Jump to content

Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

  • comment -- i think chopping the hands off villagers for failing to make their rubber-harvesting quota, or resisting belgian rule, counts as a "crime" here. it's certainly an atrocity, even by the standards of 1908, & under international law; & a crime against humanity by current standards. it is starting to bother me how much of this "objective" discussion is about denying & minimalising established historical facts.
i don't care whether this is a separate article, or simply "history of the congo free state". i do care when people start to downplay the FACTUAL, appalling history that happened here. if this was an article about the nazi atrocities, this kind of editing would be shut down as holocaust denial for the same fiddling, mincing little "adjustments" to the narrative Lx 121 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 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)

Discussion

Hi Midnightblueowl, thanks for taking this review on and especially so soon after it was nominated. I think would also be a proper place to thank Cliftonian and Elphion for their comments on an earlier draft of this text. If I may, I'll look through your comments and reply to them individually below. One immediate thing I'm not clear on, however, is the difference between an "edition" and a "printing" that you flag above? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In this context, an "edition" usually refers to changes in the text. For instance, an author may write a book. Fifteen years later they return, rewrite bits of it, update it, and then publish it as a "revised edition" or sometimes a "second edition". Then, in certain cases, another fifteen years later they may then bring out a "third edition", again because of actual changes to the prose. This is quite common for academic textbooks, but sometimes for other academic books too. Confusing matters is that the term edition can also be applied to a printing. A book may be published one year, then reissued two years later, then again four years later etc. However, the actual text of these different versions may be identical. In the context of this article's Bibliography, the mention of "edition" refers (or should refer) to the former kind of edition, not the latter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added page numbers to the Drumond chapter and a citation to the "colonial brutality" quote in the caption (it was in the text already).—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you explain your worry about the copyright situation a bit more? I realise the Leopold II portrait needs Belgian copyright information (I'll deal with that soon) but the rest I believe do not. Given Belgium had no formal control over the Congo Free State, I do not believe that Belgium had jurisdiction over copyright. The pictures in the article from the Congo appear to have been taken from sources published in the UK or US (that includes the map) rather than Belgium too, which complicates things.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It's a tricky situation, but one that I am more aware of because I recently had real problems with this when trying to pull Vladimir Lenin through FAC. Basically, what we have here is a lot of old photographs uploaded to Wikipedia, after which PD tags have been stuck on them without actually necessarily being appropriate. For instance, take File:Leopold II of Belgium.jpg. The tag being used states that "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less." But how do we know if the author died over 70 years ago if no information about who the author is has been given? Moreover, does the 70 year limit apply under Belgian law? We would need a specific Belgian PD tag, as well as a US one. I get how annoying and frustrating this can be to sort out (I've been there), but I think it is necessary for this article to advance further. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Please don't get me wrong: I am very aware how important getting copyright issues solved is. I'm just not quite sure of what the right course should be. I realise that with no source information, that portrait of Leopold should be removed (and probably deleted from commons?) - I cannot find it anywhere on the web. But would this or this work? Both are in books which are unambiguously in the public domain. Ironically there is no PD template on commons for Belgium like the US one!—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Hmm. I'm not sure whether those hold or not. What I am considering doing is placing this GAN on hold, during which you could take this issue to one of the help pages or something, in order to get an editor with a much better grasp of image and copyright issues to come and offer their own perspective. Would that work for you? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
          • The trouble is I don't think there are any such people on Wikipedia. We only have a handful of regular Belgian contributors and none, that I know of, has any real expertise in this matter. I can ask I suppose, but I'm sure you can understand that I'm keen to avoid prolonging the process indefinitely. Surely if a photo has been uploaded to Commons from an institutional collection (Archive.org, University of Texas, United States Department of Health and Human Services, University of Edinburgh etc.) then we can take it on good faith? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. File:Punch congo rubber cartoon.jpg - this one needs a US PD tag, and ideally a UK one too. That shouldn't be too difficult to provide given that the author of the image clearly died over 70 years ago. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. File:Vauthier Rene Le Congo Belge 159 Les sentinelles de la Princesse Clementine.JPG - this one also requires a US PD tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. File:Victim of Congo atrocities, Congo, ca. 1890-1910 (IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19).jpg - the tag on this image isn't sufficient at present because a) we are not told when this image was first published, and b) no information is provided as to who the author is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  4. File:Leopold II of Belgium.jpg - this tag doesn't work as insufficient evidence is provided. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I've sorted out the tags on (1) and (2), though please note for (1) that no "PD-UK" tag exists. It's still clearly in the public domain, so should not be an issue. For (3), I have added a UK anonymous work tag but I'm not sure I agree - it is published, in the sense that its source appears to have been a book of commercially-produced lantern slides ("Regions Beyond Missionary Union. Congo Lantern Slides"). As for (4), I have replaced it with this image which I've also tagged.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've changed "Britain and America" on first usage to the United Kingdom and the United States. I don't mind the latter, but since the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is almost universally referred to as "Great Britain" in books published before the '90s, I'm inclined to be fairly sparing.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As for the article title (and "Atrocities"), I agree the current one is not fantastic. As you will see from the page history, it was produced after an extensive discussion on a deletion proposal. I'm not a fan, but I can't think of a more obvious alternative (there is no WP:Commonname) and am inclined to leave it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I would actually go with the title of "Congo Horrors" to be honest. It retains some of the moral judgement of the current title but at least has some support from within the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 29 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)

