Talk:Berlin Conference

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganmichelotti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Olusoga

Its unclear why the views of David Olusoga are of sufficent import to have a subtitle within the main discussion. As it stands it simply reads as an effort to minimise colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.170.26 (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Request Admin rollback to 02:24, 15 July 2009, due to vandalism.

Some history is at Berlin Conference (now a disambig page) --VMAAXT (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

---

My humble apologies - I turned the above original into a disambig before I discovered "Move page" or dared brave its dire warnings of the potential consequences of use. For the record, the article is almost wholly the fine work of MyRedDice - I may have added half a sentence. Graculus 14:30, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Graculus - though I took most of the text from History of Africa anyway... :) Martin

Translation

• Article: de:Kongokonferenz
• Corresponding English-language article: Berlin Conference
• Worth doing because: At least twice the length of the English article.
• Originally Requested by: Jmabel 03:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Status: Done by User:Mpolo
• Other notes: This is a case where we could fill in some of our under-coverage of African history simply by translating an article. -- Jmabel 03:28, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

- Jmabel 01:52, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Invitees

quote (source unknown):

"Not only did Bismarck seize territory on both sides of the continent, but in October 1884 he joined with France to invite twelve other states to a conference in Berlin"

Not currently reflected in the article. --Dittaeva 13:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Currently in the article:

...while Germany declared Togo, Cameroon and Southwest Africa to be under its protection in 1884.

The conference

Leopold II was able to convince France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. Otto von Bismarck, German Chancellor, called on representatives of the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden-Norway (union until 1905) and Zanzibar to take part in the Berlin Conference to work out policy.

That seems to cover both points in the unattributed quote. Maybe "declared under his protection" is too weak -- someone would have to look that up, obviously. (Since the info in the article came from German WP, it might tend to be more positive toward Germany...) The list of invitees, which includes France, is 13 countries, so corresponding to your info. Mpolo 14:35, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Number of countries who attended and their enumeration

Someone had placed Zanzibar among the attendees. This seems to be wrong (and is also therefore now mirrored all over the net). See [1]. The attendees were His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia, Otho, Prince von Bismarck, his President of the Prussian Council of Ministers, Chancellor of the Empire; Paul, Count von Hatzfeldt, his Minister of State and Secretary for Foreign Affairs; Auguste Busch, his Acting Privy Councillor of Legation and Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and Henri von Kusserow, Privy Councillor of Legation in the Department for Foreign Affairs ; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary, Emeric, Count Szechenyi de Sarvari Felsoe-Videk, Chamberlain and Acting Privy Councillor, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Gabriel Auguste Count van der Straten Ponthoz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Auguste, Baron Lambermont, Minister of State, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary ; His Majesty the King of Denmark, Emile de Vind, Chamberlain, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Spain, Don Francisco Merry y Colom, Count Benomar, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; The President of the United States of America, John A. Kasson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Henry S. Sanford, ex-Minister; The President of the French Republic, Alphonse, Baron de Courcel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, Sir Edward Baldwin Malet, her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Italy, Edward, Count de Launay, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Frederic Philippe, Jonkheer van der Hoeven, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves, etc., Da Serra Gomes, Marquis de Penafiel, Peer of the Realm, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; and Antoine de Serpa Pimentel, Councillor of State and Peer of the Realm; His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, Pierre, Count Kapnist, Privy Councillor, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, etc., Gillis, Baron Bildt, Lieutenant-General, his Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, Mehemed Said Pasha, Vezir and High Dignitary, his Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia. - Nunh-huh 13:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent states

Is misleading because the Boer states were both annexed shortly after the conference in the Boer wars near the close of the 19th century and early 20th century. I propose to list the info as follows:

• Liberia
• Ethiopia (+ extra info already there)

Two otehr states remained independent until annexed by the British Empire:

• Orange State
• South African Republic

Ok you guys know what I mean. Lol. Tourskin 02:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Orange FREE State. The text say those were "Dutch" settlers. It's true that Dutch was used as written language, BUT the people homesteading there were Afrikaners. --105.11.20.182 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Map of agenda proposals

The geographical data covered by the text of "Agenda" would be well represented as a map. matturn (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. A map would be very helpful if anyone has the necessary skill to make one. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Common Misconception

