Talk:Tintin in the Congo

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tintin in the Congo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 01:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Per the disambiguation report, there are several ambiguous links that need to be rectified.
2. Footnote #37 does not lead where it is supposed to.
3. Footnotes #38 and #40 need proper citations, not just bare URL descriptions.
4. File:TintinCongo.jpg should have source information, whether you scanned it yourself or obtained the picture from a website.
5. Under "Plot", third paragraph: "Muganga and the stowaway then plot to kill Tintin by making it look like a leopard kill, but again Tintin survives, even saving Muganga from being killed by a boa, for which Muganga pleads mercy and ends his hostilities." - Need to mix up the word choice a bit here... "kill, kill, and killed" all in the same sentence is too repetitive and distracting.
6. Same paragraph: You have a direct quote here, which requires a direct citation, even if it is the same source used at the end of the paragraph.
7. Under "Background", second paragraph: The first sentence is too long and difficult to read... it should be split into at least two.
8. Same section, third paragraph: "As Jean-Marc and Randy Lofficier noted [...]" Who are these people and why should I care about their opinions? The relevance of their opinions should be introduced, even if only briefly. For example "As Belgian literary critics Jean-Marc and Randy Lofficier noted..." or something along that vein
9. Same paragraph, the large quote from Hergé is too long to be placed in the middle of the paragraph. Per WP:QUOTE, it should be made into a block quote or perhaps placed in a quote box somewhere near the section. For example, in the text itself you could just have "In the 1970s Hergé, in his interview with Numa Sadoul, admitted the errors in his understanding of the Congo" and then end it at that, with the exact quote in a box near the section. It is a useful quote, it's just too much to have in the middle of the prose.
10. Under "Original publication, 1930-1931", first paragraph: The direct quotes need direct citations.
11. Under "Second version, 1946", second paragraph: "In the 1946 colourised version, Hergé also introduced a cameo from Thomson and Thompson, the two detectives that he had first introduced in the fourth Tintin story, Cigars of the Pharaoh (1932-34), which was chronologically set after the Congolese adventure." Again, the word choice needs to be a little more varied, as per the double use of "introduced". I mixed up the word choice in the third paragraph ("improvement") to give you an example of how this can be done.
12. Under "Colonialism and racism", second paragraph, direct quote needs a direct citation.

I am going to put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that changes can be made. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I will endeavour to make all of these corrections! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Sounds good! Just leave me a note here when you want me to review this changes. Canadian Paul 05:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since no progress has been made in over a week, I am going to have to fail the article at this time. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. Canadian Paul 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zahussen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Kalulu was in reality Ndugu . He was Henry Morton Stanly's assistant in the Congo. It reminds me about Coco, Tintin's assistant. II never heard any comment to that effect, but anyone who agree with me, feel free to send your comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.118.246 (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tintin in the Congo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I will be conducting this review. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 11:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello there RetroLord, and thanks so much for undertaking this GA review! I'll post my responses in the boxes below, if that's okay with you ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thats great. I've reviewed the article again and taken onboard the comments of you and Curly Turkey (sorry if i left anyone out), expect a final result sometime tommorow. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this all really from page 25? Did you use the same citations by mistake?

"In the 1940s, when Hergé's popularity had increased, he redrew many of the original black-and-white Tintin adventures in color using the ligne claire ("clear line")[a] drawing style he had developed, so that they visually fitted in with the new Tintin stories that he was creating. Tintin in the Congo was one such of these books, with the new version being published in 1946. As a part of this modification, Hergé also cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman. For the 1946 version, Hergé made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule. Farr claimed that this decision was made to broaden its appeal to international readers rather than to reflect the increasing anti-imperialist trend across Africa.[26] For example, in the scene where Tintin teaches Congolese school children about geography, he states in the 1930–31 version that "My dear friends, today I'm going to talk to you about your country: Belgium!" whereas in the 1946 version, he instead gives them a mathematics lesson, asking "Now who can tell me what two plus two make?... Nobody". In another change, the character of Jimmy MacDuff, the owner of the leopard that attacks Tintin, was changed from a black manager of the Great American Circus into a white "supplier of the biggest zoos in Europe".[26]

In the 1946 colorised version, Hergé also included a cameo by Thomson and Thompson, the two detectives that he had first introduced in the fourth Tintin story, Cigars of the Pharaoh (1932–34), which was chronologically set after the Congolese adventure. Adding them to the first page, they are featured in the backdrop, watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train and commenting that it "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa...""