@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)

That's great, thanks for doing the review! —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

oppose GA status

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)

about the history of the historians

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)

Lx 121 has made series of edits to the tone of the article in the recent couple of days. Rather than take the opportunity to bring this to talk, he has tried to force the edits through and has refused to assume good faith, accused me of "pushing an agenda". In order to avoid any possible attack based on a claim that I am claiming ownership of the page, I'd be grateful to get some contributions from other people who edit in this area to this discussion. @Midnightblueowl:; @Cliftonian:; @Katangais:; @Elphion:
For the benefit of other users, the Lx's edits in question (here) are quite major in nature and remove quite a bit of sourced material from the original article; I am assuming that the sources used to support the new text are mined from the original article too.
My problem with the new version is twofold:
  1. The entire slant of the text has been changed, without any new material being bought to the discussion. Quotes from both Vanthemsche (an academic historian) and Hochschild (a respected author on the topic) have been removed - presumably in an attempt to suppress the argument they make - namely that the atrocities do not meet the narrow definition of a "genocide". This should not be controversial. Without bringing new (alternative) reliable source to the discussion to justify the change of perspective, I can only assume that this is an attempt to push a particular point of view or fringe theory.
  2. Phrases like "it is generally agreed by Western historians" are classic weasel words (implying that non-Western historians do not hold the views) and is actually incorrect. Two are actually cited in the article.
Thirdly, the nationality of the writers we cite is absolutely irrelevant unless another reliable source raises the issue. In any case, claiming that a writer is biased because of his nationality is practically libellous and original research anyway. Nor would I expect to raise the nationality of any historian on an article about the Nazis. It is irrelevant and borderline POV; all the cited sources are reliable, most of them are from respected academic writers. As it happens, at least two cited writers in that section are actually black Congolese - which is also irrelevant. Anyway, this whole argument is probably covered by WP:ADVOCACY - Wikipedia is not responsible for the lack (?) of Congolese modern historians.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The article should be reverted to a form prior to the contentious changes being made, and Lx 121 should seek to form consensus for their changes here at the Talk Page before implementing them in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Midnightblueowl. I reverted the contentious edits before the discussion per WP:BRD - do you have any comments about the edits themselves? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Lx 121's concern that the work of Congolese historians may not be fully reflected in the article, but at the same time I am unsure how many Congolese historians have actually published their research on this subject in reliable sources. This is something that may be worth looking into. (However, as you have said, at least two of the cited historians are Congolese, so Lx 121's concerns may be a little premature). Conversely, I disagree with their view that we have to state the nationality of the historians being cited; certainly, there are no Wikipedia policies urging us to do so and I am not aware of any reliable sources which emphasise the impact of a scholars' national identity on the historical study of this issue. I am also concerned that Lx 121 has deleted referenced quotations from historians and see no good reason for this course of action. All in all I am concerned that Lx 121 appears to be interested largely in 'Righting Great Wrongs' rather than improving this article while adhering strictly to Wikipedia policy, with all of its regulations and restrictions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
where are the 2 congolese historians cited? & how much weight are they given? because, in the section on "historiography" i see nothing Lx 121 (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
i can find one congolese historian cited, for the entire article. 2 tiny, cites to the same, single page from 1 book. both cites are minor, trivial uses of the material; one is for a date, the other as a "supporting opinion" about total deaths.
(currently appearing as #27. a & b) Nzongola-Ntalaja 2007, p. 22.
this is FAR removed from the extensive use of "opinion"-material from western white/european authors; & it is far from any kind of representation of congolese views on the matter.
Lx 121 (talk) 10:27, 25 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/w/index.php?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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State&type=revision&diff=754825690&oldid=754755305

