Talk:Democratic Republic of the Congo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wrong Number in Reference

The article linked in reference number 6 (Robinson, Simon (2006-05-28). "The deadliest war in the world". Time.com. Retrieved 2010-05-02) does not speak of 5.4 million but of 3.9 million people killed. Reference number 7, which is more up to date, indeed speaks of 5.4 million however. I would suggest that the reference number 6 will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohKar (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Early History not pre-history

Calling the section of history before Europeans arrived "pre-history" suggests the country had no history before Europeans arrived. This is enthno-centric and ignores the existence of the native people. The section should be called Early History. Metromatch (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The declaration of the Congolese bishops

I think that in the section about history mention should be made of this important declaration, that's been published in the Osservatore romano.151.67.232.61 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

old stuff

See also Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo

I removed ": the Belgians are the only European power that built a university in their colony and the colonists were carefully picked by the Belgian Government, to name only a few examples". I know, for example, that the British built Universities in India. Probably the sentence needs rewording to something more exact. DJ Clayworth 13:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should rename this page Congo (Kinshasa). "Democratic Republic of Congo" is confusing, jguk 16:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree - Democratic Republic of (the) Congo is its official name, and has been referred to as such for the last several years. And anyway, Congo (Kinshasa) redirects to here - plus, in the first paragraph there is a mention of the Republic of Congo just in case someone got the wrong Congo. -- QuantumEleven | (talk) 10:17, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we don't refer to them as East Congo and West Congo. South Korea is actually the Republic of Korea and North Korea the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. There is no mention of North or South in either official name. The same was also true of the old East & West Germany and North & South Yemen. Why has the world suddenly decided that the Democratic Republic of Congo has to be known by its formal name? Crico 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)hehe

East and West are not appropriate: not all of Congo-Kin is West of Congo-Brazza. In the past few days I've often heard DPRK instead of North Korea. Most importantly, it's hard to consider that both Congo's we're one before, whereas Germany was one, Korea was one. --moyogo 11:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, they are east and west of each other and prior to European colonisation, there was a Kingdom of Kongo that covered area in both states if not the entirety. However, to clarify my original comment, I'm not arguing that Wikipedia should start calling them East and West Congo because nobody refers to them that way. I'm just idly curious as to why the world has adopted this terminology with DRC when we aren't so formal with any other country bar the possible exception of the United States of America. I suspect the answer is because Congo-Brazzaville was known as Congo for such a long time, that to start saying East and West Congo would imply it had split rather than Zaire changing its name. Crico 03:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

@Moyogo - Well, West Virginia isn't exactly west of Virginia either. In fact, if you look carefully, a sizable chunk of Virginia is to the west of the westernmost point of West Virginia! Compare the locations of the two Virginias to the locations of the two Congos, and Crico's proposal will seem less objectionable. I have my own proposal, let's call the DRC, the Democratic Congo! Proud Ho (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The formatting appears messed up in Firefox, all other pages look fine. OMouse 10:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consistency moves (2005)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following was originally discussed at Wikipedia:Requested moves and has been moved here until a list of relevant articles can be compiled.

article and categories about the Democratic Republic of the Congo → made consistent

Various article and categories (see Category:Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo and Category:Congolese_culture have inconsistent naming conventions, referring the Democratic Republic of the Congo variously as Congo (DR), Congo (DRC), Congo (Kinshasa). Also, some use the term Congolese, which as an article or category title is confusing as it can refer to the nearby Republic of Congo. I think all of the articles should read x of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. - XED.talk 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• List all the articles in question. I have grave concerns over these recent bulk requests, and I doubt administrators like to hunt and peck for the articles you want to see moved. Besides, how can we adequately vote without a list to see the extent of this request? —ExplorerCDT 06:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Support (conditional). The content of the articles or categories titled "Congo" or "Congolese" related to the Republic of the Congo should not be moved. — Instantnood 15:08 Feb 20 2005 (UTC)
• Support - BanyanTree 19:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Support.

-- Jordi·✆ 12:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose at present. Please confirm that you have placed the required notice on the talk pages of all the articles you contemplate moving, that there has been ample (weeks) time for discussion and that there is no existing controversy for any of them which has not yet been resolved in your favor on the talk pages concerned. Jamesday 09:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC).

• Please provide a list of pages to be moved. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• It would be better to refer to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as Congo (Kinshasa), and the Republic of Congo as Congo (Brazzaville). That's what always happened before Congo (Kinshasa) was renamed Zaire, and is the least confusing approach now, jguk 11:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lead rewrite

It's a lengthy lead, but I felt several key items needed to be mentioned. These are, and the length of the lead is, therefore, compunded by:

• Size: Very sizable area, 3rd largest in Africa.

• Bordering countries: fairly large amount.

• Access to sea: Tenuous, close to being land-locked compartively; the river.

• Origin of name: The Bakongo tribe (and literal meaning); Congo river basin.

• Predominant colonial form: Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo.

• Country rename: Twice since the above; and correction with sometimes called Kongo-Kinshasa to the given name during 1960-1971 (that it may still be called that sometimes is, historically, an aside to the lead in that sense), including contrasting with Congo-Brazzaville ala Guinea-Bissau viz. Guinea.

• Ya pili Second Congo War: Very, very notable.

El_C 12:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zaire

Zaire is 3rd largest in Africa.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is Zaire, the country was renamed in 1997.--Gozar 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

table on right

i spent a good hour attempting to reformat the table on the right with all the stats and information and it refused to cooperate, i have most of it done and saved in Word if anyone wants to work on it and see if they cant get it functioning, i however am not competent enough in the code to do so. also, I had a numbered map of the provinces with corresponding names, as well as changing the picture for the geography section from the river basin satellite image to the political map of the country. more to come! --Gozar 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lumumba's Assassination

In the article it states; "Lumumba escaped to join his supporters in Stanleyville but was recaptured and then flown (January, 1961), on orders from the Belgian Minister for African affairs, to his sworn enemies in Katanga. On the way he and two of his assistants were harshly tortured and shot by a Belgian-Congolese command."

This makes it sound like Lumumba and his two assistants were killed on the plane. To my understanding Lumumba and his assistants were killed after arriving in Elizabethville, as they were taken out to a clearing in the jungle and faced a firing squad.

Any thoughts?

Most of my info on his assassination comes from Ludo De Witte's book, "The Assassination of Lumumba". --Seanh 14:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i was under the impression that this was the case as well, i hadnt noticed the error in the text though.--Gozar 14:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

alright, i think that's an improvement. replaced with stated version of what happened. --Gozar 00:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it now much better--Seanh 18:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV regarding colonization

We have to be careful not to call thing with the colonisation as the post of reference, i.e. post-colonization, pre-colonization. The history of the Congo shouldn't be build around the occupation/administration of the country by Europeans. (occupation and administration are a bit extreme but could be more accurate than colonization). The historian Ndaywel è Nziem suggests calling the periods: "ancient period", "colonization (exploitation and administration)", "indepedance" and etc... What do you think? ---moyogo

