Talk:Étienne Tshisekedi

message: I just reverted an edit that deleted a bunch of sources, such as a book by De Witte.  Is there something wrong with that book, and with the other sources that were deleted?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how reliable they are, but the new edit deleted loads of refs and added loads of text with just two refs.  The masses of new content was a violation of WP:NPOV, unreferenced and was not acceptable for a WP:BLP.  I've asked the user to discuss here first before re-adding content, and I've offered my help. matt (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how reliable they are either.  I think the best thing would be to take them one by one.  That's why I started by focussing on one of them: De Witte, Ludo.  The assassination of Lumumba, page 166 (Van Halewyck 2001). isbn1859846181..  It's being used to support this assertion: "In 1998, the Congolese commission to create a new constitution stripped Étienne Tshisekedi of his political rights for his part in the murdering of Congo's first democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba and many other Congolese nationalists."  The source is available on Google Books.  The source says: "In March 1998, the Congolese commission preparing a new constitution announced that Tshisekedi would be stripped of his political rights for the part he played in the former prime minister’s death."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor (Collect) has now removed the De Witt source, and replaced it with a New York Times article that's a bit less inflammatory, and probably a bit more reliable.  I'm fine with Collect's edit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could not understand why you reverted your most reliable biography version to a version full of non-reliable sources such as wikileaks, known to be biaised and difficult to verify its neutral judgment. The reference to the assassination of Lumumba is not correct. You know very well the author of this book and where Lumumba killers' are living. Please spare us from lies, false accusations to discredit a person who has all the time fought for the liberation of the DRC and he should be praised although being a human and committed some mistakes but he should not be treated like that in the way that you do. He deserves respect. This reminds me how Nelson Mandela was treated when he was fighting against apartheid with all sort of bad names such as "terrorist" but when the apartheid was abolished he became the hero and very welcome in those countries which badly named him before. Please again review your last updates and correct them as they are not reflecting any more your level of judgment.EditorUd (talk)EditorUd  —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of sources

message: It seems very questionable to use Wikileaks as a source.  It's not a secondary source, obviously.  Any thoughts?  There has been discussion on this subject at Wikipedia before.  For example, a January 2011 RFC concluded:
Leaked documents, classified by a national government, are generally the viewpoints of the entity that produced them; they are not subject to the balance and editorial checks that we expect of reliable secondary sources. That does not mean a prohibition on using them as sources, but the guidelines and restrictions on using primary sources apply.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only one discussion in the WP:RS archives – see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 33#Leaks.  In the case of Étienne Tshisekedi, if (for instance) a news agency was to report on the leak, then we can easily cite the agency's story.  As for directly citing WikiLeaks, I'd say no, as the reliability (and/or identity) of the original source is in doubt.  In this article, however, there are only links to the WikiLeaks home page – so without crawling through the site we can't easily verify the claims.  matt (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is very bad practice to use "Wikileaks" as a source in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

text: @Anythingyouwant – I'm with you on that.  I don't know how much content in the current revision is usable, either due to unreliable or lack of references.  I suggest it needs rewriting from the start.  The intro paragraph seems well-written; in my opinion we should go from there, sourcing it and expanding on the main points of it – his early life and education, his presidency of the UDPS, his terms as prime minister and his subsequent election campaigns.  A quick search of Google News shows there's plenty of sources for the recent elections, so this may not be such a massive task.  matt (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to the Google News Archive search for "Étienne Tshisekedi".  matt (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks.  I edit Wikipedia mostly on an iPhone nowadays, but am using a nice big screen today.  So, I'll see about fixing up this BLP now.  I already removed the wikileaks footnotes, trimmed the text that relied on them, and inserted some "cn" tags.  Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You do WHAT!? Just through Safari?  I've tried but it's the biggest pain in the arse :) I'm even frustrated by the edit box not being a monospace font! matt (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deliberate.  The difficulty of it prevents me from doing it more.  Kind of masochistic, maybe.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like cite templates much, but I'm usually in a minority about it, and will accede to your wishes.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry!  I only use them as I find it makes standardising everything a little easier – feel free to revert if you want.  matt (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I will set a good example of acquiescence for whomever loses the 2011 election in Congo.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikileaks as a source

message: The section titled "Political career" covers up to 2004, and then has subsections for the subsequent periods.  I think this structure is okay, and the subsections have been overhauled today with lots of acceptable new footnotes.   But the main part up until 2004 still has to be done.  I'll be editing that next.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that comment EditorUd.  I have learned a lot about the world of Mr. Tshisekedi, and probably you have learned a lot about the world of Wikipedia.  Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Political career

