Talk:Patrice Lumumba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I see no "Quotes" section.

Certainly, an orator and politician of Lumumba's stature would have several significant quotes. Other wikipedia entries about those close to Lumumba and the struggle for independence in the Congo, like Mobutu, have "Quotes" sections.

Conflicting theories[edit]

Many of the theories for his death listed here are mutually exclusive. As a result, the page winds up sounding like a mad hatter's parody of a conspiracy theory site. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia.

Just because someone can find one cite for some theory, that doesn't mean it's worth noting here on an equal basis from all the rest. Hey, I can probably find printed books that say that Apollo 11 never landed on the Moon. Should I give that claim equal prominence in the Apollo 11 article?

For instance, the theory that the UK did it appears to rest on hearsay evidence from a single person - in a conversation with someone who is now, conveniently, dead. One would like to see a little more evidence before this sort of claim is given equal weight.

I have no idea who really killed him (I'm not a Lumumba expert), I just came here to read more about it. I also don't really care who actually killed him. But the current disorganized mish-mosh of theories is incredibly unprofessional, and makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of ignorant, conspiracy-theory boobs. Noel (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have detected a pattern. I once heard that Lumumba wanted to either nationalize the mining sector or at least get higher royalties. If that is true, he disgraced himself just as much as Mossadegh (Iran), Allende (Chile), and Whitlam (Australia). There may be others who I have not come across. The methods to remove them from the power switches are different, but mining revenue is a common thread. (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Poor content organization[edit]

On re-reading it, I was struck by the poor organization of the existing content. E.g. there were two separate sections entitled 'British Involvement', with nearly identical content! The whole thing looked like the result of a series of 'drive-by' edits where nobody stopped to review the overall content and flow, just dropped in their new bit and rode off.

I have re-factored the content, removing nothing except some duplicate content (e.g. the British stuff). I have attempted to sort the material out into i) what is known about his death, and ii) the various reports of foreign involvement, which I have tried to separate out into separate a) Belgian, b) US and c) UK sections.

All citations that were there are still there. Only the organization has been changed - hopefully to a more logical one. Noel (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I found (and removed) several more instances of duplicate content: the CIA poison toothbrush, and the report that a CIA agent had the body in his car trunk. It's quite clear that the people who added that stuff didn't bother to look to see if it was already there - probably the poor organization of the content made it hard to see if it was already there. Noel (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


The article is riddled with unfounded speculation. And that starts in the first section. -- (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)