Since colonisation started in the late 19th century, i don't think the whole pre-colonial period can be called "ancient", though the "pre-colonial" section could be split into ancient and pre-colonial. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Put yourself into a normal Congolese's shoes for a minute... The period before the 19th century has only two major parts. The second one being the develpment of local bantu societies. This has to have a name, whether we call it ancient or not. Relative to the actual time, I think it's ancient (from a Congolese point of view), then came colonization and modern time (as in more technology), not to confuse with what Europeans call their modern period. ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. In fact, when I came up with the title Precolonial Congo for the History of the DRC series, I was concerned about the implications of the title (see [1]). I suppose Precolonial Congo could be split into Prehistoric Congo and Rise of Bantu Societies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo ... or something a bit simpler like the History of Sweden series, just Pre-history of Congo and Early Congolese History - Xed 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

i think 'Early Congolese History' has a nice ring to it, ulimately im going to be for anything that makes the articles less centered around European colonization, i just could not conceive of how it would be done. that said, renaming "pre-colonial" to "Early Congolese History" seems like a good first step. Also, more Congolese input is definately needed, but i assume that this is also unlikely due to a lack of internet accessibility in the country. i guess the question now is, who wants to do all the changing of names!? (if you agree, that is)--Gozar 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Article name changed to Early Congolese History. I think we need a post-Second Congo War article soon too. The French wikipedia has one. Also, the history section on this page needs to be smaller, while the History of the Democratic Republic of the Congo page could do with being a little longer - Xed 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, the article on the main page is mostly pasted material from the section on the kongo. i think we should condense the section on the Kongo, as well as add info on the kuba, luba, and other groups (which Xed mentioned on the Early History talk page) so we may want to make it slightly longer to accomadate for more information.i definately want to make it fairly thourough to make up for the lack of information on the period as opposed to the post-colonial period. as Moyogo said, a lot of emphasis should be put on this section because it will be the only one containing much information on the country as a nation not defined solely by the European portion of its history. Congolese history certainly did not begin with the arrival of Europeans and I think this needs to drive that point home.--Gozar 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Do the colonial names of the cities really have to be in the main article? Should there be a different article or in the articles about each city? Who still uses those names nowdays? How are they relevant on the main article about the whole country? ---moyogo 10:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Renaming is within living memory, so I think it makes sense to keep those names, especially when talking about the free state and belgian congo time period. - Xed 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, although i understand exactly where you're coming from (i put up most of the pre-colonial history, there was NOTHING there before, which was naturally just disgusting) i cant really come up with anything else to call the period. the fact of the matter is the area's history is split between two periods with a sharp dividing line: pre-colonial and post-colonial. and if you really read the whole page(i'm not saying you didnt, just pointing it out), it's pretty obvious that the brutality of European rule is definately not being glossed over.--Gozar 13:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should change everything, it's just that we could try to have a less european centered history or version of the article. I think we need more congolese contributing here ---moyogo 17:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I want to make a remark: please mind that there is a big difference between The Congo Free state-period and the Congo colonisation-period. During The Congo Free state, King Leopold II was the personal owner of the Congo, the Belgian Government had nothing to say there. Many reports, testimonies,... indicated that life situations improved very well when Belgium took over the Congo from its king.

Btw, the old names of the cities are still used somethimes in reports, etc. So I'm sure it's necessary to keep them in the article.

Early Congolese history

im seriously considering an earlier suggestion that the Early Congolese History should be split in two(at least on the main page) with one section one pre-/ancient history and one with a title similar to the one on the Early Congolese page (On the Eve of Colonial Rule doesnt seem academic enough for its own section on the main page). i will likely wait for the input of others before updating. also, i created the geography, politics, and wildlife sections for the main page and havent had much feedback. if anyone could let me know what they think (i feel like i have a tendency to add a lot of unneccessary information) it would be appreciated. thanks. --Gozar 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've no strong feelings either way about splitting the early history section. the geog , politics, and wildlife sections are good. wildlife should probably be renamed "flora and fauna" (see South Africa and Australia), shortened, and made broader in scope. the full length version of wildlife could go in a separate articles - 'fauna in the drc' and 'flora in the drc'- Xed 10:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone said that you wanted some Congolese input here. I wonder why you all assumed that none of the people already here was Congolese. But if you want one extra, here I am. I like the title "Early Congolese History", much more considerate of the Congolese equal status in the human family (as opposed to being some savages who were lost until the mighty colonizer came to give them a meaning, and a purpose). I am also for plumping up the separate "main articles", and streamlining some of the section on the main page.Themalau 10:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Save typing "Democratic Republic of the Congo"

Tired of typing "the Democratic Republic of the Congo"? Me too. I've created a bunch of redirecting articles to which mean you can just type DRC instead, with or without the the, ie History of DRC, Politics of the DRC etc. As a precedent, the USA articles have a similar thing. It's almost as complicated as the China/Taiwan thing. (Taiwan can also be known as ROC, which can also be the name for Republic of Congo, which can also be the name for Congo-Kinshasa's first republic etc etc - confused?)- Xed 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

yeah, id noticed that you pretty much had to type the whole thing, but i think 'DR Congo' was the fastest previously. i had considered making some more pages just to redirect but never got around to it. also, after looking over other history pages, i think you're right about the history on the main page. it needs to be shortened, id never noticed but all the other national pages have just one section for the history, DRC has like 9 sections. we should probably try to reduce to one section (as difficult as that will be) and concentrate most of the stuff from this main page onto the History of the DRC page as you stated previously.--Gozar 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

history

i think the history is getting pretty out of control and needs to be condensed, there's simply too much information. it takes up almost half the DRC page, most of other national history pages are very terse. we can simply transfer most of it the History of the DRC article.--Gozar 00:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the recent edits to the history section are dubious. "Red China" and "Communist terrorists" etc - Xed 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Geography, Mountains of the Moon

Article mentions the high mountains at north east of DRC territory. Are these the mysterious 'Mountains of the Moon' that provide the annual surge/flood in the White Nile? If so then the link is worth mentioning -- Egypt and Sudan would be very different without this regular phenomenon. Wikipedia's only article on Mountains of the Moon concerns a film.

we do have an article on the phyiscal Mountains of the Moon, but for some reason that search paged sent you to the film, the article can be found here (ive editted the page so it does a link disambiguation). Also, you can find more info in the Ruwenzori_Range article.--Gozar 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

That graph of smoothly rising population, census measurements every year: I don't believe it, does anybody?

2007 estimate 63,655,000

1984 census 29,916,800

Can the population really have more than doubled in 23 years? --The monkeyhate 19:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the population really can have more than doubled in 23 years. The UN estimates the fertility rate to be 6.7 and national sources put it at 7.3. There has not been a national census since 1984, but the 2006 elections had 25 millions electors enrolled, more than half of the population is very young. You do the math. ---moyogo 01:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the country's official name

What was this country's official name when it achieved independence? Was it "Democratic Republic of Congo" or was it "Republic of Congo"?

The Wikipedia article Heads of state of the Democratic Republic of the Congo indicates that the country began as "Republic of Congo", became "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1966, became "Zaire" in 1971, and reverted to "Democratic Republic of Congo" in 1997.

So, in 1960, at the moment of independence, what was the country called? Were there two countries called "Republic of Congo"?

At independance in 1960 the were both called the Republic of the Congo or Congo for short; see UN admission resolutions, Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) or Congo (Brazzaville) vs Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) or Congo (Léopoldville) for disambiguation. This is verifiable in the UN documents.

According to About.com the Congo (Léopoldville) was renamed "People's Republic of the Congo" in 1964, and to "Democratic Republic of the Congo" in 1966. However I believe this is false.

The UN has a repertoire of Security Council practices, look at this document. On page number 39 (pdf page 17) you can see Congo (Brazzaville) and Congo (Kinshasa) mentionned with text from 1963. Further down on page 41 (pdf 19) you'll see Congo (Brazzaville) and Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa) in 1964. Some following documents event simple mention Congo and Dem. Rep. of the Congo

The Congo-Brazzaville was then renamed "People's Republic of the Congo" cerca 1969-1970, until 1991 when it returned to "Republic of the Congo" as before 1970.

In 1971, Léopoldville was renamed Kinshasa and the Congo (LéopoldvilleKinshasa) became Zaïre, until 1997 when it returned to 'Democratic Republic of the Congo as between 1966 and 1971 (according to About.com).

