari Felsoe-Videk, Chamberlain and Acting Privy Councillor, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Gabriel Auguste Count van der Straten Ponthoz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Auguste, Baron Lambermont, Minister of State, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary ; 
His Majesty the King of Denmark, Emile de Vind, Chamberlain, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the King of Spain, Don Francisco Merry y Colom, Count Benomar, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
The President of the United States of America, John A. Kasson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Henry S. Sanford, ex-Minister; 
The President of the French Republic, Alphonse, Baron de Courcel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, Sir Edward Baldwin Malet, her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the King of Italy, Edward, Count de Launay, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Frederic Philippe, Jonkheer van der Hoeven, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, etc., Da Serra Gomes, Marquis de Penafiel, Peer of the Realm, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Antoine de Serpa Pimentel, Councillor of State and Peer of the Realm; 
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, Pierre, Count Kapnist, Privy Councillor, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands; 
His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, etc., Gillis, Baron Bildt, Lieutenant-General, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; 
His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, Mehemed Said Pasha, Vezir and High Dignitary, his Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of countries who attended and their enumeration 

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Is misleading because the Boer states were both annexed shortly after the conference in the Boer wars near the close of the 19th century and early 20th century. I propose to list the info as follows:
* Liberia
* Ethiopia (+ extra info already there)
Two otehr states remained independent until annexed by the British Empire:
* Orange State
* South African Republic
Ok you guys know what I mean. Lol. Tourskin 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's Orange FREE State. The text say those were "Dutch" settlers. It's true that Dutch was used as written language, BUT the people homesteading there were Afrikaners. --105.11.20.182 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent states 

message: The geographical data covered by the text of "Agenda" would be well represented as a map. matturn (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to post the same thing. A map would be very helpful if anyone has the necessary skill to make one. --Boreas74 You'll catch more flies with honey 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of agenda proposals 

message: There seems to be some disagreement, particularly from 70.180.166.231 about the section detailing what is believed to be, by two referenced and well respected scholars on the matter, a misconception about some details in the Berlin Conference agreement.  I am not 100% sure what the disagreement is so I have added this section for that disagreement to be more fully explained and elaborated. In the mean time I think it would be best not to edit that section unless those edits are well referenced (some thing that edits that add information to a wiki should be anyway).  I would also like to point out that whilst it might be true in this case that "[r]eplacing the word 'pursue' with 'conquer' does not make it any less damning" this is not relevant as the section being referred to here is a direct quotation (in a block quotation format) and as such is, as a quotation, not open to being altered.  Only shortened, expanded or removed.  Since that section is short enough to be concise and long enough to properly explain the original authors meaning I believe it is not necessary to be expanded to shorted. Since it is a highly relevant quote to this article and is well and very specifically referenced it should remain in the article.--Discott (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Misconception 

message: Recent major revision has inserted not only new factual content, but quite a bit of apparent editorial matter re: the backwardness of the African culture that was supplanted by European rule. For example:
:Previous efforts at establishing settlements and civilization by Portugal as in the Kingdom of Kongo, had revealed a grotesque anarchic civilization of witch-craft, cannibalism, and superstition within Central Africa. This older form of living was so powerful that despite Portugal's best effort, the Kingdom which was materialistically and spiritually superior, still succumbed to a series of wars with various Witch Kingdoms, which had just as quickly turned the former state back into a jungle of anarchy and darkness.
:Armed with vast new weaponry, new medicine, and new technology, the Europeans quickly conquered the Congo and brought a new period of stability and peace to the region. Similarly, the European colonies elsewhere in Africa brought a new and better material living standard which benefited both natives and the European colonial powers and only ended with the abandonment of colonialism under pressure of the United States and the Soviet Union.
:For the next fifty years, several millions of European settlers moved into Africa, hundreds of thousands of roads and rail-roads were established, the endemic tribal warfare was ended, cannibalism was suppressed, and Christianity was spread to millions of Africans who in turn experienced a rapid but stable growth rate thanks to European medicine, technology, and diet.
None of this is sourced, and given the user's concurrent removal of much uncomplimentary text at Henry Morton Stanley, there appears to be a desire to revise tone in such a way as to justify colonialism. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns re: neutrality and original research

message: "By the early 1800s, the European sovereigns, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as the the United States of America, had developed over the course of several centuries an accepted code concerning the rights, obligations, and liberties of the sovereigns and their subjects in relation to one another, as well as with other foreign powers. Aside from Oriental powers long familiar with the European civilization such as Shah of Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the Indian Princely States, and the Manchu Empire, these customs were held in equality only among the Western Sovereigns. Other states such as the Ottoman Empire, also had their own customs which treated Europeans as inferior, thereby forcing the Europeans into establishing various public limited liability companies to limit losses due to the capriciousness of the foreign sovereigns, as well as providing semi-civil frameworks for representing whites in extra-territorial courts." Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced normative statements 

message: It seems this article is missing information relating to the neutrality clause of the Act - which is to say, that central Africa would remain neutral in the event of war between any of the colonial powers in Europe. This was ultimately rejected by the British after the outbreak of war in 1914, and it led to the African theatre of World War I. Why is this not discussed in the article? It seems to be a rather significant impact of the conference. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I'd like help on one point. My understanding is that the US was invited to send a representative to the Berlin Conference. This would have been the first US presence at a major power confab dealing with issues outside the western hemisphere. Chester Arthur DID send someone. Is that right? I also understand that Grover Cleveland refused to submit the resulting treaty to the US Senate for ratification, because he wanted to keep the US out of such matters. Again: is that right? There are a lot of questions here. Who did Arthur send? How significant was his participation? What, if anything, did the resulting treaty offer the US that might have induced at least some of the Senators to vote for its ratification, had they had the chance? Is there a good source dealing with these matters in a way that doesn't presume too much prior knowledge> I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. --Christofurio (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Research Assistance 

message: This article hardly contains any citations... The information in "Early history of the Berlin Conference" does not contain any sources and the information tends to be very one-sided. These views are from a South African viewpoint. a lot of this information was found to be plagiarized from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/berlin-conference. ("can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. ", "Before the conference, European diplomacy treated African indigenous people in the same manner as the New World natives, forming trading relationships with the indigenous chiefs", "By the mid-19th century, Europeans considered Africa to be disputed territory ripe for exploration, trade, and settlement by their colonists").
Morganmichelotti (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Notice of Plagiarism  

message: This article, for the most part, looks really well done. However, I think it would be good if we could add the original Document signed at the Conference. Among the sources listed I couldn't find anything that included this, and I think it would be a good addition.
Cwerth490 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Source Documents 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article says that the U.S. didn't come away from the conference with any African territory, but the U.S. didn't really want any formal African colony for itself -- it wanted European countries to keep their hands off of Liberia, and relatively free trade... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The goals of the United States 

message: * The conference contributed to ushering in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, once made the point that the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was responsible for "the old carve-up of Africa"
This seems to be cobbled together from at least 2 other sentences, but the parts before and after the comma do not seem to belong together. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird sentence in the lede