That seems like alot from one page in a book. Correct me if im wrong though. ★★RetroLord★★ 00:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just checked, and I have made a mistake; the final reference should be to page 21. I've made the necessary correction. Farr's Tintin: The Complete Companion is a fairly sizeable book, with each page being A4 in size, explaining how quite a lot of information can be contained within. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..." Why not cite the actual book here? ★★RetroLord★★ 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, its Farr who is being cited to highlight the significance of the Thom(p)sons appearance here, and I'm not sure that referencing the book itself would really add anything. If you think that its a must, then okay, but on this instance I don't think it's really necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly satisfied here. I'll let you go on the citations rule seeing as the rest of the article is of excellent quality. I'll pass this shortly ★★RetroLord★★ 19:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated Retro! Thanks for undertaking the review! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"best known under the pen name Hergé" Shouldn't that be "by", not "under"? Up to you. I personally thing "under" is preferable to "by" in this instance. However, I am open to other opinions on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Tintinologist? Is that a real word? Yes, "Tintinologist" is a real word. by Curly Turkey. The signature seemed to be screwing up the table so I removed it. Sorry. Mine does it too. Curly's right, "Tintinologist" is indeed a widely used word. I don't think it's recognised in the OED just yet, but is certainly very widely found in both literature on the subject, and on the web-based community of Tintin fandom (the biggest fansite is called tintinologist.org). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Aren't all quotes meant to have a citation directly after them? Or have I got my policies confused. Yes, they are, even when it means redundancy in inline citations. By Curly Turkey. Which instance are you referring to that requires rectification ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Things like "were still fairly fresh" need to have inline cites directly after them, even if that means you have to throw the same inline cite twice in a row in the same sentence. No, I'm not joking. ———le dindon frisé. Forgive me if I am being impertinent, but I really do not believe that to be the case. I have pulled various articles up to GA and FA articles, and in none of these have I followed this use of referencing. In fact, I have never come across such an interpretation of the policy before in my seven years of being a Wikipedian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I'm going to have to pull you up on this one, the critical analysis section seems to be full of uncited quotes. -Retro- From the criteria, "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[3]" Meaning, cite each quote I would believe. I've always interpreted this – and from the looks of things, so have most GA reviewers I have come across – as meaning that we should include the footnote directly at the end of the sentence containing the quote, rather than at the end of the paragraph. That way the reader is still clear where the quote came from without the whole thing becoming an aesthetic mess. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC) I've been called on this myself more than once. I'm fairly certain Retro's interpretation is the one they'll hold you to if you plan to bring this to FAC, although it may not be necessary for GA. ———Little Curly Turkey But I've taken various articles up for FAC, and this has never been a problem before... Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Very well. - Retro
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	" In one of these, Hergé depicted a native Congolese individual bowing before a European colonialist" And what about in the other one? I can see what you are trying to say here ( I think ), but can you say it directly? Statements shouldn't be implied in the articles, it should state directly what it means. I've made a change to "In one of these, Hergé depicted a native Congolese individual bowing before a European colonialist, a scene that he would repeat in Tintin in the Congo." Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"It was a world view shared by everyone, distinguished principally by its complete ignorance of the world." Couldn't we do without this part of the quote? It's starting to stray a bit away from the topic of the book towards generalised political statements Sure thing; I'll remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) "and not because Hergé believed that imperial rule would come to an end, something which only occurred in 1960" I'm not sure what relevance that bears to the topic. I think this could be removed. I've re-written this sentence as "Farr claimed that this decision was made to broaden its appeal to international readers rather than to reflect the increasing anti-imperialist trend across Africa." I think that this reflects the issue better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Section deletion

I thought it would be polite to raise my earlier section deletion here, in case anyone objects. Please feel free to revert and bring here. Personally, I do not feel that the "reference to Stanley" merits more than a sentence at best in an article whose scope is the entire book. It does not seem to me that it is particularly relevant, but could perhaps be incorporated in the summary. I notice it was not included either when the article went through GAR and FAR. As I say, if anyone objects, please revert and bring it here. Brigade Piron (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

At first, I'm inclined to agree, Brigade Piron. May I also take this moment to thank you for watching, editing, and improving the Tintin articles; your help is greatly appreciated; and thank-you for your politeness raising this here. Now, you admit that the "reference to Stanley" does merit at least one sentence. This is two sentences; only one more what you would allow. Plus a heading, which perhaps gives it undue focus, which may actually be what you are objecting to? The two sentences are well-cited, are applicable to current events in Belgium at the time, and add one additional element of interest to the article. For this decision, let us bring in Midnightblueowl, whom I respect greatly for her research skill and ownership of all important Tintin source material, and who I believe originally added this section. Prhartcom (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, on looking a bit more closely, I believe it was Notthebestusername who added the section. It would be good to get his/her input too. To clarify, I do not object blankly to the inclusion, I just believe it does not merit an entire section (totally undue emphasis) and certainly not one in that position in the article. But I'm equally not sure which other section it best fits in either... Brigade Piron (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you checked, yes credit where credit is due and the more input the better. Thanks for clarifying your observation and I do indeed agree. I believe you and I have determined that it is simply the section heading that needs to be removed, does that sound right? The two sentences may remain, but they may be moved anywhere, is that right? Feel free to have a go at it, then. Prhartcom (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Are you referring to the " Tintin in the Congo#Background" section of Tintin in the Congo?