So both were called "Republic of the Congo" between 1960 and 1964. According to About.com the Congo (Kinshasa) was called People's Republic of the Congo from 1964 to 1966, which is false. According to the UN documents the Congo (Kinshasa) was renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1964, and Zaire in 1971, while the Congo (Brazzaville) was still "Republic of the Congo" until being rename in 1970 but only the Congo (Kinshasa) has ever been called "Democratic Republic of the Congo". ----moyogo 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction, brother Moyogo. Leopoldville was renamed Kinshasa in 1964 or 5, while the big Congo was still DRC. Themalau 10:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Léopoldville was officially renamed Kinshasa 1966. Most sources say it was on June 30th (only a few give other dates in that year). It's funny to see other ressources [2][3] convey the mistake. ---moyogo 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference to People's Republic of the Congo was (again), a confusion between the two Congos. The Republic of the Congo was referred to as that in some atlases into the 1980s. Meateatingvegan 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When Congo was the private property of King Leopold II of Belgium, the name was The Congo Free State (1887-1908). From 1908 untill 1960, when it was a Belgian Colony, its official name was Belgian Congo (Congo belge, Belgisch Congo).

Is it "The Democratic Republic of Congo" or "The Democratic Republic of the Congo", because various news networks use different names, the US government uses "...the Congo", but the U.N. uses "..of Congo". The article uses "...of the Congo." What causes the disperity?

• The official name in English is "Democratic Republic of the Congo", which is a direct translation of the French name (in French its always ".. du Congo" which means ".. of the Congo", and never ".. de Congo" which would be ".. of Congo). However you're right to point out that ".. of Congo" is common usage in English. The UN itself is not consistent; on their site there is a drop-down list of missions in New York that says ".. of Congo" but when you get to the page itself its ".. of the Congo"! Kahuzi 00:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the official long title the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become accepted as the name for this country. I guess I am running aginst the tide, but I think we should use the name Congo-Zaire. I mean what does "the Democratic Republic" actually convey? That it is more democratic than its neighbour across the Congo? While it is correct to say that the country was always the Congo and that the Zaire period, as an aberation, the personal creation of Mobutu, it was Zaire when I was there, and the one thing that distinguishes it from the other not-so Democratic Congo is that it was once known as Zaire. In the 1960s media often used to refer to it as the former Belgian Congo to distinguish the two. Which leads me to a joke: Why the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire, formerly, the Republic of the Congo-Kinshasa, formerly the Republic of the Congo-Leopoldville, formerly the Belgian Congo, formerly the Congo Free State, should change the name of his country to Kitchy-Kitchy? That way anyone who removes him from power will be known forever as the man who pulled off the Kitchy Kitchy coup. 09:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

"Unfortunately the official long title the Democratic Republic of the Congo has become accepted as the name for this country." - Whoever writes like this shouldn't editing Wikipedia! This is a point of view at its most blatant. The name is 'The Democratic Republic of the Congo' (with or without the word the). There are no two ways about it. We Wikipedia editors are not at liberty to decide what countries should be named - the governments (elected or otherwise) of such countries decide on the name ... we merely record it. The name Congo-Kinshasa has no value outside the capital city - and let's remember that the country is more than its capital city; you'd be lynched for trying that name in Kisangani! So, let's stop all this nonsense about what we should call a country. If you get tired of typing it ... learn to use copy and paste. The name is The Democratic Republic of the Congo.Francis Hannaway 10:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Coat of Arms

The country has a new coat of arms which can be found here:

http://www.presidentrdc.cd/accueil.html

Imperial78

English state name?

Should the english name be included to the header? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.190.167 (talk)

I think you mean the header to the country information box. I don't think that it's necessary as the full name of the country in English is the title of the article. If you look at Ethiopia, for example, the official name of the country differs from the name of the article. Now that you bring it up, there might be a case to make for the name in the four other official languages, but that would look pretty crowded. - BanyanTree 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

French is the only official languages of the DR Congo, the other four are national languages. ---moyogo 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As with all other countries (with lengthy name or not), per the country wikiproject, I'm restoring the conventional (English) long-form name atop the infobox. Actually, I will also revise the lead (to include the French rendition) to conform to recent proposed changes for country article leads. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with EPA. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

26 provinces!?

The constitution is clear on this, the 26 provinces will be in place in the 36 months after the installations of the institutions defined in it, see Article 226, also at [4].

Les dispositions de l’alinéa premier de l’article 2 de la présente Constitution entreront en vigueur endéans trente six mois qui suivront l’installation effective des institutions politiques prévues par la présente Constitution.

En attendant, la République Démocratique du Congo est composée de la ville de Kinshasa et de dix provinces suivantes dotées de la personnalité juridique : Bandundu, Bas-Congo, Equateur, Kasaï-Occidental, Kasaï-Oriental, Katanga, Maniema, Nord-Kivu, Province Orientale, Sud-Kivu.

When were the 26 provinces set up when the institutions defined in the Constitution aren't even in place considering the elections haven't gone throught yet? ---

I agree with brother Moyogo. Legally, starting in February 2006, the DRC has 26 provinces, even though they have not been set-up yet. Themalau 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no intimation from Government or any official document including the constitution that Congo DRC will be having 26 provinces. They are only 11 and will remain so for now. I am currently fixing the geographical classification data of the country with Provinces, Districts, Territories and Sectors. Anyone wish to have them is welcome.Adeelzafarbioid 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Map of DRC

Mbɔ́tɛ na bínó, or Mbóte na bínó - à la kinoise ;-)
I started improvements on the Image:Congo Kinshasa Template.svg. I'd like it to be a template for most general maps on the Congo. Eventually it should be able to generate a map like Image:Cg-map.png and its translated forms.The SVG file already contains layers with different data. The Provinces' contours currently in the file are those of 2006, 1988, 1966, and 1960. I do not have access to a map of the provinces of 1963 at the moment. I'm currently working on adding major cities. I'd like to add the same Geo data as the CIA WorldBook map (latitude and longitude, scale, labels, Congo river) and maybe more for more detailed maps (rivers, territories, small cities, major roads, train tracks and resources). Please let me know if you're interested. ---moyogo 07:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict Section Opener

The first line of the section on recent conflicts reads: Since 1994, the Congo has been rent by ethnic strife and civil war, touched off by a massive inflow of refugees fleeing the Rwandan Genocide. This sentence might easily contain the addendum, "which they participated in". Most Western readers will interpret this, as currently worded, to imply that the victims of the Rwandan genocide are thr refugees who touched off strife. In fact, the refugees are the Hutu Power government and Interahamwe militia who planned and commited the genocide, as while as anyone they could bully or trick into crossing the border with them. One wouldn't want an article on the Nuremburg trials to read "Many victims of World War II were hanged at Nuremberg", even though that might in the strictest sense be true. I suggest a change reflecing the fact that the refugees were largely from the groups participating in the genocide and that much of the "ethnic strife" they touched off was a continuation of their genocidal politics.

Your suggested opener is not correct/accurate either (despite what some would have people believe), and in fact could be seen as insulting and inflammatory. Using that opener would imply that the entire Hutu population was hellbent on killing Tutsis. Which is fundamentally untrue. Those that perpetrated the genocide were of Hutu ethnic background, Yes. And they did it in the name of Hutu power, Yes. But it is wrong, untrue, and not to mention dangerous to give out the impression that every Hutu is guilty of the genocide, simply for being Hutu. The vast majority of the Hutus who fled to Congo were innocent civilians, fearing blanket retribution by the mainly-Tutsi RPF (Which eventually came, by the way, during the First Congo War of 1996-97). And the Interahamwe, and other perpetrators of the genocide used these civilians as "human shield" to escape Rwanda, and in fact terrorized these people (their fellow) while they were in the refugee camps in Congo. The plights of the genocide are very real, and quite tragic. But let us not be cavalier in placing the blame. And if you are going to make such statements, please sign your comments.Themalau 08:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Official language

According to Book of the Year2006(Encyclopaedia Britannica), Official languages:"French, English" This is an error. http://www.britannica.com/nations/Congo,-Democratic-Republic-Of-The

They apperently read LD Kabila's draft constitution and figured it was the new one that passed last february. --moyogo 08:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You have got to looooove Britannica, right? :) Themalau 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A month later they still haven't fixed that mistake. --moyogo 09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The same applies for the CD version of the Larouse Enciclopedic Dictionary, they say the only official language is French. Camahuetos 21:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Political and Administrative divisions

Why does the DRC article have two sections, "Political divisions" and "Administrative divisions", both providing similar information?

