Talk:State of Katanga

Two Suggestions
Hi everyone, Just two suggestions:
 * A list/table about the composition of the secessionist government. It remained the same during the secession (except Kiwele and Samalenge, they died but were not replaced). I have recently created some WP pages of Katangese government Ministers (Lucas Samalenge, Joseph Kiwele, Albert Nyembo), and sources about the composition of the government are easily consultable online (e.g. on page 331).
 * Change the line in the infobox about the President: Tshombe's executive role was taken over during a brief period in 1961 by a triumvirate of Munongo, Kiwele, and Kibwe, when Tshombe and Kimba were arrested during the Coquilhatville conference in 1961.

I wanted to make these two changes, but it's perhaps better to table them here first.CBJH (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first bullet point is an excellent suggestion, this article lacks sections outside of chronological history completely. Regarding the infobox, such changes should only be made if there is an area of the article text which supports those changes. Currently this isn't really established, and it seems it was a very temporary situation that may be too detailed for an infobox. CMD (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The big picture?
The article leaves one with the impression that the Katanga secessionists were the "bad guys", eventually defeated by the influence of the USA and UN "peacekeepers". Maybe this is so. But the final result of crushing Katanga was to deliver the whole country into the hands of the thuggish kleptocrat/dictator Mobutu. While the UN "peacekeeping" forces were taking out Katanga's defenses, Mobutu had Lumumba - a more-or-less democratically elected leader - arrested, tortured, and murdered. Nobody can maintain that it wasn't obvious what Mobutu was like. I don't know enough about the history to flag the entire article for violation of NPOV policy, but it does seem to me that some balance could be injected. It really was not a case of separatists=bad, anti-separatists=good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longitude2 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I broadly agree. We have quite a few articles on Wiki which tend to focus on the more picturesque aspects of the secession - especially the use of mercenaries - at the expense of the politics. There are also some obvious issues in this article. What does "ultra-right-wing" mean, for example? There are plenty of worse article, though. The lack of context in Siege of Jadotville is a particularly egregious example. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)