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)

Frankly I do not believe Lx 121 has actually responded to any of my points in this slightly rambling response and I do not feel we're making much progress. I'd also note that Lx has opened a section on the old GA review in which (s)he is rather more belligerent. I will not comment on Lx's (new) claims that the article is "poorly-organised" "bullshit" with "substandard" pictures but on his/her (main?) charge that "the primary author [i.e. me] is deliberately downplaying belgian responsibility, the actions of the colonisers, & the consequences of those actions".
My response is basically that Lx has thrown a number of aspersions at me without actually providing any actual evidence to support any of them. Who are the major Congolese writers whose works have been maliciously ignored in this article? Which author's mainstream viewpoints have been ignored per WP:UNDUE, one of the few guidelines cited? The attack on the concept of WP:NPOV is particularly worrying. He/she has accused me of "negationism" repeatedly, yet the article nowhere denies that large numbers of people were killed. All these charges are just one big straw man.
I stand by my choice of sources as representative of modern academic consensus on the subject. A glimpse at the actual sources used should confirm this - all of which are undisputably reliable; many (Stengers, Vanthemsche, Vansina etc.) are well-respected academic authors and most works cited are recently published (post-1990). There arguments have not been misrepresented by me either. If there is a bias, it is towards using English-language works (i.e. ones written by US/UK authors). The idea that these authors are proponents of some kind of fringe theory is ludicrous and, frankly, even if they were, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS would apply.
A "disputed" template has been placed on the article which is good. Lx, please do not make any more edits to this page (even uncontroversial ones) before this discussion has been resolved; I will obviously do likewise. If it would be useful to take this case to arbitration, I'd be happy to do so. In the meantime, I hope other users will join this discussion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Not that it's important, but since you've brought an Ad hominem into the discussion, I feel I should point out that your claim that I've been harassing you because "i've [sic] just newly started on [Wikipedia]" is, frankly, "bullshit". A glance at your talk page can tell anyone you joined in 2007 - a full seven years before me! And I also note that you've received several warnings over edit-warring and disruptive editing in the recent past.—Brigade Piron (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
*comment: ok, let's start in on the tangle of lies & misdirections in your response; i'll stick to the top 2 points for now, since i have other, better things to do in my life. i am going to use a lot of capital letter now, since piron seems to have trouble reading & understanding what i write.

