![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atrocities in the Congo Free State. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
An interesting and important topic. If there are no objections, I'll take on this review.
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally, I find that the prose is well written, and thus meets criteria 1. There are, however, a few prose issues that I would raise:
On the second criteria, that of verifiability, the article does a nice job of summarising an array of academic sources. I would, however, raise a few issues with the formatting of the sources:
I worry about whether this article, in its present states, meets criteria 4, neutrality. The use of the term "atrocities" in the title is a very loaded one; if this is the term uniformly used by the Reliable Sources then I think that it is acceptable, but if it isn't then I really think that we need to find an alternative. Similarly, I feel that some of the prose is written in a manner that does promote a particular interpretation of the information: for example, "Among the most infamous crimes committed during the period was the mutilation of hands." While this information is important and worthy of inclusion, it could be written in a far more neutral manner; moreover, no information actually given in the article indicates that this was a crime under Congolese law at the time. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
On criteria 6, that of images, there are a few issues. The caption to the "File:Victim of Congo atrocities, Congo, ca. 1890-1910 (IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19).jpg" image contains a quote without an accompanying citation. Moreover, almost all of the images lack full descriptions and tags indicating why they are Public Domain in Belgium and the United States. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron: I'm going to go ahead and pass this. I think that it meets the GA criteria, although going forward—if you want to take it on to FAC—I think that you may likely face scrutiny over some of the images and the use of "atrocities". Well done for all of your hard work! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
aside from being poorly-organised,
& with a substandard photo-layout,
the article is deeply slanted to "downplay" and to "normalise" belgian actions in the congo,
as being both "par for the course" or european colonisation
AND
"no worse that what those people were doing to themselves & each other anyway"
i am NOT one to throw around terms like "neocolonialist" easily;
infact, i generally dislike such terms.
but, after reading so many paragraphs downplaying belgian colonial actions here;
about how most o those mutilated corpses were (probably) already dead when their hands were cut off,
about how "most of the violence was african on african,
about how "most of the european administrators didn't do anything wrong, but it was just a few bad apples",
etc.
etc.
etc.
... after all of that, at a certain point, 2 things become obvious:
1. that the article is wp:bullshit
&
2. that the primary author is deliberately downplaying belgian responsibility, the actions of the colonisers, & the consequences of those actions.
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
when it is belgian author, writing about the colonial history of the belgian congo, it is worth noting that the author is belgian. this is germane to the subject.
whatever position said author takes; & the guy we are fighting over is fairly sympathetic. i do not disagree with his conclusions that this was a holocaust for commercial & political objectives, compounded with ignorance & indifference; rather than a deliberate attempt @ large-scale extermination.
(although it was certainly racial, & not "agnostic" on matters of ethnicity)
when the background if the author is related to the subject they are writing about, we note that.
if a german historian writes about the nazis, it's worth noting that the author is german; same principle here.
& "weasel words" is still not the correct grounds for an objection. the author is belgian; nothing here is being implied or "vague-ified"
it is also worth noting, in passing, that almost all the historians being cited here are "white"/european.
i can not believe that there are zero congolese historians who have written on the subject.
if we are quibbling about wp here, how about "undue'? :p
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
correction
i did NOT "has made series of edits to the tone of the article"
i restored edits by a 3rd party user, that 'brigade piron' had previously reverted.
on the subject of "consensus' that puts piron in the minority.
AND
the only "removed source material"
was 1 single, nnpov & overly broad quote, from a single historian (whose other cites i left intact); supporting his own arguements. the quote was also innacurate in the facts it claimed to represent, & constituted a personal opinion by the author, not a statement of fact.
i'll get it for you, & add it below.
ONE QUOTE (an op-ed quote of questionable merit & doubtful factuality removed); all other cited material by the same author left intact
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State&diff=756443187&oldid=755103668
ON THE SUBJECT OF 'WEASEL WORDS'
the edits i restored were by a 3rd party.
& the text they replaced was equally "weaselly"; in that the key edit simply reversed the placement of "some" & "most" in the sentence.
i'll get you the text for that too.
here, these are the 3rd-party edits, reverted by piron, restored by me.
but by the standards piron claims to represent, the text he restored is just as "weaselly", only slanted in the other direction.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGIN OF AUTHORS
i did not at any point claim that the author in question was "biased".
but when a belgian historian is writing about the history of the belgian colonisation of the congo, it is relevant to mention that the author is belgian.
just as it is relevant to mention when the author is congolese.
it is a pertinent fact in considering the source.
& it is 'piron' who keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case here.
Lx 121 ( talk) 08:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
& while we are talking about nnpov accusations here, & since piron is the one who keep raising the subject. let's talk about piron's record on the article? which he's been editing long-term, & i've just newly started on.
in their edits on the article, & their comments on the talk page, the user has repeatedly sought to "downplay" the facts of the history, ostensibly in the name of "npov", but ALWAYS trending in the same direction: to minimize negative coverage of the belgian colonisers.
consistently.
i'll get you some examples of that too,
__
Do you think "human rights abuses" could work? Or is that too much of a 20th century legal term to be using in this 19th century context? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I must admit I'm not keen on that. I'm not sure if a population decline is, technically speaking, an abuse of anyone's human rights. The mutilation of hands would count, of course, but so would the "Arabs" slave trade in Eastern Congo and that's to say nothing of abuses by Africans during tribal wars and even through regular legal punishments carried out by customary law. Obviously these are out of the scope of this article, but would clearly fit within the "Human Rights" label. Plus, as you say, I think the modern connotations risk infringing WP:NPOV. "Atrocities" honestly seems more too the point and no more biased. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
__
& it bothers me, that there is whole section of the article, title 'historiography & the use of the word "genocide"', & the entire text of that section is about delegitimising the use of the term "genocide".
WITHOUT
presenting any substantive counter-arguements
or
discussing any other aspects of the "historiography" of the subject, other than to argue against the use of the term "genocide" to describe it.
there is a difference between "npov" & "denialism".
the belgians conquered & colonised the congo.
they enslaved the native congolese population, abused them, & mulitated them; to control, & to extract profits from their colony.
they also killed a hell of a lot of them, in doing so.
these are FACTS, not opinions.
it is not "nnpov" to state them.
it is nnpov to try to downplay that by changing the text in the name of "neutrality".
little things like calling the enslaved, forced-labour congolese natives "workers", without qualifying that statement.
giving wp:undue weight to token &/or self-serving belgian efforts @ "civilising" the region.
that is abusing claims of npov, to spin the history & downplay the facts.
the best i can do for agf on this is that 'piron' is trying too hard on npov; & it is blinding him to the defects in his coverage of the material.
ALSO
the "nnpov" statements which i did write, & piron removed, summarise the positions of the sources piron is "defending" (including the belgian historian).
re: goals/objectives/actions/failures/shortcomings of the belgian colonial administrators.
the rest was a) restoring the 3rd party's edits removed by piron (which was most of it)
& b) trivial copyedit changes, mostly for clarity.
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW on the subject of copyright concerns (about use of images/files) discussed previously on this page:
this is wikipedia/en.
the ONLY copyright you have to worry about is the copyright status in the USA.
everything else is irrelevant.
it matters for wikimedia commons hosting of the files; it does NOT matter for using them here.
just saying
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
1. AT NO POINT did i claim that i was "new to wikipedia".
WHAT I DID SAY was that I am new to this article
meaning: i have not, to the best of my ability to remember, edited this particular article before now.
i though i made that reasonably clear in the original line:
"let's talk about piron's record on the article? which he's been editing long-term, & i've just newly started on."
but i am sorry if could not understand that.
please, do let me know, if you have any further trouble comprehending mt statements.
2. as regards your comment
"Frankly I do not believe Lx 121 has actually responded to any of my points"
i invite you to reread my comments; since you again seem to have managed not to understand what is being said.
thatm, or you have decides to respond by ignoring it completely.
i'm not going to repost all of them, but i will add some "highlights" for you below. let me know if you need to have the text explained to you? as you do seem to have quite a bit of trouble with basic english, at least when it comes to criticism of your work.
here are key sections which you should go back, & re-read, which pertain directly to points that you have raised:
" correction
i did NOT "has made series of edits to the tone of the article"
i restored edits by a 3rd party user, that 'brigade piron' had previously reverted.
on the subject of "consensus' that puts piron in the minority.
AND
the only "removed source material"
was 1 single, nnpov & overly broad quote, from a single historian (whose other cites i left intact); supporting his own arguements. the quote was also innacurate in the facts it claimed to represent, & constituted a personal opinion by the author, not a statement of fact."
"ON THE SUBJECT OF 'WEASEL WORDS'
the edits i restored were by a 3rd party.
& the text they replaced was equally "weaselly"; in that the key edit simply reversed the placement of "some" & "most" in the sentence."
"ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGIN OF AUTHORS
i did not at any point claim that the author in question was "biased".
but when a belgian historian is writing about the history of the belgian colonisation of the congo, it is relevant to mention that the author is belgian.
just as it is relevant to mention when the author is congolese.
it is a pertinent fact in considering the source."
"& it is 'piron' who keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case here."
"the "nnpov" statements which i did write, & piron removed, summarise the positions of the sources piron is "defending" (including the belgian historian)." Lx 121 ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Lx 121, can you actually cite any additional Congolese or other African historians who have published on this subject in reliable sources? That would be a productive direction to move in. Right now I'm just seeing a lot of anger and unproven accusations being thrown at Brigade Piron and not a whole lot else. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that assessment, but things are made more difficult by the fact that your comments are verging on the incomprehensible much of the time; the punctuation and grammar is all over the place and the structure of your posts in general is most peculiar and difficult to follow. I appreciate that you have concerns that this article may 'whitewash' the European colonialist activities in Central Africa but you have to back up these allegations with very clear, unequivocal evidence, which thus far you have not done. Moreover, please give WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS if you have not done so already. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron:, what I would suggest is a more thorough immersion into the sources, if possible. For instance, you typically only use a single citation to support each point in the article; I would recommend that, wherever possible, you use multiple reliable sources to support each point. In particular, try and bring in more from the sources written by Congolese and other African writers. That should help to deal with one of Lx 121's central concerns. Similarly, the sources used are virtually all books; do you have access to articles on this subject published in peer-reviewed sources? Those could be of some utility, if they exist. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend looking into works by Ch. Didier Gondola, other than that there's little I know of this subject. But I'm in agreement with Midnightblueowl, any African/Congolese historians who have written on the subject should be made explicit, if they exist. I do not believe Lx 121's argument can be substantiated without them. Regarding Lx 121's claim that the "Historiography" section is "about delegitimising the use of the term 'genocide'", I can only say that this section is made up of material from reliable sources, and since the use of the term genocide in relation to the events has been a topic of discussion in these sources, I cannot see why its inclusion would be inappropriate. I would, however, recommend two changes: 1. The phrase "Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans." should be migrated from the "Atrocities" section to the "Population decline", as a note on how data on the impact of the Belgian actions is skewed. As the article appears to be about the Belgian Atrocities in the Congo Free State (to broaden this would require another discussion), I think that atrocities committed by the Congolese amongst themselves (unless encouraged by the Free State authority) should only be brought up in this sense. If reliable sources permit, I think Arab slave raids could be incorporated in this manner. - Indy beetle ( talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal - @ Brigade Piron: @ Midnightblueowl: @ Lx 121: Seeing as no one has been able to provide additional source material to shed a different light on the material (or even prove that a different perspective actually exists), I suggest that this POV discussion be resolved. Lx 121, you have been active on Wikipedia since these suggestions that you provide evidence to support your argument were made, yet you have not responded to them. If you have found such resources, please state so here. If not, I say that we should go ahead and settle this to avoid a permanent limbo. I, for one, would simply remove the tag from the article and leave it as it is, unless there are other issues that do not stem from this African vs European historian debate. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
& here is the wp/spanish article about the congo free state, which is a featured article btw (also in catalan; but it's basically the same material)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Libre_del_Congo
& oh, look, here's another bunch of references you haven't cited.