There seems to be some disagreement, particularly from 70.180.166.231 about the section detailing what is believed to be, by two referenced and well respected scholars on the matter, a misconception about some details in the Berlin Conference agreement. I am not 100% sure what the disagreement is so I have added this section for that disagreement to be more fully explained and elaborated. In the mean time I think it would be best not to edit that section unless those edits are well referenced (some thing that edits that add information to a wiki should be anyway). I would also like to point out that whilst it might be true in this case that "[r]eplacing the word 'pursue' with 'conquer' does not make it any less damning" this is not relevant as the section being referred to here is a direct quotation (in a block quotation format) and as such is, as a quotation, not open to being altered. Only shortened, expanded or removed. Since that section is short enough to be concise and long enough to properly explain the original authors meaning I believe it is not necessary to be expanded to shorted. Since it is a highly relevant quote to this article and is well and very specifically referenced it should remain in the article.--Discott (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerns re: neutrality and original research

Recent major revision has inserted not only new factual content, but quite a bit of apparent editorial matter re: the backwardness of the African culture that was supplanted by European rule. For example:

Previous efforts at establishing settlements and civilization by Portugal as in the Kingdom of Kongo, had revealed a grotesque anarchic civilization of witch-craft, cannibalism, and superstition within Central Africa. This older form of living was so powerful that despite Portugal's best effort, the Kingdom which was materialistically and spiritually superior, still succumbed to a series of wars with various Witch Kingdoms, which had just as quickly turned the former state back into a jungle of anarchy and darkness.

Armed with vast new weaponry, new medicine, and new technology, the Europeans quickly conquered the Congo and brought a new period of stability and peace to the region. Similarly, the European colonies elsewhere in Africa brought a new and better material living standard which benefited both natives and the European colonial powers and only ended with the abandonment of colonialism under pressure of the United States and the Soviet Union.

For the next fifty years, several millions of European settlers moved into Africa, hundreds of thousands of roads and rail-roads were established, the endemic tribal warfare was ended, cannibalism was suppressed, and Christianity was spread to millions of Africans who in turn experienced a rapid but stable growth rate thanks to European medicine, technology, and diet.

None of this is sourced, and given the user's concurrent removal of much uncomplimentary text at Henry Morton Stanley, there appears to be a desire to revise tone in such a way as to justify colonialism. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

unsourced normative statements

"By the early 1800s, the European sovereigns, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as the the United States of America, had developed over the course of several centuries an accepted code concerning the rights, obligations, and liberties of the sovereigns and their subjects in relation to one another, as well as with other foreign powers. Aside from Oriental powers long familiar with the European civilization such as Shah of Persia, the Ottoman Empire, the Indian Princely States, and the Manchu Empire, these customs were held in equality only among the Western Sovereigns. Other states such as the Ottoman Empire, also had their own customs which treated Europeans as inferior, thereby forcing the Europeans into establishing various public limited liability companies to limit losses due to the capriciousness of the foreign sovereigns, as well as providing semi-civil frameworks for representing whites in extra-territorial courts." Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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: No move. No agreement that this is not the primary topic, nor that the other suggested titles are superior. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Berlin Conference → Berlin West Africa Conference – WP:PRECISION - avoid ambiguous title, use name as in Britannica. ChemTerm (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not sure that precision is necessary. "Berlin Conference" is the common English name and quite recognizable. While admitting drawbacks with gbooks-searches, a quick gbooks search (omitting wiki, restricting results from 1970), we obtain roughly: 6 pages vs. 53 pages-worth of results. For such a widely-used term, the proposed title promises to surprise & confuse more than clarify. Walrasiad (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This Google-counting makes no sense. The term is ambiguous, external source don't necessarily have the problem of ambiguity, in case they are not a general purpose encyclopedia or a conference guide or so. Much more relevant is what other encyclopedias do and whether the primary meaning of "Berlin Conference" is the Berlin West Africa Conference. ChemTerm (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • "Berlin West Africa Conference" is a direct translation of the original official German title. It is a technical term which is not commonly found in English language sources. Moreover, it is confusing - as the conference covered more than "West Africa", as that term is normally understood in English; indeed, given the popular alternate name as the "Congo Conference", readers would assume this was a different one, specialized in a different geographic area. In short, it has practically zero recognizability, it would constitute a "surprise" to readers, likely to confuse more than clarify. It is easily the primary topic for this title. I don't see why disambiguation is necessary - there aren't any other "Berlin Conferences", save the minor 1954 one and that is already disambiguated. Walrasiad (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Another option would be Berlin Conference (1884). ChemTerm (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Not an attractive option. It began in 1884, and ended 1885, so it is also frequent to denote it 1885. And 1884-85 makes it unnecessarily ugly. I'd say stick with the current title. Walrasiad (talk) 02:20, 28 November 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.