message: Following last updates from Anythingyouwant, I did implement 2 amends as follow:
- Changed UPDS to UDPS;
- Changed the date of the UDPS Congress from April to 10-14 December, as the latter was supported by Etienne Tshisekedi (see the Congress Report published on the UDPS website). EditorUd (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: EditorUd, Wikipedia encourages use of "secondary sources" like newspapers and books, instead of "primary sources".  This is explained at WP:Primary.  That's why we removed all of the Wikileaks stuff.  So, it's probably not a good idea for us to use sources published by UPDS, even if they are accurate.  I won't remove the source you inserted, but please try to use only reliable secondary sources in the future.  When you use other sources, you're also inviting people to use sources that you won't like.  More info is at WP:Reliable sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Anythingyouwant, could you please remove the UDPS source? Your remark is correct and I very much appriciate your contribution. EditorUd EditorUd (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, no problem.  Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Anythingyouwant, I meant to delete just the resource as the date seems to be wrong; although there was a Congress in April 2011 organized by the group called "UDPS Righini", it was not in this one that Tshisekedi accepted to be the candidate; however, it was the one in December 2011, where Tshisekedi accepted in person the decision of the latter congress (from 10th to 14th) on 14 December 2011. Sorry for the confusion. I hope that this remark will help. I did not want to change the date as it will not give a good impression and may be confuse you as well. Please could you amend the date accordingly. Thank you very much. EditorUd EditorUd (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one of the references to the December 2011 Congress: http://radiookapi.net/actualite/2010/12/11/congres-de-l%E2%80%99udps-tshisekedi-appelle-a-l%E2%80%99unite-de-son-parti-et-de-l%E2%80%99opposition-pour-la-conquete-du-pouvoir/ EditorUdEditorUd (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "UDPS Righini" is now identified itself as another political parti called "CDPS" (Please read: http://www.7sur7.cd/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21274%3Ardc--beltchika-passe-de-ludps-au-cdps&catid=45%3Aother&lang=fr). Google searh will give you more details about this. EditorUd EditorUd (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you  mind if I change April to December with the reference to RadioOkapi mentioned above? EditorUd EditorUd (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  Thank you very much Anythingyouwant for your advice. However April 2011 brings confusion as it was not a legitimate UDPS Congress because Tshisekdi was absent and he was in Belgium for his long health care. From 10 to 14 December 2011, UDPS organised the only congress they acknowldge and they call it "Premier Congres de l'UDPS" where Tshisekedi was present and endorsed the decision of the Congress. For the reason of historical accuracy, it will be good to mention the conflict arose in April 2011 where there was an emerging group in UDPS called "UDPS Righini" wanting an alternative leadership as Tshisekedi was recovering from Belgium although yet using his name for political purpose. Today this group has formed a separate political parti called CDPS. Sorry for the confusion.  EditorUd EditorUd (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But this Wikipedia article says "April 2009" not "April 2011" (the source in the footnote is also dated April 2009).  So the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to create any confusion about "April 2011", does it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Anythingyouwant, please correct date occurences from my remarks, I should have mentioned "April 2009" instead of "April 2011" as indeed nothing in UDPS did happen in "April 2011". It is a lapsus. But the content of my reactions remain the same. There is no other legitimate UDPS congress validated by Etienne Tshisekedi himself, except the one in December 2011 (please see the PDF file attached as referenced to my last update). Sorry that it is in French (page 6/144, bullet point "d. Mardi 14 Décembre 2010": http://www.udps.org/docs/rapport_general_udps_1er_congres.pdf). Thank you for your contribution. EditorUd (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no problem.  I changed the word "congress" to "meeting" with regard to the Aprill 2009 event.  Maybe that helps.  It might not be a good idea to remove everything about the April 2009 event from this article, because that info (together with a reliable source) have been in this article for a long time.  Anyway, we can see if other people would like to comment here about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: OK, I put in the Radio Okapi source.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Anythingyouwant, thank you very much for your update. Your rephrasing sounds better than mine really. I think that there is no more to add or remove. Again thank you. EditorUd (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure.  Take care.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 elections 

message: I don't know who has been editing this page but it has gone way off track.  It is quoting things in Ludo de Witt's book which do not exist, it is using partisan sources from partisan media in the drc and has probably been tampered with by an opposition party supporter 21:55 gmt 29 December 2011User:digitalfax  —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Page gone off track

message: Tag added as no one can reasonably contest that this BLP is strongly pov-oriented.  Collect (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was removed on August 5, 2012 so maybe it's time to clean up the article.  I began today.108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Note to self or other editors Philmv (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainly worth noting 2019 president is his son