Talk:Mobutu Sese Seko

message: Does anyone have any further information on Mobutu's relationship with the Greek junta? I own and have read several books on the Mobutu era, and while numerous references are made to his relationship with the U.S., Belgium, France, the PRC, South Africa, Israel, the Arab states, etc., the only reference I've found to Greece is a passing mention of his visit to the country in the late 1960s (or early 1970s). Josh (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobutu and Greece 

message: * Can someone upload a better free image of Mobutu? The one on here is pretty grainy for this quality of article. bwmcmaste (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Using Google, no filters, with/without/ "duplicates" (as detected by Google)/Google groups with/Google groups without|same but not using "-wikipedia":
# "Mobutu Sese Seko Koko Ngbendu Wa Za Banga" -wikipedia: 107/29/3/2|366/35/3/2: This is the form used by Britannica.com.
# "Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku wa za Banga" -wikipedia: 76/19/0/0|96/24/0/0: This is the form we currently use, almost looks like its introduced by us. Google suggest that the correct spelling is the one in the next.
# "Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa za Banga" -wikipedia: 456/145/32/18|599/124/32/18: As you can see, this is the Google winner. It is also the form used by MSN Encarta and the last weblink that I added. My favourite. --Dittaeva 22:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the current Mueller investigations it came to light that Paul Manafort had been a Mobutu adviser (which took my breath away). He made money from Mobutu - which is remarkable as Manafort was there to keep him on the side of the US but was obviously not paid by the US, instead by the Congolese people. Or you could see it as skimming off from US aid. Manafort is an evolving topic. 2001:8003:A921:6300:7403:F43C:3BA9:AB58 (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: I think it would be important to add a few words about the fact that he was backed by the United States.65.95.83.10
I added something at the end of the kleptocracy paragraph because that's where I thought it fit the most. Maybe a new paragragh could be written though, about Mobutu's importance to the West in Africa during the Cold War. Red Star
This is Red Star again, somebody added a paragraph entitled "US government likes him", which of course sounded quite silly. I moved some of the info to Military coup, while adding the bit about the Belgians, but I'd like to see the source for his friendship with Pat Robertson. It could be added to Robertson's article too. In the meantime I put the sentence in the Early Years, I don't see where else it could belong. Red Star September 10 2005
:: In the current Mueller investigations it came to light that Paul Manafort had been a Mobutu adviser (which took my breath away). He made money from Mobutu - which is remarkable as Manafort was there to keep him on the side of the US but was obviously not paid by the US, instead by the Congolese people. Or you could see it as skimming off from US aid. Manafort is an evolving topic. 2001:8003:A921:6300:7403:F43C:3BA9:AB58 (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: United States

message: The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:
* Talk:Mobutu Sésé Seko — Mobutu Sésé Seko → Mobutu Sese Seko – See:
** Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Even foreign words used as foreign words need to be fully Anglicized - Jimbo Wales and 
** Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive K#Diacritics_in_names
--Francis Schonken 08:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support move, see below for reasons. --Francis Schonken 08:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Appears that in French it is written thus: :fr:Mobutu Sese Seko (even if that would be the way to approach it, which it is not currently). That English wikipedia is incorrect follows even more from Google search which turns out 256 instances of the Sésé variant; 171000 for the Sese variant (for English pages, excluding wikipedia from the search). Another example of wikipedians trying to "make" reality, instead of recording it. --Francis Schonken 08:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add any additional comments
Appears that in French it is written thus: :fr:Mobutu Sese Seko (even if that would be the way to approach it, which it is not currently). That English wikipedia is incorrect follows even more from Google search which turns out 256 instances of the Sésé variant; 171000 for the Sese variant (for English pages, excluding wikipedia from the search). Another example of wikipedians trying to "make" reality, instead of recording it. --Francis Schonken 08:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I am not sure the argument that Tutsis were opposed to Mobutu due to his support of Rwandan extremists, is valid. Tusis were angered with him because he had let the National Conference withdraw collectively the citizenship of all Tutsi Congolese people, on charges of double-citizenship (which was - and still is - illegal in the country) with Rwanda. They were fighting for their citizenship rights. And the very opportunistic Kagame used their grievances as an excuse to invade the country, and attempt - he failed miserably by the way - to deal with the Hutu extremists and interahamwe. Hence the First Congo War.
Themalau 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overthrow