AND this article uses hochschild a lot more than you do, & uses it to say a lot more about how bad things were in the c.f.s. than you do.
& oh, look, you used your belgian historian, the one who you didn't want me saying was belgian, to downplay the casualty estimates, used by hochschild.
AND you use this historian's own "revised" (downwards) estimates, in preference to the ACTUAL REPORTS from the period, which you don't even include in the detailed analysis.
Lx 121 ( talk) 23:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
here, let's try something... i've just put up a better, far more relevant lede image (king leo is still there, i've just bumped him 1 down on the page).
let's see how long it takes you to more or remove the image, & what rationale you use?
also, i object to the persistent use of the euphemism "population decline" as the only term used to describe the mass-deaths in c.f.s.
Lx 121 ( talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
wp/french article abt the c.f.s., again with a bunch more references; & hey, look at that, they have a lot more to say about the actual atrocities, than you do in your article.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_ind%C3%A9pendant_du_Congo
better picture of king leo, too.
Lx 121 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
What the hell, this is unreadable. Can we have a summery of the dispute please?
Slatersteven (
talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Lx 121: You did stress the importance of the German article, with it "including more photographic evidence". Seeing as this dispute was all about NPOV/POV and you were using a photo you thought had a more honest representation of the situation in the Congo Free State, I think it's safe it was relevant to the matter in dispute and was reasonable of Piron to remove it. Please just propose here on the talk page for the photo to be added and wait for some consensus. If you were to do so, I, for one, would offer my support. At any rate, I await the rest of your response. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven I'm sorry about the state of this discussion, but I'm afraid I must encourage you to read everything for your self, lest a summary I provide leaves out something and I be accused of committing some gross injustice, which, if you do bother to read all of this, you may understand why. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
AND it didn't take piron long to find a rationale to revet the lede photo did it?
goodbye mutilated congolese children, hello king leo.
there is no "rule" about "nothing can be chamnged" while an article is under discussion.
the rule is THE POINTS IN DISPUTE need to be resolved.
SO, are you now disputing the historical photographs too?
& on what basis, exactly?
do you question their validity?
do you question their accuracy?
do you question whether they are "real"?
let's hear it?
Lx 121 ( talk) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
so let's try this
see preceding discussion above.
the article is being disputed as nnpov, for deliberately seeking to downplay the crimes committed, casualty estimates, use of "euphemistic" vocabulary, the use of false equivalents, & minimising belgian/european colonial responsibility for the actions taken.
the primary author of this (who previously sought the article's deletion in its previous form, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese Genocide) has repeatedly reverted multiple other editor's attempts to revise their text, to create a more balanced tone; even including the removal of historical photographs, & exclusion of period sources.
this editor has been completely intransigent & impenetrable to any attempt to change their "take" on this history.
the editor also has the charming habit of selectively misrepresenting other editor's positions in a discussion.
i'm done; i am out of time, out of patience, & out of "agf" for this person. the article is crap, & i would vote to delete it, "merge" it back into the main c.f.s. article anytime. it adds nothing to the coverage already there.
rfc, have at it
Lx 121 ( talk) 05:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand the issues.
Is it relevant what nation the author of a cite is from. It seems to be often done on other pages, and I can see the rationale. However it also may fail policy. We should not point people to "facts" that have not been pointed to by others. in the article. Yes (by the way) it it can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as an attempt to undermine an authors authority by implying bias.
As to NPOV, we must represent all view points, including those that disagree with what the Belgians did. But we must also represent those who say what they did was a genocide (for example.
As to Africa historians, yes we should include their conclusions, if they can be found. But we cannot give them undue prominence.
Can I also ask eds to format their posts on a readable way. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC is a dispute resolution process. There is a dispute and I think User:Lx 121 is not totally in the wrong here. However his nomination has problems - it seems this is largely a mess so far - Can or should this be archived and begun again? Or is okay to just open new sections: "New Vote: Post closing of AN", and a necessary section "Threaded Discussion section"? Seems reasonable, I think. It seems civility problems are considered minor, and not sufficient reasons for rejecting disputes about content.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Since the "archiving" it seems things have continued over at the AN, (with significant participation by User:Lx 121) and it's been de-archived. It seems perhaps that once again perhaps it is valid to significantly pause/close this RfC and see what happens over there.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: User:Lx 121, the nominator of the RfC has been blocked indefinitely. In my short time participating in RfC's this is the first time I see an RfC where the nominator was blocked indefinitely. With that done, I think the Neutrality tag is correctly placed as it is, marking that there are issues with the page. But it seems the discussions perhaps that User:Lx 121 was proposing are a bit different than the discussion now going on in the somewhat "New discussion". This has gotten a bit messy after all. And it does seem to me that the greatest part of the polemic was perhaps due to User:Lx 121's treating wikipedia as a WP:Battleground, despite correctly identifying neutrality problems. :/-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the article as a whole NPOV? I think in part one can ascribe the total to the sum of it's parts, thus if all the parts are POV, definitely the article itself is POV, but the article perhaps could have parts that are POV but not the whole article. My personal opinion is that the article is POV-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Are belgian historians biased? Are there any sources that say this is true? I think unless this is true Brigade Piron is right and Lx 121 is wrong that the nationality of historians should not be addressed.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there is a general consensus that it cannot be considered a genocide?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the population decline section meant to minimize the atrocities and negate the accusation of genocide? A comparison is made to the Americas, but the case of genocide in the americas is not clear. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"In a local study of the Kuba and Kete peoples, the historian Jan Vansina estimated that violence accounted for the deaths of less than five percent of the population." is put as an example of how violence was not attributable to violence, but then we are told that "Among the Kuba, the period 1880 to 1900 was actually one of population expansion". It seems that a conclusion to reach from these two statements is that the Kuba are not representative of the Congo population in general, and therefore quoting their rate of death from violence actually serves to distort rather than inform.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the "historiography and the term Genocide" NPOV?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
( Sorry honest mistake )So. I just tagged a failed verification in that section - pg 22 of "The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila: A People's History" from a Congolese historian does not have a discussion of genocide, does not feature the author rejecting the name genocide. He does not use it, he does however use extensively the word "Congo holocaust" as well as "crimes against humanity" a page later. I quote: "It is his testimony that brought to the world the first detailed account of King Leopold's holocaust of the Congolese people, atrocities that Williams himself characterized as 'crimes against humanity'" pg23. It seems this historian might be the only Congolese historian we have for the article. I would not say that holocaust is necessarily an aproval of "genocide", but it seems reasonable to say it is a comparison with the genocide that was the "nazi holocaust".--
User:Dwarf Kirlston -
talk 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC) edited --
User:Dwarf Kirlston -
talk 03:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: The author says it "this violence did not meet the definition of genocide in international law" which is very specific not the legal definition "but..." and he does use this "but..." meaning maybe it is a non-legal or extended definition of genocide: "it resulted in a death toll of holocaust proportions that is estimated to be as high as 10 million people". The section from page 20 to 23 is called "King Leopold II and the Congo holocaust" - so this author very strongly defends the use of of holocaust to refer to these atrocities. In the current status of the genoccide section, the holocaust "descriptor" is also rejected.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Didier Gondola treats it as a genocide in his "history of Congo", he's an associate professor at Indiana University. I tried to see where he was born, I am not sure whether he is Congolese. Link to his book at google books: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=QY82GNGpcDgC& -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This source [3] has some interesting info about the international reactions to the atrocities, including history of things like the Casement Report and whatnot, though it refrains from directly calling the Free State's activities genocide. Still, it states that the phrase "crimes against humanity" was coined to describe the Congo conditions (p. 33). That could go somewhere in the article, surely. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to note this source [4] "Genocide" William D. Rubinstein Routledge 2014. I quote "What in recent years has become one of the best-known and most widely discussed instances of nineteenth-century colonial genocide ocurred in the Congo Free State [...] between 1885 and 1908" pg unknown. Despite recognizing and using the term, saying it is one of the "best known instances" of genocide the quote actually seems to misrespresent Rubinsteins's opinion I, he calls in that but actually disputes the death toll of 10 million, saying a mere 1.5 million died total. It's odd to find such a ambivalent source, especially when it seems he is respected, has a wikipedia page for example.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A very respectable source - "The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies" [5] by Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses published by OUP Oxford, 2010 says some interesting things. "[...] Lemkin was not an anti-imperial or anti-colonial thinker like Cesaire and Fanon. Although he regarded the German and Belgian excesses in Central and Southern Africa as genocidal, he considerered colonialism and the European 'mission civilisatrice' and important step in overcoming the assumed backwardness of the 'dark continent'"p. 346 "in quantitaive terms of loss of life, for instance, the Belgians in the Congo outdid the Germans in South West Africa many fold" p.410 Here again it seems a distinction is made between "genocide" and "genocidal". Lemkin is the coiner, inventor of the term genocide, and thus very important what he thinks on the matter I would think. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The previous list was posted by User:Lx 121. Should these be included in the article?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Prior RfC was problematic, unclear, messy, and the nominator ended up blocked.
The page atrocities in the Congo Free State was recently moved as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese Genocide. There are some sources which call the atrocities genocide, at least one calls it a holocaust, and I believe it is a consensus to call them "crimes against humanity", the first for which there was a call for an international tribunal.
The debate is over NPOV in the current article. It seems the atrocities are largely denied or minimized in Belgian schoolbooks to this day, perhaps Columbus and Columbus Day is an interesting parallel - Leopold was until the 1970's celebrated as a great man in Belgium. The controversy seems to hold to this day. The main question this RfC is meant to respond thus is Does the article have a Neutral Point Of View? Part of this general question involve sub-questions:
So the above is my 1st draft for a possible RfC relisting. I hope to make it as clear as possible, I hope to better this description. As I understand it for a new RfC listing, beyond using the template:RfC in a new section we would also need a new RfC "description", new "vote" section, and new "threaded discussion" section. I would invite @ Brigade Piron:, @ Indy beetle:, @ AbstractIllusions:, @ Tamwin:, @ L3X1: to comment.