The only content in the former is "Main article: Political divisions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo", which takes you to a text beginning "The administrative hierarchy of Political subdivisions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is as follows:". Anyone oppose merging these two sections? Kahuzi 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quality Issues / Grammar

There are a lot of glaring grammatical errors in the article that make it extremely hard to read.

"The chopping tools and choppers are estimated to date back to before -200,000 years [200,000 years ago or 200,000 BCE], though we cannot be more specific today [?? what does that mean??]. The country was peopled in very ancient times by groups of hunter-collectors, some of them maybe ancestors of today's pygmies. In the large time period between the earliest hunter-gatherer inhabitants and the coming of the first villagers, Congo will always [will always be? should it be "was settled"?] be settled by various stone knapping nomad groups of different Traditions."

"Formerly the Belgian colony of the Belgian Congo, the country's post-independence name was changed in 1971, from Congo-Kinshasa (after its capital, to distinguish it from the Republic of Congo, or Congo-Brazzaville) to Zaire, until 1997. Since 1998, the country has suffered greatly from the devastating Second Congo War (sometimes referred to as the African World War[2][3]), the world's deadliest conflict since World War II."

I will return and try and correct some of these errors, but all in all I think this article needs to be tagged as not up to WIki's quality standards. If anyone knows how to, please do so.

Languages

Would be great to include the old ways of greeting in French that were taught the indigenous, e.g. the first two or three lessons on how to greet or introduce oneself. It is practically the didactic language (sorry, didnt know how best to contribute). --- User:147.142.186.54

Location map...

The location map shows a very old map of the world, with Austria-Hungary and the German Empire among others, and so shows the DRC as part of Belgium. The map is currently being used in other articles as a map for the Congo Free State, so I don't think another map should be uploaded unless there isn't one already. So does anyone know if there is a modern-day map with the DRC highlighted? (And, if possible, one with the new border between Serbia and Montenegro?) Thank you! - Lewis R « т · c » 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, for some reason the map was set for the Congo Free State. --moyogo 16:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Middle Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Middle Africa whose scope would include the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Error in the section "Belgian Congo (1908-1960)"

Belgian Congo mines supplied the uranium for the Hiroshima bomb but not the Nagasaki bomb because the latter was a plutonium weapon.

Major Cities

the table header is misleading. The French and Dutch names are the same as the Congolese ones. What is indicated are the pre-independence or pre-zairianisation names. Please adjust accordingly. --moyogo 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Major cities old names

I'm replacing the table showing the major cities. It misleads to think the Congolese column names are used in Congolese languages, French column names are used in French, and that Dutch is used in the country. Such a table should be in a History pages not in a section displaying a liste of current major cities. Or is should be clearer. --moyogo 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congolese French Dutch Bandundu Banningville Bukavu Costermansville Djokupunda Charlesvilles Goma Ilebo Port-Francqui Isiro Paulis Kalemie Albertville Albertstad Kananga Lualabourg Lualaburg Kikwit Kindu Kinshasa Léopoldville Leopoldstad Kisangani Stanleyville Stanleystad

Congolese French Dutch Kolwezi Likasi Jadotville Jadotstad Lubumbashi Elisabethville Elisabethstad Lukutu Lusanga Leverville Leverstad Mbandaka Coquilhatville Cocquilhatstad Mbanza-Ngungu Thysville Thysstad Moba Baudoinville Boudewijnstad Mobaye-Mbongo Banzyville Banzystad Mbuji-Mayi Bakwanga Ubundu Ponthierville Ponthierstad

I'll move this table to the History Page, and change the column headings to make it clearer. Kahuzi 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Definite article

Should articles on DRC include the word "The" in their title? I'm thinking of National Assembly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others which have recently been moved. Personally I think yes they should, as this is what english speakers normally say (despite the general ban on articles in wikipedia). What do others think? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage with "the" in front and without is about 50/50. Personally I favour the informal name Congo-Kinshasa. --moyogo 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course they should include the definite article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! The French name includes not "de" = "of", but rather "du", a contraction of "de le" = "of the". In English, the name of a river can be preceded by "the". This is significant, because the country (both countries!) take their name from the river. Monomoit (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Velours du Kasaï

I would like to add this article to one of your country's categories, but I can't decide which one. I notice everything has been neatly organised and I don't want to drop it somewhere arbitrary. Can someone help out? Bards 22:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Category:Culture of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? --moyogo 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Bards 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism

In regards to Congolese pre-colonial history, is it true that cannibalism was rampant? The only reliable accounts I can think of are those of the Begian government- well, if they really did have to deal with eliminating it during colonization- so what's the consensus on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.136.64 (talk) 01:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The cannibalization myth was first promulgated by King Leopold in an effort portray himself as the harbinger of civilization to barbaric peoples. There's no historical basis for this. <!-Autosigned by A-M.w.e.z-->

"Bloodiest conflict"

I absolutely don't want to demean the situation in the Congo, obviously it's atrocious and something needs to be done about it, and immediately. But in the interests of accuracy and clarity: "This period of conflict has been the bloodiest in history since World War II.[10] Almost four million people have died as a result of the fighting." Almost four million, which is probably a pretty accurate number considering the inherent inaccuracies of reporting in such messy parts of the world, is really pretty close to a reasonable estimate of the deaths resultant from the complex of American actions in Southeast Asia many of which are called "the Vietnam War", in fact it may even be a little lower. Depending on your definitions and sources, a guess about Southeast Asian deaths strictly due to American actions ranges anywhere between 2 million and 6.

Further, I checked the link given as a source, and all it did was simply state the assertion "bloodiest conflict since WWII", at least in the part of the article not requiring subscription. I get that a statement made in the Economist is generally regarded as of sufficient reliability for inclusion in a Wiki article, but I wouldn't be so credulous. While the Congo situation is among a teeny handful of the worst, and may indeed be the worst, I think we should be a little more careful in making bold and certain claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammoe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. To it I would add that perhaps we should consider the word "deadliest" (or "among the deadliest") since overwhelmingly the death toll in DRC from conflict has been due to starvation, hunger-related infectious disease (following declined immune function) and exposure due to population displacement of people fleeing conflict. I.e. not directly as a result of military conflict or armed attacks on civilians, as "bloody" may imply. U.S. bombing and other military actions in SE Asia, and the military violence of U.S. allies and opponents, certainly killed more people directly in a "bloody" fashion. Chris Lowe (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjectival form of country name

There is a debate on categories for discussion about whether it is appropriate to use "Democratic Republic of the Congo" as an adjective. For example, it is ok to refer to "Democratic Republic of the Congo writers," or should they be called "Writers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." If you have an opinion on or information about this matter, please comment here. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that the now-closed debate considered using the word "Congolese." This is clearly a bad word, since it is evocative of a language, rather than the nationality. A commonly-used word without these shortcomings is "Congoan", so you could say, "Democratic Republic of the Congoan writers", perhaps? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation for name incorrect?

The article currently says, "Then-President Mobutu renamed the country Zaire, from a Portuguese mispronunciation of the Kikongo word nzere or nzadi, which translates to "the river that swallows all rivers." There is a citation for this claim, but how can either of these quite short words possibly translate into such a complex concept as "the river that swallows all rivers"??? Anyone more familiar with Kikongo? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the content I'm about to offer is purely speculative, since I don't know Kikongo, but it's heuristic as to how a meaning that could get translated that way. Let's suppose in the first place that there is a term for "river" and that in naming rivers the people used that term with the proper name. I.e. "the Zaire" properly in English is "the Zaire River" so already our English term to be translated actually has two words one of which is "river," and that the Kikongo offered implies a word meaning "river" in its full name (this would be true in southern African Bantu languages & place names).