Yes - I agree - Stanley deserves just a passing reference, but I am unable to figure out which exact section you are referring to.

Regards, Notthebestusername (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it has been removed pending re-insertion. The exact text was:

===Reference to Stanley (Boula Matari) ===

In the original version, when Tintin treats the husband of one of the village natives by administering quinine, she calls Tintin Boula Matari ("White man very good! ..Big Master!!! Him cure my husband!White master is Boula Matari!!!"). Sir Henry Morton Stanley, who had aided King Leopold in occupying Congo, was called "Boula / Bula Matari" by the natives (meaningbreaker of rocks).

And this was situated within the Tintin in the Congo#Criticism section. Brigade Piron (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, go ahead and have a go restoring it to anywhere in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.Brigade Piron (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work! Prhartcom (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for coming in late to the conversation - I have just got back from a trip abroad. But it looks like the situation has been resolved in a perfectly suitable and amicable way. Well done guys! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Useful picture

The Indonesian article currently uses this file in the article which I think would go very nicely here too. But it's currently only hosted on their wiki, despite having a CC license. Does anyone know how to transfer it? Brigade Piron (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, manually, by copying the file to your computer then uploading it to Wikipedia. I'm not convinced this picture is that great though; also this featured article already has a good balance of illustrations. Prhartcom (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Tintin in the Congo, suggested by QAI, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What a complete miss!

In case somebody Twinkles me again, I recommend those interested in a more meaningful background read Congo Free State propaganda war, Congo Free State, Belgian Congo, King Leopold's Soliloquy, Edmund Dene Morel, Congo rubber, King Leopold's Ghost, etc. The region has a truly exceptional history in which the most terrible abuses were misrepresented away by a surge of propaganda. The abuses of this region, and the cynical way in which they were covered up, are the poisoned font from which everything from HIV to the Rwanda and Burundi genocides have been drawn. Something like this is I think best viewed within that context. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and he's already at it again. I'm reverted, after providing what he asked, because he's "discussing at my talk page". Discussing as in having left a canned Twinkle turd while not even bothering to notice I did what he asked. Sigh. Here's the truth; at best it remains an unread footnote:

Image from Mark Twain's 1905 King Leopold's Soliloquy.

The colonization of the Congo under the corporate ownership of the Congo Free State was accompanied by exceptional brutality as the residents were forced to attempt to meet quotas of Congo rubber, or have their hands cut off and delivered as evidence of their execution. Despite reports of the atrocities from missionaries such as William Henry Sheppard as early as the 1880s, these conditions were largely ignored due in large part to a Congo Free State propaganda war in which the situation was effectively misrepresented. The journalism of Edmund Dene Morel and the 1899 Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness helped to launch the campaign to make Congo a colony of Belgium rather than than the personal possession of its king, resulting in the 1908 formation of the Belgian Congo. The administration of the Belgian Congo under colonial rule was collectively called bula matari, "breaker of rocks", after the tradition of Henry Morton Stanley, who used dynamite to first blast a road into the inaccessible upland regions. This administration reflected a trinité coloniale ("colonial trinity") of state, missionary and private company interests.