message: Right now the article says, "Following the granting of independence on June 30, 1960, he joined the new government as Secretary of the State for Defense. The new government was a coalition between Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and President Joseph Kasavubu, both of whom soon started to struggle for overall power - both attempting to dismiss the other from government with Kasavubu ultimately proving successful. On September 14, 1960 a coup d'état overthrew Lumumba in support of the President. Colonel Mobutu was a key figure in the coup and was significantly rewarded for this work."
Mobutu was definitely a colonel at the time, but was his formal position "secretary of state for defense"?  Other sources I have read say that he was chief of staff of the army.  In the francophone world, "Secrétaire d'État" is a sub-ministerial position.  The Secrétaire d'État does not participate in general cabinet discussions unless his portfolio is being discussed.
Also, the follow passage in the article makes no sense:
In 1965, now Lieutenant-General Mobutu seized power from President Kasavubu, following another power struggle between Kasavubu and his prime minister Moise Tshombe. The CIA and the Belgians were actively working in the country to support Mobutu and get rid of Lumumba (whom they regarded as too pro-Soviet) because they felt Mobutu would be a better ally in the Cold War."
By the time of the 1965, Lumumba had been dead for 4 years.  There was no need to be rid of him in 1965; they had done that in 1961." I will change that. -- Poldy Bloom 20:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military position pre-1965

message: I don't know how to revert a page, so someone else will have to do so, but someone called  62.253.192.92 has twice put in nonsense words.  Lindsay H. 14:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the vandalism. See Help:Reverting for how to do it. --Ezeu 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :How was he "unsuccessful" in annointing himself "President For Life?"
:I know that the claim is footnoted, but I haven't been able to find anything online verifying it. 
:Can someone post an excerpt from the book where the event is described? Ruthfulbarbarity 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder about that. When I lived in Shaba (once and later Katanga) in 1983-84, as principal of a nursing school, an edict came (1983) declaring a national holiday in honour of President Mobutu's declaring himself president-for-life. I had to announce it to the students that morning. The students asked what the holiday was for, and I told them. There was a howl of fury - which I had to quash, for it did not do for any suspicion to fall on a foreigner of engaging in political comment! I believe however, that the decision, if in fact taken, must have been allowed to fall, for a year later (mid-1984) there were again presidential elections. High schools and tertiary institutions were closed early to enable senior students to return home to vote. The vote method was the usual red card/green card = no/yes for the only candidate. Names were checked against ID cards and polling lists at the polling station desk, where armed soldiers observed the colour card one took; one then entered the polling booth, shut the door, and put the card in the ballot box (hence, secret ballot!). Mobutu was re-elected president with approx 99.5% yes vote. A news report (on SABC) announced the result, then added the comment, "President Mobutu was asked why he did not declare himself president-for-life, and he said it was because he did not wish to appear a dictator." Ptilinopus (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: President For Life

message: The authenticity in the last paragraph of this section (particularly the last few sentences of said paragraph) is dubious.
To say factually that the CIA and Belgium favored Mobutu because they thought he would be a better ally in the Cold War is quite a definite statement to try and make. If anything, this is a sweeping assertion. There need to be more neutrality in that last paragraph. 
Doesn't anyone recognize the fact that Belgium supported Mobutu overthrowing Lumumba? So did the CIA? The CIA is notorious for disrupting foreign governments and sparking coups. So therefore, one cannot say for sure without facts that either view is true.
Mobutu was likely supported for multifarious reasons, for example, because he was a better ally in the Cold War, but perhaps also because Belgium and the CIA knew they could more easily use and manipulate a more corrupt man.
Does my discussion sound one-sided?
Well so does the story.
Let's see if we can add some neutrality to it. Mobutu obviously was not a saint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.93.12 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Early years" authenticity... 