Then let's suppose the single short term means something like "swallower" or "swallowing" or perhaps more likely something like "engulfing". So our literal translation would be "The Engulfing River."

Then let's suppose that we have a translator into English who thinks the literal translation does not convey quite a full sense or nuance as s/he understands it, or conversely that the English is overbroad and has senses different from that in the Kikongo which reflects how the people looked upon the river, and offers a more complex English phrase giving a gloss from among those potential meanings that uses more words. Such processes are quite common in the process of translation.

Chris Lowe (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Iron working

"The earliest evidence further to the west is known in Cameroon, and near to the small town of Bouar in Central Africa. Though further studies are needed to establish a better chronology for the start of iron production in Central Africa, the Cameroonian data places iron smelting north of the Equatorial Forest around 2,600 BC to 2,500 BC ."

How can the claims of this article with regards to iron smelting be reconciled with the article History of ferrous metallurgy? If these claims are right, then the peoples of the Congo would have invented iron smelting and forging a thousand years before any other civilization of the world. 87.78.252.88 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a non-issue. We can't actually pinpoint the invention of metallurgy within a thousand years anyway, can we?

Actually it's quite a real issue that misrepresents the state of archaeological knowledge and associated linguistic methods of pre-historical interpretation.

The last Talk comments on this topic were in 2006. All of the comments as well as the main article text appear to confuse the abbreviation "B.C." with "B.P."

(BC=Before Christ, now often rendered BCE "Before the Common Era" to recognize that non-Christians deploy this dating system rooted in Christian intellectual history for convention and convenience; likewise CE Common Era for A.D. "Anno Domini" "Year of Our Lord" which refers to the "Lord" regarded as such by Christians. BP=Before Present, with "present" having been set by arbitrary convention at 1950 of the Common Era).

The point of the BP sort of notiation is to give a clearer indication of how long ago something ancient occurred, rather than having to add the A.D./CE date to the BC/BCE date.

Anyway, the early iron-smelting in areas around those from which spread Bantu-speaking peoples is believed to have originated date from about "the mid 1st century BCE" i.e. about 500 BCE or about 2500 BP. I checked one archaeological site reference specifically, Mbandaka, and it is indeed dated in some of its materials around 2600 BP, not BC (other materials were later). Same is true of the East Africa Urewe tradition mentioned, which only marginally relates to present-day DRC though does have a bearing on the context of spread of iron technology involving what is now DRC territory.

I will try to come back to edit this when I've pulled together some sources & have some time. For the present I will assume that in the article the uncited dates are correct in BP terms and change BC to BP.

Chris Lowe (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What happened from 1908 - 1960?

I notice this huge gap in the "history" section. Why are we ignoring the period of European imperialism? Surely something happened, and surely Belgian colonists kept records, so I don't see why it is omitted, especially when colonialism is what created the atmosphere that is causing the war today. Perhaps it used to be their but someone deleted it? Special:Contributions/x (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment certainly is correct. One likely source of the problem is that much of the literature is in French. The writings of Crawford Young are among important works in English. Chris Lowe (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Formerly Zaire in Opening?

Is there a reason that the opening does not mention that the country was formerly called Zaire? 136.152.180.121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

It should, and in bold text too. It was, after all, the name of the country until a few years ago. --Ezeu (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

History: The Belgian Congo. After Belgian administration for 52 years (including two World Wars when Belgium was occupied by Germany for a total of eight years) the Congo was poorly developed and faced independence with few people experienced in administration and a large unproductive public service. With the neighbouring French colonies progressing towards independence Belgium agreed to quit the Congo in 1960. French President Charles de Gaulle made a speech in Brazzaville, French Congo saying that the French colonies could have independence whenever they wanted it. The Congolese on the other side of the river in the Belgian Congo insisted on the same. But the only thing the local politician agreed on was that they wanted immediate independence. The Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville). Because the former French Moyen (Middle) Congo gained independence as the Congo (Brazzaville) in the same year, the ex-Belgian Congo was referred to as the Congo (Leopoldville). The new nation was beset by rebellion and disunity. The only national-wide political party was the Mouvement Populaire Congolaise, led by Patrice Lumumba who became Prime Minister. His main rival, Joseph Kassavubu of the predominantly KiKongo Akabo party, was named as President in an attempt to achieve national unity. Most parties were locally based and primarily tribal in identity. Rivalry between Lumumba and Kasavubu led to the President and Prime Minister both trying to dismiss each other, and calls for outside assistance to hold the country together in face of provincial secession and army mutiny. Belgian forces remained in the country after independence, and a failure to promote native Congolese to positions of command in the colonial Force Publique, renamed the Armée National Congolaise (ANC), led to a mutiny by Congolese soldiers against their Belgian officers and widespread disorder throughout the country. The Katanga Secession In the southern province of Katanga (later Shaba region) Belgian forces disarmed and removed mutinous ANC forces leaving control in the hands of provincial premier Moises Tshombe. He had favoured a federal system of government and when this was not granted used his local power base to oppose the central government in Leopoldville, as well as rival governments at Stanleyville (now Kisangani). He was assisted by the white settlers in Katanga and foreign mercenary volunteers from South Africa and the neighbouring Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. French and Belgian military interests were also represented with considerable financial backing from the Union Minière du Haut Katanga who benefited from the absence of central government control in the mineral-rich province. Independence was declared 11 July 1960 until 15 January 1963 when United Nations forces aided the Congolese central government regain control. The success of the Katanga secession also inspired Albert Kalonji to declare himself King of the South Kasai Mining State (1961-62). At the same time as he continued to hold a seat in the central Parliament. The Congo Crisis. A former sergeant in the Force Publique turned journalist, Joseph Mobutu, organised a counter-coup against Prime Minister Lumumba who was detained at his residence under U.N. protection. Lumumba attempted to flee to Stanleyville where his supporters had formed a rival administration, but was captured by Mobutu, who handed him over to Moises Tshombe's Katanganese regime. After suffering at the hands of both Mobutu's and Tshombe's bullyboys, Patrice Lumumba was reported dead in 1961, supposedly shot by tribesmen while fleeing. Eventually a government at Leopoldville was formed suitable to Lumumba's MPC supporters, and U.N. forces and international pressure forced the end of the Katanga secession January 1963. The Simba Uprisings. No sooner were the U.N. forces withdrawn than the Congo had to face a new problem: widespread uprisings in the name of Lumumba. The insurgents rapidly overrun the eastern part of the country, capturing Stanleyville 1964 and taking white residents hostages. President Kasavubu formed a strong government to deal with this problem by inviting back the former secessionist leader Moises Tshombe to head a new administration, known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To combat the rebels Tshombe used the means he had used so successfully before: white mercenaries from South Africa, Rhodesia, and Europe. With these forces, and Belgian paratroops and American planes, Stanleyville was recaptured and the revolt suppressed. With the rebel threat gone, President Kasavubu dismissed P.M. Tshombe in 1965 shortly before he himself was overthrown in a coup by Joseph Mobutu. The Mercenaries and the Stanleyville Uprisings. Most of the mercenaries failed to support an uprising in 1966 by Katanganese gendarmes at Stanleyville (the First Stanleyville Revolt or Katanganese Mutiny), calling for the restoration of Tshombe. After dealing with the Katanganese, Mobutu began making plans to get rid of the foreign mercenaries in the country. Belatedly the mercenaries seized Stanleyville in the Second Stanleyville revolt, or Mercenaries Mutiny, in July 1967. While they had the military advantage, they lacked political support and suffered a setback because a key player, the exiled premier Tshombe, was kidnapped 30 June and taken to Algeria, where he reportedly died in 1968. An invasion from Portuguese Angola by mercenaries under Frenchman Robert Denard came too late to save the main body who retreated from Stanleyville to Bukavu in August under Col. Jean (`Black Jack’) Schrame, a gay Belgian-planter turned mercenary. From their stronghold on Lake Kivu they resisted the Congolese army before evacuating to Rwanda across the lake with about 1,000 Katanganese in October 1967. Although the Congolese government called for their extradition, the mercenaries were eventually repatriated to Europe in 1968. Noel Ellis (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Health and AIDS/HIV?

