Talk:State of Katanga/Archive 1

Archive 1

State or Republic?

Is there a source for the claum that "State of Katanga" was the official name of this country? The German Fischer Weltalmanach calls it "Republic of Katanga"...--Antemister (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an unrecognized state, so there was never any official designation. Personally, I have never heard Moise Tshombe or his elected assembly once in my sources refer to their nation as a republic, so the name of the article as it stands seems accurate enough. --Katangais (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Although the country was not recognized, it used an "official" name, but the question if it was "republic" or "state" of Katanga should be answered. The WP uses the self declared "official name" even for unrecognized country, and we should do that also here. It's a difficult question, for example, here, both "republic" and "state" is used.--Antemister (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Katangan system of government was a republican one, but if the nation or any of its de-facto authority never referred to their country specifically as "Republic of Katanga", then there is no reason to do so. Compare this to Rhodesia, which, although it was an unrecognized state, openly claimed to be a republic.--Katangais (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ok, but we should try to find out if the country declared itself as the "Republic of Katanga", if yes, move the page.--Antemister (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I've consulted all of my previous sources on the Congo Crisis, including several foreign newspapers in Brussels and London which covered Katanga's secession. They all refer to it simply as "Katanga", and the word 'republic' is never used. I've also read over a number of documents issued by the unrecognized Katangan government, and while they do seem to call their nation a "constitutional democracy", they omit the word 'republic' in their official title. Finally, the last bit of paperwork reviewed was Katanga's constitution (in French) which gives us a final answer in its title: "l'etat du Katanga", or "State of Katanga".--Katangais (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

While now conceding that "republic" is also used in Katanga's constitution, I have read it a second time, I think that it's safe to say they intended "State" as their official designation. It is, after all, in the header. --Katangais (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been some time, but it's worth noting that "State of Katanga" is the term used on the country's postage stamps and money.—Brigade Piron (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Myth?

//A common myth in 1961 among the United Nations in general was that Katanga was an expression of indigenous nationalist sentiment.// How is this a common myth? It seems to be a myth that it is a myth. From what is known. Moise Tshombe had local support in that area, support that was in line with his secessionist inclinations.--41.151.186.132 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was popularized by the international press at the time, making it a common myth. Yes, Tshombe had local support, but still not a majority in Katanga, if you count the largest tribes and the entire population. --Katangais (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't invalidate "expression of indigenous nationalist sentiment", so the myth part needs to go out of the article. --105.236.3.220 (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sauce on debunking that one, or I'm not inclined to change it. --Katangais (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that Kennes and Larmer use the same "expression of indigenous nationalist sentiment" argument in their recent book, so it certainly has not been discredited to the extent that it does not deserve a place here.—Brigade Piron (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Katangese or Katangan?

"Katangese" is an archaic term, by the way. I wish to clarify that "Katangan" is proper, as referenced in my primary two sources, which draw heavily from official United Nations documents. Yes, there were some newspapers that called them "Katangese" at the time, and many observers who wrote contemporary accounts referred to Katangans as "Katangese". But I would also like to make the interesting note that Ugandans were formerly known as "Ugandese", especially in the 1960's. Now, of course, we call them "Ugandans". "ese" is hardly in use any more. --Katangais (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not what the OED says so if this is Brit Eng (appropriate for most African articles) "Katangese" is preferable. I'd be interested to know what American dictionaries say. I know that "Katangan" is commonly used, but we should always go by the book where possible! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're so taken with going by the book, the primary source for the article (Crisis in Congo: A United Nations Force in Action, via Brookings) uses the demonym "Katangan". Of course, that particular source is American. --Katangais (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: @Katangais: I don't mean to bring you both back to such an old conversation, but I do think for the sake of Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo some consensus on a recommended style would be helpful. I initially used "Katangan" but switched to "Katangese" because it appeared to be more frequently used. I recently purchased the American-published book, Kennes, Erik; Larmer, Miles (2016). The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253021502. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), which uses "Katangese". -Indy beetle (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I stand by my 2014 self with "Katangese" as the preferable form per the OED.—Brigade Piron (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to demonyms, the "ese" form occupies an odd niche. It was quite liberally applied in the English language during the mid nineteenth century and has been declining in use since the late 1960s. For instance, people stopped writing "Ugandese", "Angolese" and "Samoese" at some point between the late 1960s and the mid-1970s and settled for "Ugandan", "Angolan" and "Samoan".

However, the "ese" form has also remained unchanged in other cases; for instance, in "Chinese", "Gabonese", "Beninese", or "Congolese". Then there is "Burmese", which actually competed with "Burman" for a while in literature before the latter inexplicably died out.

It's impossible to say if Katanga were still a state today whether the proper demonym in English would be "Katangan" or "Katangese". However, since it only existed in the early 1960s when the "ese" form was far more common worldwide, nearly all sources that make use of the documentation from that era use "Katangese". That hasn't stopped the two demonyms from achieving parity in literature, however, I would argue that both are technically correct at this point.

Google Books returns 23,100 results for "Katangan" and 17,100 results for "Katangese", meaning the former is actually more common. A further breakdown of the results finds that more results are returned for "Katangan" concerning works published since the year 2000; whereas, before the year 2000 most works preferred "Katangese", although of course you can find ample evidence of both being used starting in the 1970s - about the same time that "an" demonyms were gaining favor worldwide.

Either is fine and I wouldn't worry about it if the demonyms differ from article to article, depending on the individual contributors and the sources they consulted. Like I said there doesn't seem to be any clear consensus in literature about which one to favor. --Katangais (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's not a matter of huge importance and would certainly not deny that both are used. I've always considered that the –ese ending follows the French adjectival –ais (thus Congolais(e) to Congolese, Togolais(e) to Togolese and so on) for countries in which no natural "English" form exists - in the same way that English also imitates –ois endings into –ish (Luxembourgeois(e) to Luxembourgish) for example. Seen from that basis, it makes sense to use Katangese in a way which Ugandese (an intriguing example!) doesn't.—Brigade Piron (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Repetition of Congo Crisis

Hi. This article - with the exception of the intro - is all about the Congo crisis. Solutions? Merge? Crop out the duplication? Leave as is? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the entire history of the state encompasses the Congo Crisis, so I don't really see a problem. --Katangais (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tone

"It was unclear what the subsequent rampage attempted to accomplish, but the attackers, who were busily raping and murdering their way through the countryside, were quickly driven off by the European-officered Katangese Army." This kind of tone feels like it belongs in a 1900s editorial and not an encyclopedia. 99.240.176.62 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional citations now redundant

Is the "additional citations" template from July 2017 really needed anymore? Yes there are some parts that need more citations, but I think most paragraphs have enough citations now. I'd remove it myself but even reading through this I don't feel I'd have the best judgement. Demagoras^talk 17:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say there are enough citations for it to be a judgment call. CMD (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)