I am not exactly being Bold, and posting directly an RfC, but I'm hoping that this is one of the cases where sometimes it helps to work a bit hard in adequately describing the problem before trying to solve it. Here's to building a good encylopedia :).-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we've been able to amass new content to improve the article. Naturally, it would be nice if we could use it. To be clear, the only "formal" moratorium on this article was between Brigade Piron and Lx 121, as they were the primary parties in the dispute over POV/NPOV/historiography. I've refrained from making content changes because I so heavily involved myself in the discussion, and it would feel improper of me to just start incorporating this stuff into the article without notice. We've all agreed that the article needs changes - can we move forward with that and begin our improvements? @ Dwarf Kirlston: @ Brigade Piron: @ L3X1: @ AbstractIllusions: @ Midnightblueowl: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
rwfygdt== consensus ==
i see that we are no longer "abstaining" from page edits "due to controversy"?
so, ok; let us summarise what 'consensus the rfc talk page discussions have reached.
1. the article is biased, in that it does not meet NPOV standards.
2. it is relevant to mention that BELGIAN historians of the subject are belgian, given their country's historic involvement in the atrocity.
3. pictures need improvement.
4. too much weight is given to "excuses"/"alternate explanations" for population decline, & "it wasn't really a genocide" arguements.
for example: birthrates tend to decline & more people tend to die of diseases, WHEN their living conditions are bad, & it is egregious to pass this off as "just the natural state of affairs, which had NOTHING TO DO WITH belgian colonial policies".
5. we are sadly lacking congoloese historian in the references/source material.
Lx 121 ( talk) 10:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans
being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa
). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics
which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it
Good.
AIRcorn
(talk) 00:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I am adding this as a new tag because this is rekindling of a two year old discussion. On what grounds is addition of nationality of historians rejected? This is actually widely used in Wikipedia especially when the ethnic (or national) group that the person is a part of is one of the sides of the conflict.
German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union "German historian Rüdiger Overmans maintains that..." "According to Russian historian Grigori F. Krivosheev..."
German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom "In the words of German historian Rüdiger Overmans..."
Armenian Genocide "Contemporary Turkish historian Uğur Ümit Üngör asserts that..."
Greek Genocide "British historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that..."
First Opium War "Chinese historians estimate 30–40% of the Qing forces were armed with firearms."
Great Bengal famine of 1770 "Nobel prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen describes..."
In other words, omitting the nationality of the Belgian historians is one of the reasons behind the NPOV tag. 131.111.184.86 ( talk) 17:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The tag was placed in 2016. So much has happened since then that it is impossible to know how the current state of the article is considered biased. We need a clear statement of what bias is perceived in the current version; absent that I would vote for removing the tag, since there is no way to "fix" the article without knowing the points that need to be addressed. There are places where it might be appropriate to mention the nationality of various historians, as Hochschild is on record as calling out several Belgian historians for watering down the seriousness of what happened in the Congo.
But I think the section discussing the appropriateness of the term "genocide" is a fair summary of current scholarship. Several non-Belgians are mentioned as opposing the word: it is clear that the division crosses national boundaries, and I don't think it necessary to flag Van Reybrouck as Belgian there. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: The presence of the tag does not mean the article can't be edited, but edits touching on the points of discussion should be cleared on the talk page. That's why we need a clear statement of what the points are. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
OK: Here is a formal proposal:
Suggested points of bias (relevant to the POV tag) -- other editors are welcome to add items to this list (please sign them):
Discussion
Support for adding the word Belgian: 1) Many wikipedia pages which attract more readers than Atrocities in the Congo Free State include writer nationalities. I noticed including writer or commenter nationalities is more frequent if the person belongs to a group which may be considered a side to the conflict. Notable examples:
2) Wikipedia has no explicit policy suggesting we should hide the writer nationalities in order to prevent readers assuming bias.
3) It is not the editors' duty to prevent readers thinking the writer may or may not be biased. Our duty is to convene all the information we have to the readers. They can choose whether the writer nationality is relevant.
4) It is not editors' duty to prevent readers from being sceptical due to writer nationality. Being sceptical and pursuing further information does not mean we imply bias on the writer due to his/her nationality.
5) The section discussing genocide claims is formatted in such a way that firstly people opposing genocide are quoted. I do not object to this as currently not genocide is supported by the overwhelming majority of the historians. However, the aforementioned Belgian writer uses the harshest tone against the genocide claims, which may lead the reader to stop reading the rest of the article, satisfied with the not a genocide idea. Adding the writer nationality softens this tone in a way the readers may want to keep reading the rest of the article. Furthermore, many other quoted writers included statements softening their "not a genocide" argument themselves, i.e., "a death toll of Holocaust proportions.", "while not a case of genocide, in the strict sense", the atrocities in the Congo were "one of the most appalling slaughters known to have been brought about by human agency" and "although it may be equally deadly, is different". However, the Belgian writer makes no such effort as he suggested the term hecatomb, which is obviously unrelated to mass murders. Hence, hiding the writer nationality strengthens the "definitely not a genocide" idea.
6) In the paragraph where historians supporting genocide point if view there is a phrase "(it was not published)", which actually softens genocide point of view. However not including this information would be hiding information from the readers. Similarly, hiding information regarding writer nationality is hiding information from the readers as well. As stated above, the readers can decide themselves whether the aforementioned Belgian historian is biased. It is not our job to make him look unbiased.
7) Stating that "adding writer nationality implies bias" suggests writer nationalities should only be added if the writer is biased. However this is against the wikipedia policy. If the writers are known to be biased, they lose their credibility, i.e., they are no longer reliable sources. Therefore if such a bias is proved, we need to remove them rather than including their nationalities.
To sum up, the belief that inserting the nationality of the writers may imply that the writer is biased in groundless. Moreover, by not giving the writer nationality, we are hiding information that is readily available to us but not to the reader. Finally, it is not our duty to make our source look unbiased, the reader knows that if they are obviously biased, they will not be cited in wikipedia. 131.111.5.155 ( talk) 23:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Support for double checking the quote including the word hecatomb
Hecatomb does not mean mass murder or massacre, it is a phrase used for sacrificing hundred cattle. "it was definitely a hecatomb" implies the dead are cattle and the atrocities are a sacrifice. Hence, to maintain neutrality we should
To the IP, you have sourced a satire piece for a quote which you placed in a discussion on historiography. Then, you compared that quote to the UN definition without citing a secondary source which makes that comparison. This is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, a policy, built around the use of a work not appropriate for discussion in this section of the article. - Indy beetle ( talk) 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The book is a WORK OF FICTION. It is not a WP:Reliable source. If Twain came to these conclusions outside of his satirical frame, perhaps he would have published them elsewhere in better sources. (Not to mention that the current inclusion of the Twain quote and its comparison to the UN definition for genocide is still a violation of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH). And I'm not concerned about incidentally discrediting the Congo Reform Association, even though I don't think that is happening. Just because John Oliver delivers researched investigation pieces on his HBO TV show, Last Week Tonight, doesn't mean A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo (a book written by some of Last Week Tonight's staff) is an accurate depiction of Mike Pence's family pets, and pointing that out doesn't demean John Oliver's reputation. And just because Jonathan Swift was an educated, talented essayist doesn't mean A Modest Proposal offers an honest analysis of the British attitudes towards poor Irish people. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that neither the Mark Twain quote or the bit about the early day motion belong in this section. They are not academics thoughts about whether the atrocities amounted to genocide. Zoocat56 ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging other editors who have had a hand in creating this page for participated in previous NPOV discussions about it. @ Brigade Piron: @ Midnightblueowl: @ Dwarf Kirlston: @ Aircorn: @ AbstractIllusions: @ Slatersteven: To those pinged, also take note of the above conversation on historians' nationality. Your contributions to this discussion would be most appreciated. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Here is a partial list of historians and anthropologists who use Twain as a source
If you believe that you can judge whether Mark Twain is relevant or not, be my guest, however, as you can see, many historians see him relevant and trustworthy enough to use as a source. Note that none of these are literature articles, as they would be off topic. 131.111.5.155 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
131.111.5.154 ( talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I found this source which could be used as a contemporary account, if anyone wants to: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/251053393 49.255.218.210 ( talk) 04:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How many Belgians(ethnic germanics) were actually involved in performing the atrocities?
This info is important and should be mentioned in the intro.
If the way I've added it isn't good enough feel free to revert the edit. But make sure to add this important bit of information one way or another.
Saying "most deaths were caused by diseases" without mentioning how malnutrition caused by the state's food policy contributed to the spread of various diseases gives the false impression that most deaths weren't the fault of the state.
-- 2001:4646:18D3:0:5CE2:3801:1533:AB26 ( talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Years | Number of europeans |
---|---|
1890 | 430 |
1895 | 1076 |
1900 | 1958 |
1910 | 3399 |
I have moved the table above, introduced (twice) by Midofe1996 ( talk · contribs), from the article to the talk page until we can agree on the appropriateness of adding it to article. While it may contain relevant information, just dumping it into the article with no explanation or context is not helpful. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I oppose the introduction of this table. Midofe1996's reasoning, "It's crucial information about the perpetrators of atrocities in the Congo" is inaccurate, POV, and derived through OR. Being European and residing in the Congo didn't make you a perpetrator of the atrocities, mind you the administration enlisted the mostly locally-staffed Force Publique to do a lot of its dirty work. - Indy beetle ( talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The page deals with the atrocities in the Congo Free State, although it is true that most of the colonial forces were not Europeans but indigenous collaborators, showing the number of Europeans in the Congo is vitally important because it tells us that a small number of people is capable of killing millions of people or that the death toll is simply ridiculous.
In any case, it is vitally important data, omitting it means that Wikipedia does not seek to provide information or stimulate debate. Midofe1996 ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the motive I suspected: "it tells us that a small number of people is capable of killing millions of people or that the death toll is simply ridiculous". It says neither of those, as historians have made quite clear. In the first place, the Europeans were only a small part of the Force Publique, and in the second, many of the deaths resulted not from direct killings but from starvation and disease that preyed on people made vulnerable by the colonial conditions. This is well documented, and well referenced in the article. -- Elphion ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
1- The information on the number of Europeans is just as useful for indirect deaths.
2- Historians agree that there are no reliable figures on the pre-colonial population of the Congo, hence the range of deaths is 1-15 million. Luckily we have reliable information about the European population that lived in the Congo. Why not show it and have people draw their own conclusions? Midofe1996 ( talk) 16:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, people trying to rehabilitate Leopold tend to low-ball the number of dead, but the clear evidence uncovered in recent years puts the number in the order of half the population. While that is still imprecise, it's far closer to 10M than 1M. That horse stopped running long ago. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
So what is the problem with putting the table? Knowing the number of people who carried out a massacre of millions of people is of vital importance, whether it is to know that fewer than 3000 people can kill millions or to realize that the figure of 1 million people is still extremely bullish for the Congo Free State
Midofe1996 (
talk) 21:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what is the problem with putting a table fully documented and that does not reflect any subjective opinion.
