This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Colonization of the Congo Basin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article presents a biased British colonial perspective. Its whole purpose is to redeem Stanley from the atrocities he committed in Africa and to attach these to Léopold. The impression is given that Stanley was forced by the Belgian king to set up his stations and bereave Africans of their land. Moreover, how can his propaganda for colonization of inner Africa be called a 'legacy', if all that resulted from his journees was death, exploitation, and destruction of cultures? otium 21.05.06
I can't believe an article of this length and depth doesn't cite a single reference. It's well written, but I just have no idea where this stuff is coming from.
An article entitled 'The Colonisation of the Congo' should also discuss the French Congo and the explorations of Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. 41.241.52.187 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple years that could be mentioned as starting year: e.g. Livingstone first exploring the Lualaba (upper Congo River) in 1871, and Stanley's first following that river into Congo into the Atlantic (1876). Together they traveled only on Lake Tanganyka 1871-1872, after their meeting. This article now looks like to mix these travels and years (I changed the intro into 1876, but that need not be the final fact). And: we need to describe what is "the Congo"?
Wel, here are the firsts by Europeans:
So what should we write? Stanley in 1876 just sailed the river, clearly without claiming any posession. Discovery, trading posts: OK no colonisation. I suggest to say Stanley's 1879 trip, with Leopold at home claiming all of its results. Suggest to rewrite relevant parts, and also introducing the before-situation.- DePiep ( talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colonization of the Congo. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This section grammatically does not lead on from anything, and thus appears to have a deleted first section.
additionally, the phrasing around mystery lends an unscientific and implicitly European focused narrative; I think it would be better to rephrase as 'remained unexplored/unknown/unreached by European colonialists/explorers...' Patrickredma ( talk) 14:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Colonization of the Congo Basin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article presents a biased British colonial perspective. Its whole purpose is to redeem Stanley from the atrocities he committed in Africa and to attach these to Léopold. The impression is given that Stanley was forced by the Belgian king to set up his stations and bereave Africans of their land. Moreover, how can his propaganda for colonization of inner Africa be called a 'legacy', if all that resulted from his journees was death, exploitation, and destruction of cultures? otium 21.05.06
I can't believe an article of this length and depth doesn't cite a single reference. It's well written, but I just have no idea where this stuff is coming from.
An article entitled 'The Colonisation of the Congo' should also discuss the French Congo and the explorations of Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. 41.241.52.187 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple years that could be mentioned as starting year: e.g. Livingstone first exploring the Lualaba (upper Congo River) in 1871, and Stanley's first following that river into Congo into the Atlantic (1876). Together they traveled only on Lake Tanganyka 1871-1872, after their meeting. This article now looks like to mix these travels and years (I changed the intro into 1876, but that need not be the final fact). And: we need to describe what is "the Congo"?
Wel, here are the firsts by Europeans:
So what should we write? Stanley in 1876 just sailed the river, clearly without claiming any posession. Discovery, trading posts: OK no colonisation. I suggest to say Stanley's 1879 trip, with Leopold at home claiming all of its results. Suggest to rewrite relevant parts, and also introducing the before-situation.- DePiep ( talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colonization of the Congo. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
This section grammatically does not lead on from anything, and thus appears to have a deleted first section.
additionally, the phrasing around mystery lends an unscientific and implicitly European focused narrative; I think it would be better to rephrase as 'remained unexplored/unknown/unreached by European colonialists/explorers...' Patrickredma ( talk) 14:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)