Talk:Congo–Arab war

Name

Per this discussion on the milhist project page, would anyone object to my moving this article to 1892-1894 war in the Eastern Congo? Mainly, I'm thinking that if there isn't a generally accepted historic name, we should probably pick something that sounds general rather than something very precise, which can give the reader the impression that it's a widely used term. Shimgray | talk | 17:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hurrah. I've moved it accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 20:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whose victory?

Does this really count as a "Belgian victory"? Surely Congo Free State victory since Belgium was neither officially or unofficially a belligerent. --Brigade Piron (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (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: Move to Congo Arab war, evidently the most common name for the subject. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

---

---

1892–1894 war in the Eastern Congo → Belgo-Arab War – Belgo-Arab War is certainly the most common, if slightly confusing, name for the topic and the one which is universally used in historical writing. In 10 years of dealing with Congolese history, I have never heard of the "1892–1894 war in the Eastern Congo" outside wikipedia Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Brigade Piron (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Comment - It seems to me that neither 1892–1894 war in the Eastern Congo nor Belgo-Arab War have any significant uses in print sources. Most common seems to be actually Congo Arab war.--Staberinde (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Staberinde! I must admit I've never heard of the Congo-Arab War in scholarly use, though I'd agree it would be an improvement on the current title. Here are a couple of links from respected sources (from a brief search) to illustrate its use: 1. Also, it is the tile for the Dutch language article! All the best, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be most commonly referred in English language sources simply as Arab war. I suspect that disambiguation is probably needed here though, and I think that "Congo Arab war" (without hyphen/dash as Congo would refer geographic area, not combatant) would fit WP:NATURALDIS nicely.--Staberinde (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Belgo-Arab War is used by both Packenham, Ascherson and Hochschild in their works on the subject. With all respect, none of the books in your link seem to focus on the Congo at all, rather than being generalized, thematic studies. My point is that most (reputable) historians with expertise in the area use the term "Belgo-Arab". Regardless, I still argue that there is no need to speculate about the name, or to use a disambiguation page...---Brigade Piron (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide list of those works that use that title? Google book search gives 0 results.--Staberinde (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the three in question have their own wiki pages: The King Incorporated, King Leopold's Ghost and The Scramble for Africa (book). I'd also point out that the usage is common in French and Dutch which have much wider scholarship on the subject. Best wishes, ----Brigade Piron (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a page number for Pakenham? Thanks. Srnec (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

434 in my (admittedly rather old) edition.---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reading further on, he starts with "Belgo", then drops it to describe the "Arab War" and "Katanga Expedition". Still, for an article title...---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2003 paperback reprint does not have the term on p. 434 and I can't find it elsewhere. Can you give me something else to go on? Srnec (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm browsing a 1991 hardcover and also can't find the term, or any other specific name, used for the war. Both proposed alternatives seem better than the current title, however. Vandervort uses "Congo Arab war," just as Srnec has proposed. --BDD (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (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.

• I thought I should add a quick note here about removing the hyphen from "Congo Arab war" reflecting the fact that it was a war against the so-called "Congo Arabs" meaning that this is not a compound modifier taking a hyphen (e.g. like Anglo-Dutch war). I think this is what was originally proposed above and it is certainly the spelling that Vandervort uses in the book cited in the discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Two different names, same person?

@Brigade Piron: Currently reading Robert Harms' 2019 Land of Tears. The portion of the book which discusses this conflict is littered with references to a son of Tippu Tip, "Sayf bin Hamed", which managed affairs in Maniema after his father left in the 1890s and was killed in late 1893. I strongly suspect this is the same person as "Sefu bin Hamid". Do you know what might explain this discrepancy? Arabic-to English-transliteration issues, poorly-attempted phonetic spelling by the Europeans who encountered him? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Indy beetle:, I think the issue comes from the differences between the Arabic and Swahili renditions of the same name. "Sayf" or "Saif" (سيف) is, I think, the Arabic version. I am certainly not an expert though! On balance, our current version seems to have more use in secondary sources. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)