Is this page an information website or a propaganda website? Midofe1996 ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
And again I explained why it is so important to know how many Europeans there were at the time of the alleged atrocities because the Belgian government is accused of 10 million deaths.
About the "agenda", I have two theories: 1- An anti-European ideology that seeks to exaggerate in an extraordinary way the crimes of Belgian colonialism.
2- Simply sensationalism. The story of a Belgian king who killed millions of Congolese is "attractive" as a fictional novel, but I think it must be separated from the real story Midofe1996 ( talk) 23:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am a bit new here.
So I ve read several books on the Congo Free State and one of the contemporary discussions at the time was about the mutilation of the living in Congo. Certain sources(although I dont know where the original sources at the time came from) state that the soldiers of the force publique started to slice of hands of living people to account for lost ammunition. This apparently lead to widespread mutilation of living people, and even stories that villagers raided other villages to raid hands and pay to the soldiers as a form of currency, so they would leave them alone etc.
In the Casement Report, Roger Casement uses the boy Epondo as a living example of this. However Epondo retracted his statement and after medical examinations it was found that Epondo had been attacked by an animal and lost his hand. Burroughs talks about this in the book African Testimony in the movement for congo reform. An investigatory committee send to the congo the following year confirmed the Epondo case and found certain individuals who had their hand sliced off by a soldier. They stated the soldiers had shot them and thought them dead, and cut off their hand(sometimes foot). They found no evidence of widespread mutilation as a punishment.
Certain writers(Vangroenweghe etc.) go with this explanation, other writers use the original missionary sources(at least I assume these stories came from missionaries, officially I dont know). But considering the contemporary sources (both british/anglophone and belgian) are all biased in one way or another, how do you fit this in the article? What can I believe? I think its an interesting and important part of the CFS history, but calling it sensitive might be the understatement of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBStevenson ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Response to slatertalk: Guardian sources? You mean the guardian newspaper? I didnt use that, maybe I misunderstand — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBStevenson ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Isnt the commission d enquete PDF a primary source? Its the only website where i could find the PDF. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it still there? I think my entire section is still gone, including the sources. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 13:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What bothers me about the addition of Sanderson's conclusion is *how* it is added: at the end, suggesting that this is the *true* answer. But Sanderson is but one voice among many; there is no scholarly consensus on the true death toll, and given the historical uncertainties, it is unlikely that there ever will be. What is undeniably true is that Leopold's regime destabilized the Congo to such an extent that violence, lawlessness, starvation, and disease together made a serious dent in the population. This article needs to reflect both the seriousness and Leopold's responsibility for it. Elphion ( talk) 19:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Adam Hoschschilds book has also been criticized by the same historians like idesbald Goddeeris. Yet it is included, and Hochshild is NOT a historian himself. His research is based on belgian historians like Vansina en Vangroenweghe. Other sources like Vangroenweghe are respected sources, but those dont count?. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
So would you consider vangroenweghe a proper historian? Because he writes about the mass mutilations as punishment being an exaggeration and not based on good evidence etc.? Van Reybrouck is also a historian and says the same? Can I include those then? Because now I dont know what sources you would allow. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I ll find the page numbers I suppose. But if people keep deleting it its no use unfortunately. They also deleted the part with Burroughs as a source, but I dont know why. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 15:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Well guys, I placed a little bit of text regarding van Reybroucks and Vangroenweghes thoughts about the dismemberment practices, sourced with page number etc. I mentioned their names so everyone can see its the viewpoint of these specific historians. If anyone wants to still remove it, just tell me the reason why. I will not otherwise press the issue any further I think. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 21:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Atrocities in the Congo Free State → Rubber Terror – This name was commonly used in the late 19th and early 20th century, and is still sometimes used now, as a collective name for the human rights abuses in the Congo Free State regime. CJ-Moki ( talk) 23:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I openly admit I am no expert in the topic, but 1 million seems too extreme just from reading the #Estimates section. Even the lowest estimate quoted is 1.5 million, not that anyone should take it seriously. Imagine if The Holocaust articles suggested such low numbers? I suggest to use the range 5–20 million, or at least 5–15, just based off the estimates section. ~ Jiaminglimjm ( talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The 1.5 million estimate is based on very extensive research by a historic demographer. Your statement of not that anyone should take that seriously sounds rather dismissive. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
So source 34(Leopolds ghost, page 164 165) talks about villages warring with each other to collect hands as payment for soldiers.
Now I have a copy of Leopolds Ghost but cant find this info. Perhaps it is because I have a newer edition.
Could someone perhaps show a bit of text of those pages of the book, or write a bit, so I can search it for myself?
Because page 164 and 165 talk about totally different things, in fact the whole chapter, at least in my edition. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"Currency" is the wrong term. "Credit" would be better. Here is the passage (Mariner edition, 1999, pp 164–165), describing natives marauding and preying on others to get the necessary hands to receive credit from the state officials:
In 1899 the reluctant Sheppard was ordered by his superiors to travel into the bush, at some risk to himself, to investigate the source of the fighting. There he found bloodstained ground, destroyed villages, and many bodies; the air was thick with the stench of rotting flesh. On the day he reached the marauders' camp, his eye was caught by a large number of objects being smoked. The chief "conducted us to a framework of sticks, under which was burning a slow fire, and there they were, the right hands, I counted them, 81 in all." The chief told Sheppard, "See! Here is our evidence. I always have to cut off the right hands of those we kill in order to show the State how many we have killed." He proudly showed Sheppard some of the bodies the hands had come from . The smoking preserved the hands in the hot, moist climate, for it might be days or weeks before the chief could display them to the proper official and receive credit for his kills.
-- Elphion ( talk) 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
One could read the quoted passage either way. My impression when reading it agrees with the statement in the article: natives would attack other villages to get the hands needed to get the Force Publique off their back. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Well thats the thing. I think the marauders in this piece ARE the force publique, ergo the native allies(like zappo zapp) who are sent as soldiers. So not villagers themselves, but the tribal soldiers recruited by Leopolds officers in north eastern congo. But the text in the book does not make that clear LouisBStevenson ( talk) 16:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have copied this over from /info/en/?search=Talk:Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Claim_of_%22Consensus%22_for_10_Million_Deaths_Not_Supported_by_Sources, where I was arguing that the line "Modern estimates range from one million to fifteen million, with a consensus growing around 10 million" was not supported by the sources, and user Elphion referred me to this page. I have unfortunately found that the sources for the section on population decline are in general no better than the ones on the Leopold II page.
The first line is "Historians generally agree that a dramatic reduction in the overall size of the Congolese population occurred during the two decades of Free State rule in the Congo." Source is Gibbs, 1991. I do not see where Gibbs talks of a consensus for ten million deaths. The consensus in 1991 is probably also not necessarily the consensus today.
Forbath is listed as a source twice, separately. First, "Peter Forbath gave a figure of at least 5 million deaths," and then in the next paragraph, "Despite this, Forbath more recently claimed the loss was at least five million." The source for both is his 1977 book. Is 1977 still considered recent? But Forbath doesn't even personally claim 5 million deaths. He says: "A native might save his life by surrendering his right hand, but more often than not the harvesting of hands meant wholesale murder, and there are estimates that in the twenty years of Leopold's personal rule at least 5 million people were killed in the Congo." Similar to the newspaper articles, Forbath says that there are (unnamed) estimates of five million deaths. His book does not have footnotes or endnotes. So Forbath is not claiming ~5 million, he's making an innuendo that somebody else did, but leaving that person unnamed. No basis or calculation is given for the estimate either.
Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem is referenced: "According to historian Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem 13 million died, although he later revised this number downwards to 10 million." There are two sources cited. One is a book in French with no link and no page number. The edition of the book that I see online for $166 is 988 pages long. Given the number of other sources for this topic that don't actually say what they're asserted to say, this isn't very promising. The other linked source is... Hochschild!
Ascherson is mentioned citing Casement, but I've already addressed Ascherson above. Casement is not a "modern" estimate.
John Gunther "also supports a 5 million figure as a minimum death estimate and posits 8 million as the maximum." The source is a 1953 book with no page number cited and no link. edit: I have found an online copy of the book, which is 959 pages. The relevant passage is on page 644. "Competent authorities say that the. population of the Congo was about 20,000,000 in 1900; to-day it is 12,000,000. Leopold’s regime is believed to have cost, in all, between five and eight million lives." There are no footnotes or endnotes, and the source of these estimates are unnamed. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.527371/page/644/mode/2up?q=million
Lemkin has two lines. He "posited that 75% of the population was killed," and Raphael Lemkin attributed the quick spread of disease in Congo to the indigenous soldiers employed by the state, who moved across the country and had sex with women in many different places, thus spreading localised outbreaks across a larger area." The source is not Lemkin, but a paper by Dominik Scaller about Lemkin. Lemkin's unpublished memoirs are used as Scaller's source for the 75% figure. Unpublished sources are explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. These lines should certainly be deleted.
Roger Anstey "wrote that "a strong strand of local, oral tradition holds the rubber policy to have been a greater cause of death and depopulation than either the scourge of sleeping sickness or the periodic ravages of smallpox."" This sounds like Anstey is not making that assertion himself, only repeating hearsay.
There is a line, "Others argued a decrease of 20 percent over the first forty years of colonial rule (up to the census of 1924)." Again, source is not directly named. The linked source, which I can't get to open, is apparently a brochure!
Another line: "Other investigators put the number of deaths significantly higher. Adam Hochschild and Jan Vansina use an approximate number of 10 million." Vasina is sourced many times in the paragraph, but this particular line is missing a source for Vansina's alleged claim of ten million. The other lines in the paragraph seem to show that Vansina has a much more nuanced understanding of Congolese population figures.
Please look at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Not everyone is accused of killing ten million people. That is an exceptional claim. The wiki policy is to have exceptional sources. Right now, we don't even have sources that support the lines they're linked to.
Now, I have already done a lot of work reviewing these sources and searching for sources that actually support the claimed numbers. If you know any good sources, please link them directly, rather than again asserting without evidence that "this is no longer controversial among reputable historians". 50.253.11.17 ( talk) 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing as it is all based on wp:or. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Years | Number of europeans |
---|---|
1890 | 430 |
1895 | 1076 |
1900 | 1958 |
1910 | 3399 |
References
@ Indy beetle: I added Template:Infobox civilian attack, but you removed it because the atrocities were "not a 'civilian attack' like a mass shooting, bombing, terrorist incident, and other such things that infobox is typically used for." We use the civilian attack template on several pages about genocides and other crimes against humanity that are much larger in scope than individual mass shootings, bombings, or terrorist attacks (see: The Herero and Namaqua genocide, the Rape of Belgium, the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, among other articles). I think the template would be appropriate, but I think I see why you might not want to include it. CJ-Moki ( talk) 20:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
So many segments have zero sources whatsoever, or are entirely irrelevant. 80.195.3.151 ( talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Atrocities in the Congo Free State. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
An interesting and important topic. If there are no objections, I'll take on this review.