I'm just curious, why no mention of health or the AIDS/HIV pandemic? Didn't the first confirmed case of HIV-disease take place in Kinshasa? What about Ebola? This nation is of extreme interest to outsiders, among other reasons, because of its pivotal role in the development of new diseases and pandemics. Is there a reason these have not been added to the article? Am I missing something? If not, perhaps I shall show some initiative, God forbid, and add some content myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamacious (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE RENOUNCE WEAPS AND RAE —Preceding unsigned comment added by QazimA (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps

Someone looking at this page can help out with the deletion discussion of this person from the DR of the Congo ... here. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

Some historical material is POV, and seems to be written with the explicit intentions of portraying "evil white men and poor natives". While there is solid and indisputable proof that there is much to be ashamed of in the colonial era, it should still be treated with a scientific and objective mind. 94.220.254.186 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As I continue reading there are plenty of other instances of POV, odd statements, paragraphs with fargoing content backed by a single reference. Other oddities include the claim "In 2009 people in the Congo may still be dying at a rate of an estimated 45,000 per month". Well, duh: That makes roughly half a million a year. The total population is claimed at 68 million, which with any reasonable estimate of average life expectancy makes the number low and entirely unremarkable. 94.220.254.186 (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

45,000 people dying from armed conflict a year is not "unremarkable"! Please be specific about the other cases you feel are POV. Greenman (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"1.5.2 International Community Response" is extremely POV. I don't like the use of the words "incommensurate" (I'd say it has pejorative connotations), "effective" or "little will". -- The Fwanksta (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Corruption Perception Index

This table includes a blank column. Is there a reason? Varlaam (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Systematic Bias

There are not enough editors who are from the DRC to confirm the information in this article.--Gniniv (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need any editors to confirm information in the article. That's what references are for, and as far as I can tell, the article has plenty of them. Please see WP:V Jess_talk|_edits 05:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Length of coastline

The opening paragraph states the coastline is 37km long, the second paragraph gives the length of coastline as 40km. Which is correct?

Religion

Religion	English WP	French WP	German WP	Difference	Encyclopaedia Universalis (rec. 1980)
christian	(90%)*	50%	(80%)*	50-90%	(94.5%)* * = calculated
catholic	55%		50%		48.4%
protestant	35% incl. kimbanguist		20%		29.0%
kimbanguist	(included in protestant)	15%	10%		(17.1%) sectes chrétiennes africaines
muslim	5%	15%	10%	5-15%	1.4%
animist	2.4%	20%	10%	2.4-20%	3.4%

--Eruedin (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

les élection es que kabila reusirra?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.113.148 (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 

Um Bongo, is it the official national drink?

Answer: Yes it is, the neighbouring Republic of Congo (not to be confused) has Kia Ora as it's national drink.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.150.86 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 

Second largest country in Africa

Congo is the second largest country in Africa after Algeria, not the largest. Mightymights (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Use the official names

Congo-Kinshasa and Congo-Brazaville are historical names; they are also names which are used informally in the capital cities of the two countries, probably because the people who live there think they represent the whole country. It's pretty similar to people in London, or Paris, who think they represent the whole of their respective countries. However, those names are not the official names of any country in present times. It's not even open to discussion really. This is an encyclopaedia - and the names of the two countries are The Democratic Republic of the Congo and The Republic of the Congo (with or without "the") and nothing else. We are going into dangerous territory if we think we can change things. Remember, Wikipedia is used by millions of people as a primary reference. Francis Hannaway 08:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where in the article are we saying that Congo-Kinshasa (or Congo-Brazzaville for the other Congo) is an official name? The article is pretty clear that this is a simplified name and why or how it is used. Are you suggesting we avoid using the name Congo-Kinshasa in other articles because it is not the official name? How about other names that are not official, like France (République française, French Republic, is the official name), South Korea (대한민국, Republic of Korea is the official name), etc.? See WP:TITLE or WP:ON. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 22:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and btw, these names are not just used in the capital cities, nor just historical. They were used before but they were not official names either (the country was called the Democratic Republic of the Congo before it was called the Republic of Zaire, or Zaire). --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 22:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made your views on this subject before. Congo-Kinshasa tends to be a Kinshasa-centric term. The country in question is much more than that. As an encyclopedia, it's important to give information to everybody which is unambiguous, which doesn't confuse. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that gve no reference to the Democratic Republic of Congo, but instead talk about Congo-Kinshasa; there are other articles that refer to Congo-Kinshasa and they are actually talking about the city of Kinshasa - and not the country. The less informed reader wouldn't know that the same country was being referred to. It's an ecyclopedia - it needs to be clear.

You know that some people refer to France by referring only to Paris, to Belgium by only talking about Brussels. The danger of picking up a fashionable, but non-official, name is that we are in danger of misinforming the Wikipedia-reading public. In addition, we could be influencing the outcome of how the country is perceived.

If we wrote - in the opening paragraph - about the United States of America, also called America, also called Yankees, also called the States, also called the USA, also called the US, or the US of A it would be confusing to readers. The difference here is that most of the world knows enough about thr United States to know that they are all referring to the same country. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is, unfortunately, not as well known. Readers are becoming confused. It's for this reason we need to be clear.

It's true that there was popular debate, and rightly so, after the Second Congo War, about what the country's name should be - but the government stood by what had been decided as early as 1992 (but never acted upon), and that decision was to name the country The Democratic Republic of the Congo. I would have no problem with somebody referring, later in the article, to different names - for example, "In the capital city of Kinshasa, among certain members of the government and NGOs, the country is sometimes referred to as Congo-Kinshasa." I know that you won't change your mind ... I seem to remember you stating elsewhere that you favoured the name Congo-Kinshasa. Francis Hannaway 14:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So you advocate replacing Congo-Kinshasa by the long official name in every other article? BTW you seem confused : Yankees is a whole other ballpark. It could be argued that Congo-Kinshasa/Congo-Brazzaville shares similarities with Guinea-Bissau (in its official name), or Guinea-Conakry (not in its official name). I would be surprise if you held the same argument for Guinea-Bissau (i.e. capital vs whole country) or even Guinea-Conakry [5] (again just the capital vs whole country aspect). As far as US of A, USA, etc. these are definitely similar to the RDC, DRC, DRCongo found out there. Are you also advocating these should not be used at all in other articles? I'd also be interested to see where Congo-Kinshasa or Congo-Brazzaville have been used to refere to something other than the countries.--Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Moyogo. There is no consensus to be making these changes to use an unwieldy official name. Wikipedia practice is to use common names. Everyking (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Moyogo, if you need to go through all the names I put for America you are missing the flippancy with which I wrote them. Yankees may be a whole different ballpark, but it illustrates the point that Congo-Kinshasa is not such a common name. It's often used in Kinshasa - yeah, of course ... to Kinshasans they are the whole country and the people in the provinces are not really significant. Guinea-Bisau is now a very established name, the name of the former Congo, former Zaire, is not - it has only just settled into what it is. The matter is exacerbated by being next to another country with a similar name. This is why it's the duty of people who write encyclopedic articles to keep names official to avoid confusion. The policy on common names also has a section on precision and disambiguation, the reader needs to know when, half way through the article the country is referred to by a different name, that the same country is being talked about. As I've said, I know you will stick to your idea - you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about it. Best wishes Francis Hannaway 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Er.. OK. You seem to have a pickle with Kinshasans, and the fact that I use that short name. You seem to believe I won't change my mind, even though I am asking you to give facts supporting your arguments. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As you can't seem to provide facts supporting your arguments. I will.