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)

& i'm sorry if i seem just a little bit sarcastic & annoyed in my reply; but i'm getting just a little bit TIRED of piron REPEATEDLY misrepresenting & ignoring points raised in this discussion.
& @ this point the only agf-reason left to explain the user's doing so is to assume that the user is having some problem with the reading & comprehension of the text?
or maybe i can be "charitable" & pretend that piron was just reading too quickly?
but that really is the last thread of agf here.
otherwise, it appears to be a deliberate tactic by the user, to obfuscate the matters being discussed.
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)

I agree with the removal of the tag. Lx 121 was given the chance to provide evidence to bolster their accusations and claims, and they have not done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant to thank you both for your comments on here and I'm sorry it has taken so long to do so. For the record, I agree with both of your comments about the desirability of more references - I hope to be able to add more in the future. About Midnightblueowl's suggestion that peer-review would be best, I cannot think of any off-hand but I am sure they must exist and will give that priority.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
oppose - nothing has been resolved here. there are AMPLE' extant sources for the sheer awfulness of the belgian occupation of the congo; historic & present-day. & no small number of them are congolese.
no effort has been made by the primary author of the piece, to redress the persistent dinimuation of the actions & responsibilities of the belgian occupiers/colonisers, within the article.
also; what's the rush? to remove the tag? we've agreed there are problems w the piece. policy says we leave it in place, until it's been fixed.
Lx 121 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
RE:sources -- here, you wanted sources? here is a crapload of them; on the german-language version of THE SAME ARTICLE. took me about 7 seconds to find them.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongogr%C3%A4uel
& you know what? they disagree with the conclusions made in the english-language version of the article.
you could also try the english, belgian, & congolese articles about the history of the congo.
Lx 121 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
note that: the german article has better photographs documenting the atrocities, too.
& why is the lede image on this article a picture of the belgian king? he is certainly relevant to the story, but he is not the main subject. Lx 121 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
AND the primary author of the article here has been very selective in what material to use, from their given sources. many of the cited works had plenty to say about how AWFUL the belgian colony was; & most of that material isn't used here. the author of the wp/en article has chosen to focus on "how it wasn't really as bad as they said"; & the highly selective cites reflect a minority of the content in those sources. Lx 121 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't help feeling this discussion isn't going anywhere. Lx 121 has had ample chance to provide some specific examples to back up his claims. I notice the only specific point raised coherently before (about the lack of Congolese writers) has receded into the background in the face of an increasingly generalised stream of abuse. Lx also appears to be getting increasingly incoherent.
The German Wikipedia article does not contain a "crapload" of references - it includes a grand total of 10 and a couple of "see also" works. Of these, two of these are to Hochschild's work which is already cited in the article! For the record, I note that not a single one of the others cited is Congolese. Again, I think a quick read of WP:RS would help Lx greatly - this article is much better cited than the German article and if the German article comes to different conclusions then it is probably wrong.
Again, I am afraid that unless Lx can be specific about his/her problem with the article this discussion will not go anywhere. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - "this article is much better cited than the German article and if the German article comes to different conclusions then it is probably wrong" -- that's awfully nnpov of you, not to mention arrogant.
AND you have just admitted that i have provided '12 sources, of which you have only used 1; & you were highly selective in what material you chose to use, from that source.
& i have been perfectly clear in what is wrong with your article.
you have cherrypicked your sources, AND the material from those sources that you chose to include, to create an nnpov opinion piece about how "it wasn't really as bad as they said".
for the most part you haven't even bothered to go back to the reports from the actual time of these events; you've chosen to use a handful of modern, western "revisionist" historians, & tiny quotes from more general authors & materials, focussing on anything you can find that DOWNPLAYS the wrongs committed, & the responsibility of the belgian/european/western colonial authorities for any wrongdoing.
the german article, which you say is "probably wrong"; comes to very much the opposite conclusions.
& does so with more evidence, including more photographic evidence, which you have also downplayed in your "version of events".
if this article was about nazi atrocities in ww2, instead of belgian colonies in the congo, you would be shut down as a holocaust denier/minimizer by now.
& when i have more time, i am going to add more sources, congolese & otherwise, & then i'm going to keep adding them until this is resolved. your sheer, impenetrable, {wikt|intransigence} has exhausted any reasonable agf here.
Lx 121 (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
it is also worth noting, since you insist on being completely impenetrable to any criticism of, or alteration to, your "take" on these events, than on your own userpage, you self-identify as deeply "pro-belgian", & do so repeatedly there. which, i think, is at least relevant to your position here. Lx 121 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
you use a lot of belgian historians, actually; & hey, they're the ones who are presenting "reduced" casualty estimates, & disputing use of the term "genocide". Lx 121 (talk) 02:08, 15 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)