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally, I find that the prose is well written, and thus meets criteria 1. There are, however, a few prose issues that I would raise:
On the second criteria, that of verifiability, the article does a nice job of summarising an array of academic sources. I would, however, raise a few issues with the formatting of the sources:
I worry about whether this article, in its present states, meets criteria 4, neutrality. The use of the term "atrocities" in the title is a very loaded one; if this is the term uniformly used by the Reliable Sources then I think that it is acceptable, but if it isn't then I really think that we need to find an alternative. Similarly, I feel that some of the prose is written in a manner that does promote a particular interpretation of the information: for example, "Among the most infamous crimes committed during the period was the mutilation of hands." While this information is important and worthy of inclusion, it could be written in a far more neutral manner; moreover, no information actually given in the article indicates that this was a crime under Congolese law at the time. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
On criteria 6, that of images, there are a few issues. The caption to the "File:Victim of Congo atrocities, Congo, ca. 1890-1910 (IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19).jpg" image contains a quote without an accompanying citation. Moreover, almost all of the images lack full descriptions and tags indicating why they are Public Domain in Belgium and the United States. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron: I'm going to go ahead and pass this. I think that it meets the GA criteria, although going forward—if you want to take it on to FAC—I think that you may likely face scrutiny over some of the images and the use of "atrocities". Well done for all of your hard work! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
aside from being poorly-organised,
& with a substandard photo-layout,
the article is deeply slanted to "downplay" and to "normalise" belgian actions in the congo,
as being both "par for the course" or european colonisation
AND
"no worse that what those people were doing to themselves & each other anyway"
i am NOT one to throw around terms like "neocolonialist" easily;
infact, i generally dislike such terms.
but, after reading so many paragraphs downplaying belgian colonial actions here;
about how most o those mutilated corpses were (probably) already dead when their hands were cut off,
about how "most of the violence was african on african,
about how "most of the european administrators didn't do anything wrong, but it was just a few bad apples",
etc.
etc.
etc.
... after all of that, at a certain point, 2 things become obvious:
1. that the article is wp:bullshit
&
2. that the primary author is deliberately downplaying belgian responsibility, the actions of the colonisers, & the consequences of those actions.
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
when it is belgian author, writing about the colonial history of the belgian congo, it is worth noting that the author is belgian. this is germane to the subject.
whatever position said author takes; & the guy we are fighting over is fairly sympathetic. i do not disagree with his conclusions that this was a holocaust for commercial & political objectives, compounded with ignorance & indifference; rather than a deliberate attempt @ large-scale extermination.
(although it was certainly racial, & not "agnostic" on matters of ethnicity)
when the background if the author is related to the subject they are writing about, we note that.
if a german historian writes about the nazis, it's worth noting that the author is german; same principle here.
& "weasel words" is still not the correct grounds for an objection. the author is belgian; nothing here is being implied or "vague-ified"
it is also worth noting, in passing, that almost all the historians being cited here are "white"/european.
i can not believe that there are zero congolese historians who have written on the subject.
if we are quibbling about wp here, how about "undue'? :p
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
correction
i did NOT "has made series of edits to the tone of the article"
i restored edits by a 3rd party user, that 'brigade piron' had previously reverted.
on the subject of "consensus' that puts piron in the minority.
AND
the only "removed source material"
was 1 single, nnpov & overly broad quote, from a single historian (whose other cites i left intact); supporting his own arguements. the quote was also innacurate in the facts it claimed to represent, & constituted a personal opinion by the author, not a statement of fact.
i'll get it for you, & add it below.
ONE QUOTE (an op-ed quote of questionable merit & doubtful factuality removed); all other cited material by the same author left intact
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State&diff=756443187&oldid=755103668
ON THE SUBJECT OF 'WEASEL WORDS'
the edits i restored were by a 3rd party.
& the text they replaced was equally "weaselly"; in that the key edit simply reversed the placement of "some" & "most" in the sentence.
i'll get you the text for that too.
here, these are the 3rd-party edits, reverted by piron, restored by me.
but by the standards piron claims to represent, the text he restored is just as "weaselly", only slanted in the other direction.
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGIN OF AUTHORS
i did not at any point claim that the author in question was "biased".
but when a belgian historian is writing about the history of the belgian colonisation of the congo, it is relevant to mention that the author is belgian.
just as it is relevant to mention when the author is congolese.
it is a pertinent fact in considering the source.
& it is 'piron' who keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case here.
Lx 121 ( talk) 08:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
& while we are talking about nnpov accusations here, & since piron is the one who keep raising the subject. let's talk about piron's record on the article? which he's been editing long-term, & i've just newly started on.
in their edits on the article, & their comments on the talk page, the user has repeatedly sought to "downplay" the facts of the history, ostensibly in the name of "npov", but ALWAYS trending in the same direction: to minimize negative coverage of the belgian colonisers.
consistently.
i'll get you some examples of that too,
__
Do you think "human rights abuses" could work? Or is that too much of a 20th century legal term to be using in this 19th century context? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I must admit I'm not keen on that. I'm not sure if a population decline is, technically speaking, an abuse of anyone's human rights. The mutilation of hands would count, of course, but so would the "Arabs" slave trade in Eastern Congo and that's to say nothing of abuses by Africans during tribal wars and even through regular legal punishments carried out by customary law. Obviously these are out of the scope of this article, but would clearly fit within the "Human Rights" label. Plus, as you say, I think the modern connotations risk infringing WP:NPOV. "Atrocities" honestly seems more too the point and no more biased. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
__
& it bothers me, that there is whole section of the article, title 'historiography & the use of the word "genocide"', & the entire text of that section is about delegitimising the use of the term "genocide".
WITHOUT
presenting any substantive counter-arguements
or
discussing any other aspects of the "historiography" of the subject, other than to argue against the use of the term "genocide" to describe it.
there is a difference between "npov" & "denialism".
the belgians conquered & colonised the congo.
they enslaved the native congolese population, abused them, & mulitated them; to control, & to extract profits from their colony.
they also killed a hell of a lot of them, in doing so.
these are FACTS, not opinions.
it is not "nnpov" to state them.
it is nnpov to try to downplay that by changing the text in the name of "neutrality".
little things like calling the enslaved, forced-labour congolese natives "workers", without qualifying that statement.
giving wp:undue weight to token &/or self-serving belgian efforts @ "civilising" the region.
that is abusing claims of npov, to spin the history & downplay the facts.
the best i can do for agf on this is that 'piron' is trying too hard on npov; & it is blinding him to the defects in his coverage of the material.
ALSO
the "nnpov" statements which i did write, & piron removed, summarise the positions of the sources piron is "defending" (including the belgian historian).
re: goals/objectives/actions/failures/shortcomings of the belgian colonial administrators.
the rest was a) restoring the 3rd party's edits removed by piron (which was most of it)
& b) trivial copyedit changes, mostly for clarity.
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW on the subject of copyright concerns (about use of images/files) discussed previously on this page:
this is wikipedia/en.
the ONLY copyright you have to worry about is the copyright status in the USA.
everything else is irrelevant.
it matters for wikimedia commons hosting of the files; it does NOT matter for using them here.
just saying
Lx 121 ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
1. AT NO POINT did i claim that i was "new to wikipedia".
WHAT I DID SAY was that I am new to this article
meaning: i have not, to the best of my ability to remember, edited this particular article before now.
i though i made that reasonably clear in the original line:
"let's talk about piron's record on the article? which he's been editing long-term, & i've just newly started on."
but i am sorry if could not understand that.
please, do let me know, if you have any further trouble comprehending mt statements.
2. as regards your comment
"Frankly I do not believe Lx 121 has actually responded to any of my points"
i invite you to reread my comments; since you again seem to have managed not to understand what is being said.
thatm, or you have decides to respond by ignoring it completely.
i'm not going to repost all of them, but i will add some "highlights" for you below. let me know if you need to have the text explained to you? as you do seem to have quite a bit of trouble with basic english, at least when it comes to criticism of your work.
here are key sections which you should go back, & re-read, which pertain directly to points that you have raised:
" correction
i did NOT "has made series of edits to the tone of the article"
i restored edits by a 3rd party user, that 'brigade piron' had previously reverted.
on the subject of "consensus' that puts piron in the minority.
AND
the only "removed source material"
was 1 single, nnpov & overly broad quote, from a single historian (whose other cites i left intact); supporting his own arguements. the quote was also innacurate in the facts it claimed to represent, & constituted a personal opinion by the author, not a statement of fact."
"ON THE SUBJECT OF 'WEASEL WORDS'
the edits i restored were by a 3rd party.
& the text they replaced was equally "weaselly"; in that the key edit simply reversed the placement of "some" & "most" in the sentence."
"ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ORIGIN OF AUTHORS
i did not at any point claim that the author in question was "biased".
but when a belgian historian is writing about the history of the belgian colonisation of the congo, it is relevant to mention that the author is belgian.
just as it is relevant to mention when the author is congolese.
it is a pertinent fact in considering the source."
"& it is 'piron' who keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case here."
"the "nnpov" statements which i did write, & piron removed, summarise the positions of the sources piron is "defending" (including the belgian historian)." Lx 121 ( talk) 04:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Lx 121, can you actually cite any additional Congolese or other African historians who have published on this subject in reliable sources? That would be a productive direction to move in. Right now I'm just seeing a lot of anger and unproven accusations being thrown at Brigade Piron and not a whole lot else. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that assessment, but things are made more difficult by the fact that your comments are verging on the incomprehensible much of the time; the punctuation and grammar is all over the place and the structure of your posts in general is most peculiar and difficult to follow. I appreciate that you have concerns that this article may 'whitewash' the European colonialist activities in Central Africa but you have to back up these allegations with very clear, unequivocal evidence, which thus far you have not done. Moreover, please give WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS if you have not done so already. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron:, what I would suggest is a more thorough immersion into the sources, if possible. For instance, you typically only use a single citation to support each point in the article; I would recommend that, wherever possible, you use multiple reliable sources to support each point. In particular, try and bring in more from the sources written by Congolese and other African writers. That should help to deal with one of Lx 121's central concerns. Similarly, the sources used are virtually all books; do you have access to articles on this subject published in peer-reviewed sources? Those could be of some utility, if they exist. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 22:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend looking into works by Ch. Didier Gondola, other than that there's little I know of this subject. But I'm in agreement with Midnightblueowl, any African/Congolese historians who have written on the subject should be made explicit, if they exist. I do not believe Lx 121's argument can be substantiated without them. Regarding Lx 121's claim that the "Historiography" section is "about delegitimising the use of the term 'genocide'", I can only say that this section is made up of material from reliable sources, and since the use of the term genocide in relation to the events has been a topic of discussion in these sources, I cannot see why its inclusion would be inappropriate. I would, however, recommend two changes: 1. The phrase "Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans." should be migrated from the "Atrocities" section to the "Population decline", as a note on how data on the impact of the Belgian actions is skewed. As the article appears to be about the Belgian Atrocities in the Congo Free State (to broaden this would require another discussion), I think that atrocities committed by the Congolese amongst themselves (unless encouraged by the Free State authority) should only be brought up in this sense. If reliable sources permit, I think Arab slave raids could be incorporated in this manner. - Indy beetle ( talk) 20:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposal - @ Brigade Piron: @ Midnightblueowl: @ Lx 121: Seeing as no one has been able to provide additional source material to shed a different light on the material (or even prove that a different perspective actually exists), I suggest that this POV discussion be resolved. Lx 121, you have been active on Wikipedia since these suggestions that you provide evidence to support your argument were made, yet you have not responded to them. If you have found such resources, please state so here. If not, I say that we should go ahead and settle this to avoid a permanent limbo. I, for one, would simply remove the tag from the article and leave it as it is, unless there are other issues that do not stem from this African vs European historian debate. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
& here is the wp/spanish article about the congo free state, which is a featured article btw (also in catalan; but it's basically the same material)
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Libre_del_Congo
& oh, look, here's another bunch of references you haven't cited.