These regionally focused sites don't use "Congo-Kinshasa":

• katanga.cd
• gouvernoratmaniema.cd
• province-equateur.org
• kasaioccidental.com
• unikis-ac.cd
• unilu.ac.cd (except for its library)
• ucbukavu.cd
• um-rdc.org

But these other regionally focused sites do use Congo-Kinshasa" :

• infobascongo.net
• nyota.net.net (Katanga focused)
• benilubero.com
• archidiocesedekananga.org (only 1 occurence)
• kongocentral.net (only 1 occurence)
• kasaiest.cd
• provincenordkivu.org

So in short: the websites of 3 provinces use Congo-Kinshasa, 4 don't, 4 univeristy websites I found don't directly use it, and the 3 news sites focused on regions I found use it. For what it's worth, some websites of national institutions (based in Kinshasa) do not use it either, only do it sporadically or recently (presidentrdc.cd didn't last year).

Francis, your argument that Congo-Kinshasa is not used in the whole country, seems to have some supporting facts, however at the same time it is not absolute since that form is used some places other than Kinshasa. --Mᴏʏᴏɢᴏ/ ⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC Article

Maybe some useful info here. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the article : congo is the 11th largest country and not the 12th. Hourse1 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

URGENT : election crisis

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipXVKU789GdE5omsWQN4h5o0nPXw?docId=700127f6203d4a7f82be1bf20e0122c6 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/03/congo-democratic-election-reject-idUSL5E7N30DZ20111203

I'm going to do some preliminary edits to the history, maybe we could get a veteran in here to help me out.

Whalen207 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2011

Greetings Whalen! Pleased to meet you! I am both a veteran of editing Wikipedia and of living in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I've looked at these articles. I think that "Election Crisis" has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not journalism. Elections come and go. Wait until the dust settles, a result is declared, the result leads to a new government being formed. After that you can write about the historic event of the 2011 elections. One year later you can start to write about the effect of the outcome of the 2011 elections.

Remember, writing for an encyclopedia is writing for all audiences. I always try to imagine that I'm writing for someone who is in a far-away land, not involved in the subject in question on a day-to-day basis, who wants to find out about the - in this case - country. If we start to put speculative interpretations on hot-off-the-press journalism, we are in danger of giving false information.

Keep your Reuters and Associated Press references - but use them in a few months time.

Best wishes Francis Hannaway 21:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, improve Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2011. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Étienne Tshisekedi is not President

Much as people might wish - especially the armchair politicians amongst us - Joseph Kabila is the incumbent president. More than that; he is de facto president because he's still the boss of everything. Therefore, Étienne Tshisekedi's name has no place - even as disputed president - in this article. Francis Hannaway 18:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is Danny Ndungu?

I think under political crisis 1960-1965 the name 'Danny Ndungu' is incorrect. I can't find any Danny Ndungu references online. Does anyone know who he is? The name use also seems inconsistent. Thanks. JimReaperX (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimReaperX (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This was vandalism [6]. Thanks for noticing, it's now back to what it should be. --Moyogo/ (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch both. Original vandalism, if anyone's interested CMD (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Democratic Republic of the Congo → Democratic Republic of Congo

Per WP:POVTITLE. Wikipedia practice is to use common names.

BBC, CNN, AL English, NY times and others all use "Democratic Republic of Congo":

• Name used by BBC : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13283212
• Name used by CNN : http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/world/democratic-republic-of-congo/
• Name used by Aljazeera English : http://www.aljazeera.com/category/country/democratic-republic-of-congo
• Name used by NYtimes : http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/congothedemocraticrepublicof/index.html

Mightymights (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - is not necessarily the "common name", the "official" name is also used.--MrBoire (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - If indeed 1) the official language is French, and 2) the French name is "République démocratique DU Congo" (emphasis added), then I would say no. The French name means Democratic Republic of THE Congo. Otherwise, it would be "République démocratique DE Congo." Uporządnicki (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A bit further on this, I looked for the country's own official website; didn't find one. I found one for their embassy in the USA. That website showed it BOTH ways. Uporządnicki (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per United Nations, the country's UN mission and U.S. embassy, as well as the World Factbook, recommended by CMOS. Kauffner (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose A typical reader would never refer to the country with the proposed title; go ask around, anywhere! Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. None of the oppose !votes is asking the right question. Wikipedia does not use the official name simply because it's official, nor because it's what a reasonable translation of the official name would be; nor do we ask around to see what typical readers would say (how would we even know?) - instead, we prefer the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources. How do we determine that? By looking at as many sources as we can. In this case, the answer is "Democratic Republic of Congo", without the "the". This can clearly be seen in this ngram, where you can see that even though both names are clearly common, the proposed title has consistently been used more often in books by a fairly wide margin since the mid '90s. Dohn joe (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The common name of this country is simply "Congo". Why use a title that is almost the official name, but not quite? It would be like using a misspelling. Britannica gives "Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)". Kauffner (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose To me both names are about the same: the present one just sounds more complete and the one without 'the' sounds like people are trying to type less, or say less. I just got back from Kinshasa on Friday, after a month's stay. I can verify that on all TV programmes, and in all newspaper articles, the full name in French is always used. So, the full name in French is the common name within the country - I don't why that can't be the same in English, too. (... just a thought) Francis Hannaway (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: → DR Congo