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of September 13, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  For the most part, the article conforms to the Manual of Style. There are, however, a few issues to be dealt with. Just FYI: According to the MOS, there is no preference for single or double spaces after a full stop because it doesn't show up anywhere but the edit window. There are several facts that are placed as single-sentence paragraphs. These should be integrated into existing paragraphs. Examples are in: One-man rule and Family.  The last paragraph of Legacy is very poorly written. It needs to be rewritten to include a basic definition of what the email scams are first. We need a definition before its context and connection to the subject at hand can be further intimated.
:2. Factually accurate?:  Mostly well-sourced, but I have added fact tags to claims needing citations. Remember to directly cite anything like to be challenged (Example: assertions of the opinions of groups or individuals) and always quotations. Just to clarify my purpose and reasoning in adding those tags, I'll include the words of a better reviewer than I, "the paragraphs in question are packed with information and it's difficult to know what's covered by the single end-ref. A cite at the end of the paragraph is really the bare minimum required." Adding fact tags isn't meant to suggest that the items are untrue, but that readers need reminding that they supported by reliable sources, usually because of their potentially contentious nature. An example of where the article does do this is the second sentence of the one-man rule section. But on a more concrete issue, there are multiple sections, several of them large, without a single citation. This lack of citations is borderline on whether to quick-fail the article, but if you can comprehensively cite the following sections within seven days, the article may be passable.
* Military coup and consolidation of power
* Relations with the Soviet Union
* Coalition government
* Overthrow
* Death
* Legacy
* The last paragraph of Relations with the People's Republic of China
:3. Broad in coverage?:  Though mostly comprehensive when it comes to the core biographical info, the article needs expansion in a few places. The Death section either needs to be expanded or placed chronologically as part of another section. The arts and literature section is pretty scant. Not saying you didn't do your job, but it looks odd. A good option might be to integrate the most notable ones as part of the introduction, in order to even more clearly state the subject's notability (example: ...and whose rule was the subject of such notable works of fiction as...").
:4. Neutral point of view?:  The article does a pretty fair job of staying neutral, especially considering the subject matter. Refraining from using sensationalist language when it comes to violence he fomented helps. Citations for sections such as Legacy will help here though.
:5. Article stability?  Article is not the subject of any major on-going conflicts.
:6. Images?:  Properly sourced and utilized.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— VanTucky Talk 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: I say let's "fail without further notice", i.e. drop that GA nomination and revert the strange mutilations wrought down upon us by GA. The article is a mess now with citation needed tags spread all over, even though the relevant citations are, in fact, given at the end of each paragraph. This is no incentive to improvement. — mark ✎ 11:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I object to the -tags primarily. Most other suggestions given above are valuable. It is just that I do not see the added value of the GA operation. — mark ✎ 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to pick a battle over Wiki policy. Improving the article status is a goal for all articles. I'll fix it up this weekend. The article was, to a degree, a mess to begin with in certain places. I just didnt notice how bad. Perspicacite 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll echo Perspicacite's first comment, but if you have an objection to the result of this review, you are of course free to present a case at GA review. VanTucky Talk 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well then please fail this article without further notice

message: Per the failure to complete the above improvements within a week's time. Thank you for your work so far, and if you have an objection to the result you may take it GA review. VanTucky Talk 18:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "good article" nomination failed

message: Who's been editing this slice of fried gold -- congratulations to the editor (s) who made this article such an enjoyable read. Michael talk 10:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really good.  I'm still pondering its neutrality, but the more I read (in the secondary sources and elsewhere), the better I think this article is.  Also, it really doesn't need copyediting much or at all.  I'm going to read it one more time and see if I can fix anything, but I think it's a really well-written article.  Congratulations to the editors.Levalley (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: The following sentence, in particular the parenthetical, seems overly sweeping. "He worked hard on little but to increase his personal fortune, which in 1984 was estimated to amount to US$5 billion,[16][17] most of it in Swiss banks (however, many now suspect he was never a billionaire at all[18])."
To say that "MANY now suspect he was never a billionaire" from an 11 year old cnn article is perhaps not a factual representation of that article. From the article, it seems only to be a Swiss bank which believes this (Swiss banks, you may remember, in the past have attempted to hide the assets of various people). 12.206.222.20 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  no billions? 