AND this article uses hochschild a lot more than you do, & uses it to say a lot more about how bad things were in the c.f.s. than you do.
& oh, look, you used your belgian historian, the one who you didn't want me saying was belgian, to downplay the casualty estimates, used by hochschild.
AND you use this historian's own "revised" (downwards) estimates, in preference to the ACTUAL REPORTS from the period, which you don't even include in the detailed analysis.
Lx 121 ( talk) 23:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
here, let's try something... i've just put up a better, far more relevant lede image (king leo is still there, i've just bumped him 1 down on the page).
let's see how long it takes you to more or remove the image, & what rationale you use?
also, i object to the persistent use of the euphemism "population decline" as the only term used to describe the mass-deaths in c.f.s.
Lx 121 ( talk) 23:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
wp/french article abt the c.f.s., again with a bunch more references; & hey, look at that, they have a lot more to say about the actual atrocities, than you do in your article.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_ind%C3%A9pendant_du_Congo
better picture of king leo, too.
Lx 121 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
What the hell, this is unreadable. Can we have a summery of the dispute please?
Slatersteven (
talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Lx 121: You did stress the importance of the German article, with it "including more photographic evidence". Seeing as this dispute was all about NPOV/POV and you were using a photo you thought had a more honest representation of the situation in the Congo Free State, I think it's safe it was relevant to the matter in dispute and was reasonable of Piron to remove it. Please just propose here on the talk page for the photo to be added and wait for some consensus. If you were to do so, I, for one, would offer my support. At any rate, I await the rest of your response. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven I'm sorry about the state of this discussion, but I'm afraid I must encourage you to read everything for your self, lest a summary I provide leaves out something and I be accused of committing some gross injustice, which, if you do bother to read all of this, you may understand why. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
AND it didn't take piron long to find a rationale to revet the lede photo did it?
goodbye mutilated congolese children, hello king leo.
there is no "rule" about "nothing can be chamnged" while an article is under discussion.
the rule is THE POINTS IN DISPUTE need to be resolved.
SO, are you now disputing the historical photographs too?
& on what basis, exactly?
do you question their validity?
do you question their accuracy?
do you question whether they are "real"?
let's hear it?
Lx 121 ( talk) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
so let's try this
see preceding discussion above.
the article is being disputed as nnpov, for deliberately seeking to downplay the crimes committed, casualty estimates, use of "euphemistic" vocabulary, the use of false equivalents, & minimising belgian/european colonial responsibility for the actions taken.
the primary author of this (who previously sought the article's deletion in its previous form, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese Genocide) has repeatedly reverted multiple other editor's attempts to revise their text, to create a more balanced tone; even including the removal of historical photographs, & exclusion of period sources.
this editor has been completely intransigent & impenetrable to any attempt to change their "take" on this history.
the editor also has the charming habit of selectively misrepresenting other editor's positions in a discussion.
i'm done; i am out of time, out of patience, & out of "agf" for this person. the article is crap, & i would vote to delete it, "merge" it back into the main c.f.s. article anytime. it adds nothing to the coverage already there.
rfc, have at it
Lx 121 ( talk) 05:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I understand the issues.
Is it relevant what nation the author of a cite is from. It seems to be often done on other pages, and I can see the rationale. However it also may fail policy. We should not point people to "facts" that have not been pointed to by others. in the article. Yes (by the way) it it can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as an attempt to undermine an authors authority by implying bias.
As to NPOV, we must represent all view points, including those that disagree with what the Belgians did. But we must also represent those who say what they did was a genocide (for example.
As to Africa historians, yes we should include their conclusions, if they can be found. But we cannot give them undue prominence.
Can I also ask eds to format their posts on a readable way. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC is a dispute resolution process. There is a dispute and I think User:Lx 121 is not totally in the wrong here. However his nomination has problems - it seems this is largely a mess so far - Can or should this be archived and begun again? Or is okay to just open new sections: "New Vote: Post closing of AN", and a necessary section "Threaded Discussion section"? Seems reasonable, I think. It seems civility problems are considered minor, and not sufficient reasons for rejecting disputes about content.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Since the "archiving" it seems things have continued over at the AN, (with significant participation by User:Lx 121) and it's been de-archived. It seems perhaps that once again perhaps it is valid to significantly pause/close this RfC and see what happens over there.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: User:Lx 121, the nominator of the RfC has been blocked indefinitely. In my short time participating in RfC's this is the first time I see an RfC where the nominator was blocked indefinitely. With that done, I think the Neutrality tag is correctly placed as it is, marking that there are issues with the page. But it seems the discussions perhaps that User:Lx 121 was proposing are a bit different than the discussion now going on in the somewhat "New discussion". This has gotten a bit messy after all. And it does seem to me that the greatest part of the polemic was perhaps due to User:Lx 121's treating wikipedia as a WP:Battleground, despite correctly identifying neutrality problems. :/-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the article as a whole NPOV? I think in part one can ascribe the total to the sum of it's parts, thus if all the parts are POV, definitely the article itself is POV, but the article perhaps could have parts that are POV but not the whole article. My personal opinion is that the article is POV-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Are belgian historians biased? Are there any sources that say this is true? I think unless this is true Brigade Piron is right and Lx 121 is wrong that the nationality of historians should not be addressed.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there is a general consensus that it cannot be considered a genocide?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the population decline section meant to minimize the atrocities and negate the accusation of genocide? A comparison is made to the Americas, but the case of genocide in the americas is not clear. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"In a local study of the Kuba and Kete peoples, the historian Jan Vansina estimated that violence accounted for the deaths of less than five percent of the population." is put as an example of how violence was not attributable to violence, but then we are told that "Among the Kuba, the period 1880 to 1900 was actually one of population expansion". It seems that a conclusion to reach from these two statements is that the Kuba are not representative of the Congo population in general, and therefore quoting their rate of death from violence actually serves to distort rather than inform.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Is the "historiography and the term Genocide" NPOV?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
( Sorry honest mistake )So. I just tagged a failed verification in that section - pg 22 of "The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila: A People's History" from a Congolese historian does not have a discussion of genocide, does not feature the author rejecting the name genocide. He does not use it, he does however use extensively the word "Congo holocaust" as well as "crimes against humanity" a page later. I quote: "It is his testimony that brought to the world the first detailed account of King Leopold's holocaust of the Congolese people, atrocities that Williams himself characterized as 'crimes against humanity'" pg23. It seems this historian might be the only Congolese historian we have for the article. I would not say that holocaust is necessarily an aproval of "genocide", but it seems reasonable to say it is a comparison with the genocide that was the "nazi holocaust".--
User:Dwarf Kirlston -
talk 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC) edited --
User:Dwarf Kirlston -
talk 03:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: The author says it "this violence did not meet the definition of genocide in international law" which is very specific not the legal definition "but..." and he does use this "but..." meaning maybe it is a non-legal or extended definition of genocide: "it resulted in a death toll of holocaust proportions that is estimated to be as high as 10 million people". The section from page 20 to 23 is called "King Leopold II and the Congo holocaust" - so this author very strongly defends the use of of holocaust to refer to these atrocities. In the current status of the genoccide section, the holocaust "descriptor" is also rejected.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Didier Gondola treats it as a genocide in his "history of Congo", he's an associate professor at Indiana University. I tried to see where he was born, I am not sure whether he is Congolese. Link to his book at google books: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=QY82GNGpcDgC& -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This source [3] has some interesting info about the international reactions to the atrocities, including history of things like the Casement Report and whatnot, though it refrains from directly calling the Free State's activities genocide. Still, it states that the phrase "crimes against humanity" was coined to describe the Congo conditions (p. 33). That could go somewhere in the article, surely. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to note this source [4] "Genocide" William D. Rubinstein Routledge 2014. I quote "What in recent years has become one of the best-known and most widely discussed instances of nineteenth-century colonial genocide ocurred in the Congo Free State [...] between 1885 and 1908" pg unknown. Despite recognizing and using the term, saying it is one of the "best known instances" of genocide the quote actually seems to misrespresent Rubinsteins's opinion I, he calls in that but actually disputes the death toll of 10 million, saying a mere 1.5 million died total. It's odd to find such a ambivalent source, especially when it seems he is respected, has a wikipedia page for example.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A very respectable source - "The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies" [5] by Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses published by OUP Oxford, 2010 says some interesting things. "[...] Lemkin was not an anti-imperial or anti-colonial thinker like Cesaire and Fanon. Although he regarded the German and Belgian excesses in Central and Southern Africa as genocidal, he considerered colonialism and the European 'mission civilisatrice' and important step in overcoming the assumed backwardness of the 'dark continent'"p. 346 "in quantitaive terms of loss of life, for instance, the Belgians in the Congo outdid the Germans in South West Africa many fold" p.410 Here again it seems a distinction is made between "genocide" and "genocidal". Lemkin is the coiner, inventor of the term genocide, and thus very important what he thinks on the matter I would think. -- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 19:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The previous list was posted by User:Lx 121. Should these be included in the article?-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Prior RfC was problematic, unclear, messy, and the nominator ended up blocked.
The page atrocities in the Congo Free State was recently moved as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese Genocide. There are some sources which call the atrocities genocide, at least one calls it a holocaust, and I believe it is a consensus to call them "crimes against humanity", the first for which there was a call for an international tribunal.
The debate is over NPOV in the current article. It seems the atrocities are largely denied or minimized in Belgian schoolbooks to this day, perhaps Columbus and Columbus Day is an interesting parallel - Leopold was until the 1970's celebrated as a great man in Belgium. The controversy seems to hold to this day. The main question this RfC is meant to respond thus is Does the article have a Neutral Point Of View? Part of this general question involve sub-questions:
So the above is my 1st draft for a possible RfC relisting. I hope to make it as clear as possible, I hope to better this description. As I understand it for a new RfC listing, beyond using the template:RfC in a new section we would also need a new RfC "description", new "vote" section, and new "threaded discussion" section. I would invite @ Brigade Piron:, @ Indy beetle:, @ AbstractIllusions:, @ Tamwin:, @ L3X1: to comment.