Neutrality

It seems this article is missing information relating to the neutrality clause of the Act - which is to say, that central Africa would remain neutral in the event of war between any of the colonial powers in Europe. This was ultimately rejected by the British after the outbreak of war in 1914, and it led to the African theatre of World War I. Why is this not discussed in the article? It seems to be a rather significant impact of the conference. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Research Assistance

I'd like help on one point. My understanding is that the US was invited to send a representative to the Berlin Conference. This would have been the first US presence at a major power confab dealing with issues outside the western hemisphere. Chester Arthur DID send someone. Is that right? I also understand that Grover Cleveland refused to submit the resulting treaty to the US Senate for ratification, because he wanted to keep the US out of such matters. Again: is that right? There are a lot of questions here. Who did Arthur send? How significant was his participation? What, if anything, did the resulting treaty offer the US that might have induced at least some of the Senators to vote for its ratification, had they had the chance? Is there a good source dealing with these matters in a way that doesn't presume too much prior knowledge> I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks. --Christofurio (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A Notice of Plagiarism

This article hardly contains any citations... The information in "Early history of the Berlin Conference" does not contain any sources and the information tends to be very one-sided. These views are from a South African viewpoint. a lot of this information was found to be plagiarized from http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/berlin-conference. ("can be seen as the formalization of the Scramble for Africa. ", "Before the conference, European diplomacy treated African indigenous people in the same manner as the New World natives, forming trading relationships with the indigenous chiefs", "By the mid-19th century, Europeans considered Africa to be disputed territory ripe for exploration, trade, and settlement by their colonists").

Morganmichelotti (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistic not cited – “By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control.” Found this exact sentence in A Revised History for Advanced Level & Colleges by Nassoro Habib Mbwana Msonde. Mcmogan (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary Source Documents

This article, for the most part, looks really well done. However, I think it would be good if we could add the original Document signed at the Conference. Among the sources listed I couldn't find anything that included this, and I think it would be a good addition. Cwerth490 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cartoon depicting King Leopold II of the Belgians offering gifts to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cartoon depicting King Leopold II of the Belgians offering gifts to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The goals of the United States

The article says that the U.S. didn't come away from the conference with any African territory, but the U.S. didn't really want any formal African colony for itself -- it wanted European countries to keep their hands off of Liberia, and relatively free trade... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird sentence in the lede

• The conference contributed to ushering in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, once made the point that the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was responsible for "the old carve-up of Africa"

This seems to be cobbled together from at least 2 other sentences, but the parts before and after the comma do not seem to belong together. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Questionable source on relationship to Scramble for Africa

Apologies if I'm doing this wrong -- I'm new to discussing things on talk pages.

I'm writing to draw attention to a possible issue with one of the sources.

• The General Act of Berlin can be seen as the formalisation of the Scramble for Africa that was already in full swing.
• Source is [3]: https://www.thepostil.com/in-defense-of-german-colonialism/

I don't think this source is in agreement with the sentence that cites it. In the source, there is the quote:

• The conference was a response to, not a cause of, expanded colonial claims

The way that I read it, the opinion of the essay's author is that the influence isn't a formalisation of the scramble, but rather a discussion of it.

Even then, I do not believe this source is reliable. The site's "About us" page states that the site's goal is "to work for the return of Christendom", an indication of bias which is prevalent throughout the source's text, where critique of colonialism is labelled as "Woke" and "anti-civilizational" -- buzzword-ridden dismissals of arguments that (in my mind) instantly disqualify the essay as a reliable source of information.

While the claim I quoted from the Wikipedia article makes sense to me, I don't think it can be trusted to be reliable unless a better source can be found that supports it. HDSQ (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)