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Democratic Republic of the Congo → DR Congo – By far the most widely used name of this country is simply "Congo," so the current title certainly isn't the common one. For example, it's "Congo" in this New York Times profile. Very few countries on Wiki are titled under an extended constitutional name of this kind. Presumably the reason it is done this way is to disambiguate this subject from the Republic of the Congo. If so, this is a poor form of disambiguation since the two names are still confusingly similar. Kauffner (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The proposed form is the standard way to refer this subject in a sports context, see The Guardian or FIFA.
• It is also used extensively in other contexts. The embassy has an article on "The Geography of DR Congo", and the Congo News Agency uses it in "DR Congo Officials Vow to Defend Goma Against M23 Rebels" and hundreds of other stories, see "DR Congo" site:congonewsagency.com.
• The proposed form is favored by the BBC. See "Explore DR Congo in maps and graphs", this list of country profiles, this Olympic profile, or "Q&A: DR Congo conflict."
• There is no shortage of books that use the term: D.R. Congo: The Darkness of the Heart (2010), Conflict and Social Transformation in Eastern DR Congo (2004), and Restoring Justice After Large-Scale Violent Conflicts: Kosovo, DR Congo and the Israeli-Palestinian Case (2008). Kauffner (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• OPPOSE I cannot believe we are going around the same arguments every few months for the Democratic Republic of Congo, as you did for the Republic of Congo. Read the argument on this very page, just scroll up - it's right there in front of you. These arguments are exhausted - they are finished - they are over, they are deceased. It is a late argument. You are in danger of being identified as a nuisance.
  This is an encyclopedia - we are not the ones who choose countries' names - we report facts. Both the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo have gone through a lot of turmoil in recent decades and this has included name changes. This was especially true during the transition from colonial authority to independence for both countries in turn. I have just returned from two visits to the Democratic Republic of Congo where I was able to watch TV from both countries. Both countries went to great lengths to always - and I mean always - state the name of the country in full ... The Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo. Congo-Brazaville and Congo-Kinshasa are archaic terms but were in use in the colonial times; they are undersood by people who remember those times and were even used a little after the fall of Mobutu because the situation wasn't firmly established. Now the situation is firmly established on both sides of the river and full names are used. If you stop someone in the street and ask them where they are from they will tell you the same. The BBC consistently uses Republic of Congo and DR Congo, abreviating just the first part. Congolese people may also abreviate the Democratic Republic of Congo to DRC (RDC in French).
  From the point of view of someone who is looking for information in this encyclopedia, changing the name of these countries would be foolish because 1) it would be even more confusing than it has been, and 2) most people don't know what or where they are anyway - so why make it even more difficult for them when national names are the currently used popular names?
  It is true that some news networks refer to the Republic of Congo as just Congo, but this is then clarified within the article. It's not helpful to look at headlines only - lots of thing are abreviated ... that's the nature of headline writing.
  So I am totally, totally against changing the name of the article.
  Do I think that people in Republic of Congo would state that if ask - I don't think it ... I know it. And finally, as I've stated in recent years arguing on this very same subject and working very hard to keep naming consistent on all pages that mention these two countries, Congo-Brazaville and Congo-Kinshasa don't work either because they show a tremendous bias towards the people who live in the capital cities. This subject has been exhausted several times in the past and - for countries with less well known identities internationally - the official names are used by the population in general and should be used on Wikipedia.
  ... and as for adding Congo(Zaire) to the mix, you would get lynched if you tried that in Kinshasa. The problem with quoting references from as long ago as 2003 is that things have moved on quite a bit in both countries. You've got to be current with naming countries ... not some nostalgic reference from your school-days. Keep the names as they are - we had to struggle to establish them in the first place.
  If you read my first statement, I received TV and radio from both countries. But let's look at it from the perspective of the English speaking readership. You will not get any support from a readership which doesn't really know much about countries in Africa and turns to Wikipedia to get information. Editors tend to be specialists and can often (but not always) have detailed knowledge about particular subjects. For most readers, Africa is one place - and if not one place, then only divided into a few regions. There's the deserty bit at the top, for example; a lot of people know about Egypt and - in view of recent events - Libya. People often know about South Africa and Kenya because of holiday destinations. They are less likely to associate the popular resorts of Tenerife with Africa. Most of the rest is a blurr. Some soccer players come from African countries ... and that can help raise people's awareness. So, when - as I've already stated - a country comes through so many name changes (colonial, independent, new-regime, etc) the information provided in an encyclopedia must avoid being confusing. Now, I understand that you are trying to avoid confusion and are not just trying to be awkward, but Congo-Brazzaville/Congo-Kinshasa is just as confusing to the outsider as anything else. French Congo and Belgian Congo are probably the clearest terms to the outsider but obviously disallowed. For people to get to know these two countries the easiest way is to stick with the official names - and it is the inclusion of the word Democratic (and we all know that neither country is democratic) which people will latch onto to make a distinction. If there are several names, all being used in every article, confusion will become even greater. For example, calling the country Congo-Brazzaville in one paragraph and then switching to Congo or the Republic of Congo in another ... and then if the neighbouring country is mentioned in the same article, to have Congo-Kinshasa and Democratic Republic of Congo used as well. The number of names needs to be reduced - yet the official names must always be known.
  It stands to reason, therefore, that these official names are the ones which should be popularised. As I've said before - in Kinshasa, on TV and radio, they use the full names of both countries 100% of the time - including doing interviews in the street with ordinary people. You have no support from anyone - mainly because this is a very old and overstated situation. If we want people to distinguish the two countries, we must leave the names as they are.
  Francis Hannaway (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize that the discussion you are linking to doesn't even mention the term "DR Congo"? These cut and pasted arguments focus on the form "Congo-Kinshasa" rather on the form I have proposed. Thank you for acknowledging that "DR Congo" is the way the BBC refers to this country. Kauffner (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "DR Congo" is shorthand for the country's (English) name, so could/should be mentioned at the start of the article (in bold) but not used as the article's name/title. CsDix (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Have you looked at other country titles on Wiki? They typically use the "shorthand" form: France rather than "French Republic", China rather than "People's Republic of China", and Mexico rather than "United States of Mexico". As with the Congos, the long-form names of North Korea and South Korea are confusingly similar, i.e. "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea". Kauffner (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• But, unlike the examples you give, "DR Congo" assumes the reader understands what the "DR" means and implies. CsDix (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Titles are attached to articles, where such things can be explained. "DR Congo" and "Congo-Brazzaville" is the terminology the media uses when disambiguation is necessary, for example when teams from both countries play in a tournament.[7] Notice that it can be put in a headline and doesn't have to be explained first. Kauffner (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. No need whatsoever to use an abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no reason to use an abbreviation, as we have been generally expanding them in article titles. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - we don't abbreviate United States to US, why should we abbreviate DR Congo? (and would suggest no more RMs on this till 2014). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did anyone read the nomination? The idea is not that abbreviations should trump spelled-out forms, but rather to use disambiguators that allow the two Congos to be easily distinguished. Kauffner (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The nomination begins "It has been proposed in this section that Democratic Republic of the Congo be renamed and moved to DR Congo." Is that incorrect? CsDix (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's a template. The nom begins, "By far the most widely used name of this country is simply "Congo"... Kauffner (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think, then, that if a move to "Congo" is actually your nomination, you should change the "DR Congo" to "Congo" in the thread's title and the template line just below it. (And, if that is the nomination, it seems even more ill-advised to me than a move to "DR Congo".) CsDix (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• So after all that, you still won't read the nom? Ah, well. Kauffner (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Please be assured that I did read the nom and followed a couple of the links you included. I think what you're suggesting is in good faith, but also misguided. It looks like it isn't receiving sufficient support, so perhaps it's time to let go and move on. CsDix (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, agreeing with reasons given by other opposers. See also Google ngram evidence, which shows that "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is hugely more common than the proposed title in publications. Noetica^Tea? 06:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please tell me this a joke. Do I have to explain yet again that just plain "Congo" is by far the most common name of this subject? See this ngram if you don't believe me. The current title is a disambiguated form, not the common name. However, it is poorly disambiguated as it is confusingly similar to Republic of the Congo. The ngram goes only to 2008, so it does not pick up on the wider usage of "DR Congo" in recent years. It is now standard usage international sports news, and it is the style of the BBC and the Congo News Agency in all contexts, as I document in the nom. Kauffner (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No joke at all. I oppose the specific move, because the best ngram evidence is against it. Your ngram evidence carries no weight at all: of course "Congo" is a word that turns up far more often than any string that has it as a proper part, as a matter of logical necessity. You'd need more rigour in your presentation of the facts to earn agreement to the proposed move. I'm not seeing it; but I am seeing official Congo sites that prefer an unabbreviated form. Noetica^Tea? 00:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If you don't want to believe the ngram, take a look at the BBC site. If you restrict for the last year, it has 1,170 results for current title ("Democratic Republic of the Congo" OR "Democratic Republic of Congo" site:www.bbc.co.uk), 3,030 for "DR Congo" ("DR Congo" site:www.bbc.co.uk). The Congo News Agency site has 307 results for current title ("Democratic Republic of the Congo" OR ""Democratic Republic of Congo" site:congonewsagency.com), 411 for "DR Congo" ("DR Congo" site:congonewsagency.com). Maybe the country's news agency knows the name of the country. The current top-selling book on this subject is Jason Stearns` Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. It gives the name as simply "Congo" all through the book -- hundreds of times. Kauffner (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: How will we ever find the article on the country? DR Congo is simply a meaningless acronym, unlike USA, UK, PRC or EU. but we don't use the acronyms even for these better-known examples, so let's not go there. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not again! The idea isn't to reduce the number of keystrokes, but to clearly disambiguate between the two Congos. Kauffner (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The full name is the most common disambiguator, per others above. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Did you find any examples of the term being used this way? I don't think any news service would report that, "The president of the Republic of Congo met the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo." Sports news is where this problem arises most frequently. The two teams are generally referred to as "Congo-Brazzaville" and "DR Congo" (or "Congo DR").[8] Kauffner (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.