Wnt, as I have already stated on your Talk page, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to tell the world about your noble cause. The article you are disruptively editing is a classic comic book; it is not the place to inform readers about former atrocities of the Congo. As well, your edits have conflicted with our verifiability policies and appear to be based on your original research. Keep in mind that this is a Featured Article that was reviewed by many different reviewers. Feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If this article isn't a soapbox then why do you go on and on about the horrors of showing somebody on safari? That has practically nothing to do with the period. You don't even explain what a "breaker of rocks" actually is, as explained in Belgian Congo. This thing is a complete disgrace and you stand there and tell me it's "disruptive editing" to mention the previous propaganda war, the ongoing private interests in the Congo? Wnt (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note there was no "original research" involved - the Wikilinks directly provide references for each thing I said, and my intention all along was to transfer them as I did in the second edit. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, I understand your concerns regarding the European colonisation of Africa and the continuing imperialist intervention and subjugation of that continent. However, Prhartcom is right; this article isn't a place to get on a soapbox. You might want to ensure that everyone reading this page is aware of the Belgian imperialist atrocities in Central Africa. From a moral standpoint, that's understandable. However, posting information on the subject of the Belgian Congo that reliable sources don't directly tie in to Tintin in the Congo is against Wikipedia policy. That's just the way it is, and we all have to abide by it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Wnt: nobody wants to downplay any of this stuff—if you can find RSes that discuss these things in the context of the book, that'd be great; otherwise it's WP:OR and disallowed. Most likely you'll find such discussion in French sources if they exist. This sort of thing is exactly the kind of thing you can't do in any Wikipedia article—obviously it's sourced, and nobody's doubting it's veracity, but it's outside the context of the book. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Precisely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It should further be added that the style of the prose was not entirely appropriate because it sought to emphasise the brutality of the Belgian imperial administration. Emphasising this one element over others would be a contravention of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree that any discussion of the colonization of the Congo needs to be in the context of the book since this article is about a book that takes place in the Congo, not about the Congo itself or European colonization. Sone examples of context would be, the author of the book discussed or answered questions about the lack of coverage of Europen colonisation, several book critics or historians criticized the way the book depicted of the Congo, or if there was a significant boycott of the book due to the way it handled the Congo etc. In those hyperthetical scenarios discussing the history of the Congo would be relevant to the book.--67.68.161.146 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
        • This? If you want to pontificate about colonial rule in the Congo Wnt, please actually do some reading. The abusive regime you talk about was not the Belgian colonial regime under which this book was written. Belgian colonial rule in the Congo only began in 1908 with annexation of what had been a private colony (which, incidentally, involved rather more Americans, Swedes, British etc. than it did Belgians). I'm certainly not saying that the 1930s Congo was a 'nice place' by any means, but I don't think anyone is saying it is. Writing the lengthy text you seem to want would be like having a huge description of WWII for The Tin Drum - just unnecessary. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh, and the guidance you should look at is: WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm partially siding with Wnt here. Even the most ardent Hergé fan will admit that the pre-Lotus books are ideological hatchet jobs (especially in the case of Soviets). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the article. Hergé naivety is adequately covered. No, no one calls the book a "hatchet job". Prhartcom (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Both this and the Soviets article touch on what you're talking about. That's not what Wnt is trying to add. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Curly; these articles already make clear that both Congo and Soviets were ideologically-driven propaganda designed to encourage a conservative Catholic Belgian view of the world replete with anti-socialist and colonialist attitudes. However, what Wrt is trying to add is (in effect) a list of (what now would be considered) human rights abuses conducted in the Congo by European colonialists. The two things are very different. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Swedish Tintin-gate

I'd just like to stress that the Swedish debate surrounding Tintin in the Congo was a really big thing and tied into several other incidents relating to stereotypical images of black Africans.[1][2][3] The Tintin-gate debate lasted several weeks and involved journalists, academics, politicians, you name it. It was extremely high-pitched at times.

Great article, btw. A well-deserved TFA.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

Whoever wrote this article did a fantastic job! It reads very well. However, there's one sentence that doesn't seem quite right to me - "In his psychoanalytical study of the series, Jean-Marie Apostolidès highlighted that in the Congolese adventure, Tintin represented progress and the Belgian state was a model for the natives to imitate." Should this say that the Belgian state was portrayed as a model for the natives to imitate? --Jpcase (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be an improvement; feel free to make it, Jpcase. To help your understanding, Apostolidès is showcasing psychoanalysis itself and it just using Tintin as its vehicle; it's all just an exercise for this author. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

More Historical Context

I think it might be valuable to include more historical context to the main article regarding the politics of the Belgian Congo. I know this has been discussed briefly above in terms of Leopold's Congo Free State.

I think that, in particular, short sections about -Trinité Coloniale -- Govt. Interests and better understanding of Missionary's role in the narrative. -Mention of Bula Matari -- Named after Henry Morton Stanley, though mentioned as a term of reference towards Tintin a number of times -Historical background regarding the publishing of Tintin within Le Petit Vingtieme, and more broadly within Le Vingtieme Siècle. This might be worth mentioning due to the paper's well-documented conservative leanings. Might be interesting to explore that perspective's influence on the plot!

I believe some additional context might be valuable to a reader. Does this sound like something that might add some value to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexjnichols (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding the addition of further historical context were previously discussed in the above section titled "What a complete miss!". The general response was that we would not be able to add additional information that is not covered in the reliable sources devoted to Tintin in the Congo. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding Recording for Spoken Articles

Hello all,

I will be adding a recording of this article for the Wikipedia Spoken Articles project. It will be uploaded soon.

Regards, Nelson (jarabe tapatio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarabe tapatio (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Tintin in the Congo. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/8866991/Tintin-banned-from-childrens-shelves-over-racism-fears.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1986416,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_tintin-in-trouble-congo-book-slammed_1010988
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467757/Racist-Tintin-banished-adult-section-bookshops.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://brooklynrail.org/2011/12/artseen/what-a-self-portrait-can-do-picturing-south-africa-in-new-york
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2f9b1552-faa5-11e0-8fe7-00144feab49a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016114035/http://www.medievarlden.se/component/content/article/92-arkiv/1106 to http://www.medievarlden.se/component/content/article/92-arkiv/1106

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Humanzoogermany.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)