Jump to content

Talk:Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Stan Shebs lifted this article from its pedestrian start. User:Wetman

Good entry. Two points spring to mind, i) Brazza was naturlised as a French Citizen prior to his exploration. ii) His original rank was "Auxiliary Ensign". Not sure how those might be weaved in, hence the talk rather than an edit. PhilipPage 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a recent BBC article on the Brazza page. It would be a good idea to dig the article and extract some useful information to be wikified. Hugo Dufort 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sentece

[edit]

It should be noted, however, that there are no historical documents to substantiate Obenga's claims. In any case, Brazzaville remains one of the last remaining African capitals named after a European colonizer, and this fact in itself has generated some debate among Congolese.

Please make appropraite citation...Nzingamina

Discussion updated

[edit]

It should be noted that references made about De Brazza's "splendid work" in the Congo cannot be substantiate by Congolese people and therefore are not historically correct or validated by Congolese. In any case, Congolese people have the right to express how they view those that colonized them. Nzingamina

Deleted sentence

[edit]

I've removed the statement "Many Congolese protested the mausoleum which celebrates a man who enslaved, colonized and raped a Congolese woman.", which was inserted clumsily into a sentence and appears to be a complete contradiction of what has been published about de Brazza. To be restored it needs an appropriate citation. Kahuzi 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation updated

[edit]

References for the mausoleum controversy and the of rape of a princess from Mbe by De Brazza are sited at mwinga.org. nzingamina 17:37, 13 December 2006

An internet article, discussing such a politically volatile subject, is not a decent citation. 41.241.14.155 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepedia allows internet citations for articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.253.12 (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

getting close to 3RR

[edit]

My attempts to insert "The decision to honour Pierre de Brazza as a founding father of the Republic of the Congo elicited some controversy and protest." has been reverted twice now by nzingamina without any comments or explanation. In the absence of any comment it seems he is objecting to dropping the text "among many Congolese" even though objections were not limited to people living in Congo, but also has been criticised abroad. That the dedication was attended by several national leaders is also relevant to it being within the controversy sub-section (e.g. there are two conflicting viewpoints)

However, before I reinsert this text, it would be helpful if Nzingamina (or a fellow editor) could identify where Théophile Obenga actually provides reliable evidence of the allegation of rape in the only reference which he provided. It is an hour long narration in French, not easy listening, at what minute does he make this accusation? Can someone supply a printed or published document - preferably in English for the English WP - that counts as a reliable source? As this is not in the normal text books it needs to meet the criteria of WP:V otherwise it risks exclusion as being WP:OR. Ephebi (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no more evidence forthcoming to this request or a for previous requests for verifiable information some years ago, I have removed this allegation. I also note that the French, Dutch & German versions of this article have no verification for this allegation. However I have been able to locate an image of the mausoleum. Ephebi (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ephebi, please prove that the Mausoleum Controversy should be part of your celebration of the Death and Memorial to De Brazza. It is my understanding that this section of Wikipedia was approved for nearly two years, and I fail to understand why you would remove it since it is referenced. I appreciate that others have given their insightful point of view and agreed that this section deserves it's own heading. I thank Jonathan Jonathanwallace for his insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.230.128 (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-> The text below has been moved from Jonathanwallace's talk page:

Nzingamina, you are mis-representing me, as a glance through the revision history will show. I have not tried to delete the mausoleum controversy, instead I have tried to make it read better and be more balanced as an example of post-war and post-colonial historiography. (In my experience, many articles read better if controversies are integrated into the article rather than in a separate 'Controversy' section.) My main issue has been with historical revisionism, which relies on a single poorly-sourced fringe allegation. Maybe you could try adding it to the French WP and see the reaction there? And now a reminder of Wikipedia etiquette: our editing experiences on WP will be more pleasant if we do not assert points of view, recognise that no-one owns a page, accept that pages will change over time without our permission, and respond to requests to co-operate before starting a revert war. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we move any further discussion off my talk page and to the article's. Thanks-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ephebi, you have attempted to re-write history by re-organizing the Mausoleum Controversy into a Death and Memorial section. There is nothing memorial about De Brazza to many Congolese. My main issue is that for over two years, this section was approved by Wikipedia based on the references and I fail to see your point in deleting that section and combining the controversy with your praise of De Brazza's death and memorial section. If you look at the French section of De Brazza, neither are the Africans pleased with the revision of history. Our experience with Wikipedia would be well served and is well served when references prove different point of views. As a Congolese, I refuse to have those that colonized us continue to write our history to the world. Thanks, Nzingamina —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I doubt that any current editors of the Wikipedia were colonizers of the Congo, or even many of their direct descendants. Thus, I gather that we are to take your comment metaphorically as one dealing with cultures. Historically, utilizing only one point of view has lead to problems in Wikipedia articles, hence WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, in most cases the original Congolese viewpoint was not recorded. Current viewpoints on the past have their value as viewpoints, but not as history. As such, they must be objectified and not polemized in Wikipedia articles. Also unfortunately for "unrecorded events" we are constrained to report not to synthesize and we need information to be published by reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-> (responded to allegations and absence of WP:AGF privately Ephebi (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I think the dissent voiced by various people to the government's acts honoring de Brazza warrants its own section entitled "Mauseoleum Controversy". This does not IMO violate WP:WEIGHT. I also agree with user Ephebi that we need to assume everyoen's good faith here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is just about whether there should be a heading using the word "controversy", the article should be looked at as a whole. It seems that the controversy is part of a section that would normally be called in biographical articles on the Wikipedia "Death and Legacy". Certainly "Mausoleum Controversy" should be at best a subsection of that and not co-equal. In truth, it is a subsection of "Brazzaville Mausoleum". Given the relatively short length of the entire "Death and Legacy" section, I would suggest that no subsections are required. That is easily fixed. I suspect that the wrangling is more deep-seated than that as the article in African Affairs points out. Perhaps that controversy can be objectified and summarized in a single sentence. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pierre_Savorgnan_de_Brazza&oldid=1205996911"