I am not exactly being Bold, and posting directly an RfC, but I'm hoping that this is one of the cases where sometimes it helps to work a bit hard in adequately describing the problem before trying to solve it. Here's to building a good encylopedia :).-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that we've been able to amass new content to improve the article. Naturally, it would be nice if we could use it. To be clear, the only "formal" moratorium on this article was between Brigade Piron and Lx 121, as they were the primary parties in the dispute over POV/NPOV/historiography. I've refrained from making content changes because I so heavily involved myself in the discussion, and it would feel improper of me to just start incorporating this stuff into the article without notice. We've all agreed that the article needs changes - can we move forward with that and begin our improvements? @ Dwarf Kirlston: @ Brigade Piron: @ L3X1: @ AbstractIllusions: @ Midnightblueowl: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
rwfygdt== consensus ==
i see that we are no longer "abstaining" from page edits "due to controversy"?
so, ok; let us summarise what 'consensus the rfc talk page discussions have reached.
1. the article is biased, in that it does not meet NPOV standards.
2. it is relevant to mention that BELGIAN historians of the subject are belgian, given their country's historic involvement in the atrocity.
3. pictures need improvement.
4. too much weight is given to "excuses"/"alternate explanations" for population decline, & "it wasn't really a genocide" arguements.
for example: birthrates tend to decline & more people tend to die of diseases, WHEN their living conditions are bad, & it is egregious to pass this off as "just the natural state of affairs, which had NOTHING TO DO WITH belgian colonial policies".
5. we are sadly lacking congoloese historian in the references/source material.
Lx 121 ( talk) 10:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans
being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa
). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics
which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it
Good.
AIRcorn
(talk) 00:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I am adding this as a new tag because this is rekindling of a two year old discussion. On what grounds is addition of nationality of historians rejected? This is actually widely used in Wikipedia especially when the ethnic (or national) group that the person is a part of is one of the sides of the conflict.
German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union "German historian Rüdiger Overmans maintains that..." "According to Russian historian Grigori F. Krivosheev..."
German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom "In the words of German historian Rüdiger Overmans..."
Armenian Genocide "Contemporary Turkish historian Uğur Ümit Üngör asserts that..."
Greek Genocide "British historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that..."
First Opium War "Chinese historians estimate 30–40% of the Qing forces were armed with firearms."
Great Bengal famine of 1770 "Nobel prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen describes..."
In other words, omitting the nationality of the Belgian historians is one of the reasons behind the NPOV tag. 131.111.184.86 ( talk) 17:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The tag was placed in 2016. So much has happened since then that it is impossible to know how the current state of the article is considered biased. We need a clear statement of what bias is perceived in the current version; absent that I would vote for removing the tag, since there is no way to "fix" the article without knowing the points that need to be addressed. There are places where it might be appropriate to mention the nationality of various historians, as Hochschild is on record as calling out several Belgian historians for watering down the seriousness of what happened in the Congo.
But I think the section discussing the appropriateness of the term "genocide" is a fair summary of current scholarship. Several non-Belgians are mentioned as opposing the word: it is clear that the division crosses national boundaries, and I don't think it necessary to flag Van Reybrouck as Belgian there. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
PS: The presence of the tag does not mean the article can't be edited, but edits touching on the points of discussion should be cleared on the talk page. That's why we need a clear statement of what the points are. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
OK: Here is a formal proposal:
Suggested points of bias (relevant to the POV tag) -- other editors are welcome to add items to this list (please sign them):
Discussion
Support for adding the word Belgian: 1) Many wikipedia pages which attract more readers than Atrocities in the Congo Free State include writer nationalities. I noticed including writer or commenter nationalities is more frequent if the person belongs to a group which may be considered a side to the conflict. Notable examples:
2) Wikipedia has no explicit policy suggesting we should hide the writer nationalities in order to prevent readers assuming bias.
3) It is not the editors' duty to prevent readers thinking the writer may or may not be biased. Our duty is to convene all the information we have to the readers. They can choose whether the writer nationality is relevant.
4) It is not editors' duty to prevent readers from being sceptical due to writer nationality. Being sceptical and pursuing further information does not mean we imply bias on the writer due to his/her nationality.
5) The section discussing genocide claims is formatted in such a way that firstly people opposing genocide are quoted. I do not object to this as currently not genocide is supported by the overwhelming majority of the historians. However, the aforementioned Belgian writer uses the harshest tone against the genocide claims, which may lead the reader to stop reading the rest of the article, satisfied with the not a genocide idea. Adding the writer nationality softens this tone in a way the readers may want to keep reading the rest of the article. Furthermore, many other quoted writers included statements softening their "not a genocide" argument themselves, i.e., "a death toll of Holocaust proportions.", "while not a case of genocide, in the strict sense", the atrocities in the Congo were "one of the most appalling slaughters known to have been brought about by human agency" and "although it may be equally deadly, is different". However, the Belgian writer makes no such effort as he suggested the term hecatomb, which is obviously unrelated to mass murders. Hence, hiding the writer nationality strengthens the "definitely not a genocide" idea.
6) In the paragraph where historians supporting genocide point if view there is a phrase "(it was not published)", which actually softens genocide point of view. However not including this information would be hiding information from the readers. Similarly, hiding information regarding writer nationality is hiding information from the readers as well. As stated above, the readers can decide themselves whether the aforementioned Belgian historian is biased. It is not our job to make him look unbiased.
7) Stating that "adding writer nationality implies bias" suggests writer nationalities should only be added if the writer is biased. However this is against the wikipedia policy. If the writers are known to be biased, they lose their credibility, i.e., they are no longer reliable sources. Therefore if such a bias is proved, we need to remove them rather than including their nationalities.
To sum up, the belief that inserting the nationality of the writers may imply that the writer is biased in groundless. Moreover, by not giving the writer nationality, we are hiding information that is readily available to us but not to the reader. Finally, it is not our duty to make our source look unbiased, the reader knows that if they are obviously biased, they will not be cited in wikipedia. 131.111.5.155 ( talk) 23:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Support for double checking the quote including the word hecatomb
Hecatomb does not mean mass murder or massacre, it is a phrase used for sacrificing hundred cattle. "it was definitely a hecatomb" implies the dead are cattle and the atrocities are a sacrifice. Hence, to maintain neutrality we should
To the IP, you have sourced a satire piece for a quote which you placed in a discussion on historiography. Then, you compared that quote to the UN definition without citing a secondary source which makes that comparison. This is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research, a policy, built around the use of a work not appropriate for discussion in this section of the article. - Indy beetle ( talk) 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The book is a WORK OF FICTION. It is not a WP:Reliable source. If Twain came to these conclusions outside of his satirical frame, perhaps he would have published them elsewhere in better sources. (Not to mention that the current inclusion of the Twain quote and its comparison to the UN definition for genocide is still a violation of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH). And I'm not concerned about incidentally discrediting the Congo Reform Association, even though I don't think that is happening. Just because John Oliver delivers researched investigation pieces on his HBO TV show, Last Week Tonight, doesn't mean A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo (a book written by some of Last Week Tonight's staff) is an accurate depiction of Mike Pence's family pets, and pointing that out doesn't demean John Oliver's reputation. And just because Jonathan Swift was an educated, talented essayist doesn't mean A Modest Proposal offers an honest analysis of the British attitudes towards poor Irish people. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that neither the Mark Twain quote or the bit about the early day motion belong in this section. They are not academics thoughts about whether the atrocities amounted to genocide. Zoocat56 ( talk) 05:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging other editors who have had a hand in creating this page for participated in previous NPOV discussions about it. @ Brigade Piron: @ Midnightblueowl: @ Dwarf Kirlston: @ Aircorn: @ AbstractIllusions: @ Slatersteven: To those pinged, also take note of the above conversation on historians' nationality. Your contributions to this discussion would be most appreciated. - Indy beetle ( talk) 19:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Here is a partial list of historians and anthropologists who use Twain as a source
If you believe that you can judge whether Mark Twain is relevant or not, be my guest, however, as you can see, many historians see him relevant and trustworthy enough to use as a source. Note that none of these are literature articles, as they would be off topic. 131.111.5.155 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
131.111.5.154 ( talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I found this source which could be used as a contemporary account, if anyone wants to: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/251053393 49.255.218.210 ( talk) 04:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
How many Belgians(ethnic germanics) were actually involved in performing the atrocities?
This info is important and should be mentioned in the intro.
If the way I've added it isn't good enough feel free to revert the edit. But make sure to add this important bit of information one way or another.
Saying "most deaths were caused by diseases" without mentioning how malnutrition caused by the state's food policy contributed to the spread of various diseases gives the false impression that most deaths weren't the fault of the state.
-- 2001:4646:18D3:0:5CE2:3801:1533:AB26 ( talk) 23:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Years | Number of europeans |
---|---|
1890 | 430 |
1895 | 1076 |
1900 | 1958 |
1910 | 3399 |
I have moved the table above, introduced (twice) by Midofe1996 ( talk · contribs), from the article to the talk page until we can agree on the appropriateness of adding it to article. While it may contain relevant information, just dumping it into the article with no explanation or context is not helpful. -- Elphion ( talk) 17:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I oppose the introduction of this table. Midofe1996's reasoning, "It's crucial information about the perpetrators of atrocities in the Congo" is inaccurate, POV, and derived through OR. Being European and residing in the Congo didn't make you a perpetrator of the atrocities, mind you the administration enlisted the mostly locally-staffed Force Publique to do a lot of its dirty work. - Indy beetle ( talk) 01:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The page deals with the atrocities in the Congo Free State, although it is true that most of the colonial forces were not Europeans but indigenous collaborators, showing the number of Europeans in the Congo is vitally important because it tells us that a small number of people is capable of killing millions of people or that the death toll is simply ridiculous.
In any case, it is vitally important data, omitting it means that Wikipedia does not seek to provide information or stimulate debate. Midofe1996 ( talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the motive I suspected: "it tells us that a small number of people is capable of killing millions of people or that the death toll is simply ridiculous". It says neither of those, as historians have made quite clear. In the first place, the Europeans were only a small part of the Force Publique, and in the second, many of the deaths resulted not from direct killings but from starvation and disease that preyed on people made vulnerable by the colonial conditions. This is well documented, and well referenced in the article. -- Elphion ( talk) 00:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
1- The information on the number of Europeans is just as useful for indirect deaths.
2- Historians agree that there are no reliable figures on the pre-colonial population of the Congo, hence the range of deaths is 1-15 million. Luckily we have reliable information about the European population that lived in the Congo. Why not show it and have people draw their own conclusions? Midofe1996 ( talk) 16:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, people trying to rehabilitate Leopold tend to low-ball the number of dead, but the clear evidence uncovered in recent years puts the number in the order of half the population. While that is still imprecise, it's far closer to 10M than 1M. That horse stopped running long ago. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
So what is the problem with putting the table? Knowing the number of people who carried out a massacre of millions of people is of vital importance, whether it is to know that fewer than 3000 people can kill millions or to realize that the figure of 1 million people is still extremely bullish for the Congo Free State
Midofe1996 (
talk) 21:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not understand what is the problem with putting a table fully documented and that does not reflect any subjective opinion.