message: Where does his "own" pronunciation come from? It's neither Lingala nor French. kwami (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That unverified phonetical transcription was introduced by an anonymous user  and hasn't been referenced since. --moyogo (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll delete it, then. Would you happen to know the correct tones in Lingala? kwami (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: According to logic used in the Pinochet article, this article's introduction should be changed to include the term "dictator".  Let's wait a week or so to see what happens there and apply it here for consistency. 903M (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: dictator

message: I think the wording and grammar of this section need to be improved. I'm working on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplealtar (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second coup and consolidation of power 

message: This is beyond simple copyediting for style and grammar, but the last sentence in the One-man rule section perhaps belongs in the next section.
The next section, Foreign policy/Relations with the United States would benefit from having a more coherent sense of time.  When it says "was the third largest donor," I assume it means under Nixon, Reagan etc. - therefore, some time ago.  This time frame should be made explicit.  We learn the relationships cooled in 74-75, so the previous warmth was from the 60s?  Early 70s?  Should say when.  The topic sentence makes it sound much more recent.  
It's an excellent article.  It stays well within Wikipedia's usual tone, but uses crisp and parsimonious language.  It gives just the right amount of detail, leaving the reader with sources to find more information if desired.  It was a pleasure to tidy it up a little.  I don't think it needs much or any work, and should have GA status.  It's fascinating just how many events Mobutu was involved in (e.g., the genocide in Rwanda).  Maybe we should link him to the evil genius page.
I was a little unsure how to handle the various levels of headings.  They seemed sort of random to me.  I tried to make them consistent.
Did his remains ever make it back to the Democratic Republic of Congo?
The 'in the past two decades' part of his legacy needs to be time-adjusted.  It must refer to the period 77-97 (his death), but it isn't clear and will become less clear over time.
Anyway, it's an outstanding article.Levalley (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments while copyediting 

message: One of the statements here seems ambiguous. Actually, I don't think it's "ambiguous" so much as "misleading." This gives the (pretty clear) impression that Mobutu himself fled the country in 1981. The rest of the article doesn't seem to support this, and since it seems to be mentioned only in passing that makes me think the section may in fact be referring to the nobody he tortured and then made Prime Minister for a little while instead of Mobutu himself.
So which is it?
If the person who fled the country wasn't Mobutu, the sentence needs to be rewritten so that Mobutu is no longer the clear antecedent of "he" when it talks about the person who ran away and later returned as an ambassador.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer884 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I still don't know anything about this topic, but have been unable to confirm that Mobutu left the country in '81 and so am pretty well convinced that the sentence should be referring to the other person. I'm going to "fix" it and, if it turns out I'm wrong and Mobutu did actually flee in '81, someone else can put it back. :) 12.19.84.33 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I rewrote that little bit. Only catch is that it originally read "return to the fold" instead of simply "return," which i thought was a little... extraneous. I didn't include "to the fold" in this version, but if Nguza in fact did not return to Zaire then the current wording is inaccurate, as the literal meaning of what I added is that he ran from Zaire and then game back to Zaire. I just checked the Nguza article to try to get some info on the situation at the time, but the Mobutu and Nguza articles don't even agree about dates (1985 or 1986?) and the ministerial position isn't even mentioned in the Nguza article, so I'm not sure that reallly did me much good. 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Man Rule thingy 

message: In the section regarding his overthrow, the article currently states that the "Tutsis had long opposed Mobutu, due to his open support for Rwandan Hutu extremists responsible for the Rwandan genocide in 1994." The wording of "long opposed" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in this context. If the genocide took place in 1994, and Mobutu was overthrown in 1997, that doesn't leave a great span of time for a "long opposition" to take place. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's confusing the long-running issue of political identity among the Banyamulenge in Zaire with Mobutu's support for the Hutu-run government of Rwanda.  And there's probably even an argument that if you pulled apart those two issues, you still couldn't make a blanket statement of any kind, given Barthélémy Bisengimana's role in the Mobutu government. - BanyanTree 01:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutsis "long opposed"? 