Is this page an information website or a propaganda website? Midofe1996 ( talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
And again I explained why it is so important to know how many Europeans there were at the time of the alleged atrocities because the Belgian government is accused of 10 million deaths.
About the "agenda", I have two theories: 1- An anti-European ideology that seeks to exaggerate in an extraordinary way the crimes of Belgian colonialism.
2- Simply sensationalism. The story of a Belgian king who killed millions of Congolese is "attractive" as a fictional novel, but I think it must be separated from the real story Midofe1996 ( talk) 23:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am a bit new here.
So I ve read several books on the Congo Free State and one of the contemporary discussions at the time was about the mutilation of the living in Congo. Certain sources(although I dont know where the original sources at the time came from) state that the soldiers of the force publique started to slice of hands of living people to account for lost ammunition. This apparently lead to widespread mutilation of living people, and even stories that villagers raided other villages to raid hands and pay to the soldiers as a form of currency, so they would leave them alone etc.
In the Casement Report, Roger Casement uses the boy Epondo as a living example of this. However Epondo retracted his statement and after medical examinations it was found that Epondo had been attacked by an animal and lost his hand. Burroughs talks about this in the book African Testimony in the movement for congo reform. An investigatory committee send to the congo the following year confirmed the Epondo case and found certain individuals who had their hand sliced off by a soldier. They stated the soldiers had shot them and thought them dead, and cut off their hand(sometimes foot). They found no evidence of widespread mutilation as a punishment.
Certain writers(Vangroenweghe etc.) go with this explanation, other writers use the original missionary sources(at least I assume these stories came from missionaries, officially I dont know). But considering the contemporary sources (both british/anglophone and belgian) are all biased in one way or another, how do you fit this in the article? What can I believe? I think its an interesting and important part of the CFS history, but calling it sensitive might be the understatement of the century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBStevenson ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Response to slatertalk: Guardian sources? You mean the guardian newspaper? I didnt use that, maybe I misunderstand — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisBStevenson ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Isnt the commission d enquete PDF a primary source? Its the only website where i could find the PDF. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 13:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it still there? I think my entire section is still gone, including the sources. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 13:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What bothers me about the addition of Sanderson's conclusion is *how* it is added: at the end, suggesting that this is the *true* answer. But Sanderson is but one voice among many; there is no scholarly consensus on the true death toll, and given the historical uncertainties, it is unlikely that there ever will be. What is undeniably true is that Leopold's regime destabilized the Congo to such an extent that violence, lawlessness, starvation, and disease together made a serious dent in the population. This article needs to reflect both the seriousness and Leopold's responsibility for it. Elphion ( talk) 19:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Adam Hoschschilds book has also been criticized by the same historians like idesbald Goddeeris. Yet it is included, and Hochshild is NOT a historian himself. His research is based on belgian historians like Vansina en Vangroenweghe. Other sources like Vangroenweghe are respected sources, but those dont count?. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
So would you consider vangroenweghe a proper historian? Because he writes about the mass mutilations as punishment being an exaggeration and not based on good evidence etc.? Van Reybrouck is also a historian and says the same? Can I include those then? Because now I dont know what sources you would allow. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I ll find the page numbers I suppose. But if people keep deleting it its no use unfortunately. They also deleted the part with Burroughs as a source, but I dont know why. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 15:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Well guys, I placed a little bit of text regarding van Reybroucks and Vangroenweghes thoughts about the dismemberment practices, sourced with page number etc. I mentioned their names so everyone can see its the viewpoint of these specific historians. If anyone wants to still remove it, just tell me the reason why. I will not otherwise press the issue any further I think. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 21:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Atrocities in the Congo Free State → Rubber Terror – This name was commonly used in the late 19th and early 20th century, and is still sometimes used now, as a collective name for the human rights abuses in the Congo Free State regime. CJ-Moki ( talk) 23:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I openly admit I am no expert in the topic, but 1 million seems too extreme just from reading the #Estimates section. Even the lowest estimate quoted is 1.5 million, not that anyone should take it seriously. Imagine if The Holocaust articles suggested such low numbers? I suggest to use the range 5–20 million, or at least 5–15, just based off the estimates section. ~ Jiaminglimjm ( talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The 1.5 million estimate is based on very extensive research by a historic demographer. Your statement of not that anyone should take that seriously sounds rather dismissive. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
So source 34(Leopolds ghost, page 164 165) talks about villages warring with each other to collect hands as payment for soldiers.
Now I have a copy of Leopolds Ghost but cant find this info. Perhaps it is because I have a newer edition.
Could someone perhaps show a bit of text of those pages of the book, or write a bit, so I can search it for myself?
Because page 164 and 165 talk about totally different things, in fact the whole chapter, at least in my edition. LouisBStevenson ( talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"Currency" is the wrong term. "Credit" would be better. Here is the passage (Mariner edition, 1999, pp 164–165), describing natives marauding and preying on others to get the necessary hands to receive credit from the state officials:
In 1899 the reluctant Sheppard was ordered by his superiors to travel into the bush, at some risk to himself, to investigate the source of the fighting. There he found bloodstained ground, destroyed villages, and many bodies; the air was thick with the stench of rotting flesh. On the day he reached the marauders' camp, his eye was caught by a large number of objects being smoked. The chief "conducted us to a framework of sticks, under which was burning a slow fire, and there they were, the right hands, I counted them, 81 in all." The chief told Sheppard, "See! Here is our evidence. I always have to cut off the right hands of those we kill in order to show the State how many we have killed." He proudly showed Sheppard some of the bodies the hands had come from . The smoking preserved the hands in the hot, moist climate, for it might be days or weeks before the chief could display them to the proper official and receive credit for his kills.
-- Elphion ( talk) 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
One could read the quoted passage either way. My impression when reading it agrees with the statement in the article: natives would attack other villages to get the hands needed to get the Force Publique off their back. -- Elphion ( talk) 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Well thats the thing. I think the marauders in this piece ARE the force publique, ergo the native allies(like zappo zapp) who are sent as soldiers. So not villagers themselves, but the tribal soldiers recruited by Leopolds officers in north eastern congo. But the text in the book does not make that clear LouisBStevenson ( talk) 16:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I have copied this over from /info/en/?search=Talk:Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Claim_of_%22Consensus%22_for_10_Million_Deaths_Not_Supported_by_Sources, where I was arguing that the line "Modern estimates range from one million to fifteen million, with a consensus growing around 10 million" was not supported by the sources, and user Elphion referred me to this page. I have unfortunately found that the sources for the section on population decline are in general no better than the ones on the Leopold II page.
The first line is "Historians generally agree that a dramatic reduction in the overall size of the Congolese population occurred during the two decades of Free State rule in the Congo." Source is Gibbs, 1991. I do not see where Gibbs talks of a consensus for ten million deaths. The consensus in 1991 is probably also not necessarily the consensus today.
Forbath is listed as a source twice, separately. First, "Peter Forbath gave a figure of at least 5 million deaths," and then in the next paragraph, "Despite this, Forbath more recently claimed the loss was at least five million." The source for both is his 1977 book. Is 1977 still considered recent? But Forbath doesn't even personally claim 5 million deaths. He says: "A native might save his life by surrendering his right hand, but more often than not the harvesting of hands meant wholesale murder, and there are estimates that in the twenty years of Leopold's personal rule at least 5 million people were killed in the Congo." Similar to the newspaper articles, Forbath says that there are (unnamed) estimates of five million deaths. His book does not have footnotes or endnotes. So Forbath is not claiming ~5 million, he's making an innuendo that somebody else did, but leaving that person unnamed. No basis or calculation is given for the estimate either.
Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem is referenced: "According to historian Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem 13 million died, although he later revised this number downwards to 10 million." There are two sources cited. One is a book in French with no link and no page number. The edition of the book that I see online for $166 is 988 pages long. Given the number of other sources for this topic that don't actually say what they're asserted to say, this isn't very promising. The other linked source is... Hochschild!
Ascherson is mentioned citing Casement, but I've already addressed Ascherson above. Casement is not a "modern" estimate.
John Gunther "also supports a 5 million figure as a minimum death estimate and posits 8 million as the maximum." The source is a 1953 book with no page number cited and no link. edit: I have found an online copy of the book, which is 959 pages. The relevant passage is on page 644. "Competent authorities say that the. population of the Congo was about 20,000,000 in 1900; to-day it is 12,000,000. Leopold’s regime is believed to have cost, in all, between five and eight million lives." There are no footnotes or endnotes, and the source of these estimates are unnamed. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.527371/page/644/mode/2up?q=million
Lemkin has two lines. He "posited that 75% of the population was killed," and Raphael Lemkin attributed the quick spread of disease in Congo to the indigenous soldiers employed by the state, who moved across the country and had sex with women in many different places, thus spreading localised outbreaks across a larger area." The source is not Lemkin, but a paper by Dominik Scaller about Lemkin. Lemkin's unpublished memoirs are used as Scaller's source for the 75% figure. Unpublished sources are explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. These lines should certainly be deleted.
Roger Anstey "wrote that "a strong strand of local, oral tradition holds the rubber policy to have been a greater cause of death and depopulation than either the scourge of sleeping sickness or the periodic ravages of smallpox."" This sounds like Anstey is not making that assertion himself, only repeating hearsay.
There is a line, "Others argued a decrease of 20 percent over the first forty years of colonial rule (up to the census of 1924)." Again, source is not directly named. The linked source, which I can't get to open, is apparently a brochure!
Another line: "Other investigators put the number of deaths significantly higher. Adam Hochschild and Jan Vansina use an approximate number of 10 million." Vasina is sourced many times in the paragraph, but this particular line is missing a source for Vansina's alleged claim of ten million. The other lines in the paragraph seem to show that Vansina has a much more nuanced understanding of Congolese population figures.
Please look at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. Not everyone is accused of killing ten million people. That is an exceptional claim. The wiki policy is to have exceptional sources. Right now, we don't even have sources that support the lines they're linked to.
Now, I have already done a lot of work reviewing these sources and searching for sources that actually support the claimed numbers. If you know any good sources, please link them directly, rather than again asserting without evidence that "this is no longer controversial among reputable historians". 50.253.11.17 ( talk) 14:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This needs closing as it is all based on wp:or. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Years | Number of europeans |
---|---|
1890 | 430 |
1895 | 1076 |
1900 | 1958 |
1910 | 3399 |
References
@ Indy beetle: I added Template:Infobox civilian attack, but you removed it because the atrocities were "not a 'civilian attack' like a mass shooting, bombing, terrorist incident, and other such things that infobox is typically used for." We use the civilian attack template on several pages about genocides and other crimes against humanity that are much larger in scope than individual mass shootings, bombings, or terrorist attacks (see: The Herero and Namaqua genocide, the Rape of Belgium, the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war, among other articles). I think the template would be appropriate, but I think I see why you might not want to include it. CJ-Moki ( talk) 20:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
So many segments have zero sources whatsoever, or are entirely irrelevant. 80.195.3.151 ( talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)