message: While I see a report in Time magazine that Mobutu was baptized in the Roman Catholic church, he is reported to have promoted a religion (:Mobutism) with himself as the messiah: President Mobutu bans religion in schools. So, does Mobutism deserve a mention as his religion later in life? -- Donald Albury 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: *Duke, Lynn. Mandela, Mobutu, and Me: A Newswoman's African Journey. Random House Digital, Inc., 2003. 0385503989, 9780385503983. 
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional sources

message: Is there a source anywhere that says how this route was done?  The range of the Concorde is generally given as 3,900 - 4,500 miles, while the trip from his airport to JFK would be around 6,000; hence they had to stop somewhere for fuell.  My first guess would have been Paris, but it says in the linked source that the first nonstop to Paris from his airport was a year or two after his flight to the UN.  I would think there is a flight record for it somewhere but I'm not sure how to find it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:EA00:101:240A:481D:36E8:3A8E:E2C3 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congo to NYC via Concorde 

message: Re "Lumumba fled to Stanleyville", this is incorrect: Lummumba fled from Leopoldville to try and make his way to Stanleyville to join a rival government set up by Gizenga in Lumumba's name. But Lumumba never made it he was stopped and arrested.
Re Mobutu's African title, I always understood that Sese Seko Kuku Ngabendu Wa Za Banga could be translated as military: "the great unstoppable warrior who goes from victory to victory"; OR sexual: "the rooster/cockerel who goes from hen to hen". It might as well be "conqueror of the known universe".
23:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Congo Crisis

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mobutu Sese Seko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130517115428/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3868789.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-3868789.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The infobox says he took office on 24 November, but the Second coup and consolidation of power section says that was 25 November. —howcheng  {chat} 17:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mobutu Sese Seko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lefaso.net/article.php3?id_article=5300
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609181927/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/odom2/odom2.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/odom2/odom2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715000000/http://www.heritage.org/research/africa/upload/91612_1.pdf to http://www.heritage.org/research/africa/upload/91612_1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mobutu Sese Seko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303231049/http://sites.davidson.edu/cis485/?p=3164 to http://sites.davidson.edu/cis485/?p=3164
*Added  tag to http://www.afriquenligne.fr/actualites/politique/rd-congo%3a-pour-le-rapatriement-des-restes-de-mobutu-2007121713559/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article's framing of Mobutu's rule as "highly centralized" in the lead and elsewhere is dubious, to say the least. Scholarly assessments of Mobutu's rule largely characterise his leadership as ultimately characterised by personal networks and the distribution of resources outside formal state structures as the state was allowed to wither, rather than be strengthened. (An easy way to make this apparent is to ask a simple question-- would one characterise the Zairean state at the time of Mobutu's downfall in 1997 as strong, weak, or virtually nonexistent?) If anything this structure was semi-feudal rather than anything resembling a modern state. A useful treatement is to be found in Reno (1997), "Sovereignty and Personal Rule in Zaire". This should ideally be discussed in less academic terms, but at the very least the existing language, which is wholly inappropriate, should be removed. --Varavour (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of "centralization" are highly tendentious 

message: I'm currently working on an Armed Forces of Zaire page along with a Military ranks of Zaire page. I have some questions as Mobutu is listed as both a Marshal in the army and Grand Admiral in the navy. Was he the only one to hold these ranks? What are the rank insignias? Is the Grand Admiral rank referring to the 'Grand Amiral' rank which is the equivalent to NATO OF-9 Admiral or was this an OF-10 rank like Marshal equivalent to Admiral of the fleet/Fleet admiral rank and if so what was its name in French. Thank you.
Lankyant (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Far as I know, he was the only person in Congo/Zaire during his time to be declared "Marshal" (a self-appointment I'm sure). The regular army commanders ranks stopped at general. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  that's exactly as I suspected. The Grand Admiral is the one that's confusing me most. My thinking is that it's more a confusion but I wouldn't be surprised if he had given himself another rank! Lankyant (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mobutu Ranks