Fantastic: you've just compared a fellow Wikipedia user to a Holocaust denier! Insults always help a discussion stay productive. You have not "been perfectly clear in [sic] what is wrong with your article" - you have only said again and again what you do not like about it - you have failed to explain why any other sources would provide a substantially different account or specific examples of how the usage of the sources in this article is flawed. You've also plainly not read any of the sources either and are clearly basing your knowledge of the topic on a couple of Wikipedia articles. Obviously there are lots of books about the Congo Free State and, unsurprisingly, not all of them are cited in this article. Randomly saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not constitute an argument.
It is obviously possible for Belgians to write WP:RS about Congolese history just as, in your example, is it possible for Germans to write objectively about the Holocaust. This falls clearly under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which you have been referred to a great number of times and constantly refuse to read. I'd also add that the claim that this article relies on Belgian historians is objectively wrong. The largest group of writers here is actually American (Renton, Seddon & Zeilig/Hochschild/Vansina/Lyons) and British (Slade/Packenham/Ascherson). There are actually just three sources written by Belgians cited.
And "Population decline" is not a euphemism for murders, it means an overall decline in the number of people through increased deaths (natural, disease-related and murders) with a declining birthrate - ergo the overall number of people falls over a 20 year period. There are no "actual reports" of population from the period (there is a big literature about this).
Since you've decided that my user page is fair game here, I notice you've got an ongoing dispute on your talk page where an editor has (politely) suggested you should be more civil to other users in Wikipedia discussions to which you provide a characteristically polite response: "fuck it, let wikipedia burn." You need to read WP:Civility. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have raised this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:45, 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)

Holy mackerel I thought this horse was dead! Well, where the hell to begin.
@Lx 121 Well I'm glad you responded, and provided some material. Here is my evaluation.
  • A look at the Spanish Wikipedia article on the Congo Free State you mentioned shows that it uses mostly Hochschild, already incorporated here. Upon closer inspections it cites this source, which in itself cites Wikipedia as a source. This is in flagrant violation of the English Wikipedia standard WP:CIRCULAR, which would never pass an English Wikipedia Featured Article review. I think it is safe to say that we cannot use the Spanish article, "featured" or otherwise, in this evaluation of the state of the Atrocities in the Congo Free State article.
  • A look at the French Wikipedia article on the Congo Free State shows that the sources cited under the "The campaign against the Congo Free State/La campagne contre l'État indépendant du Congo" section (the section that talks about the various atrocities) are mostly contemporary propaganda pieces such as Arthur Conan Doyle's The Crime of the Congo used in the Congo Free State propaganda war to discredit the Leopold's colonial administration (as suggested by the section title). I sincerely doubt that these can be trusted as reliable sources in regards to non-fictional accounts of atrocities committed or realistic statistics.
*comment -- with all due respect, as well as being unreasonably dismissive of the multiple sources i have provided, as per your request; i think that some of your comments in this section here, just above & below, have demonstrated a certain nnpov-wp:bias on your part; i.e.: dismissal of all criticism as "biased propaganda, seeking to discredit the colonial administration". not to mention the blindingly obvious point that contemporary coverage of & reaction to events is a legitimate part of an encyclopedic article about the subject. Lx 121 (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the German Wikipedia article on the Atrocities in the Congo Free State I come to mostly concur with @Brigade Piron; there are not many new sources to be found, and notably those are include Hochschild. Once again, Doyle's The Crime of the Congo comes up, and I reiterate that I don't believe such works belong on a proper Wikipedia page built on reliable analysis. Also, while I might not use Prion's words exactly, I would say that it cannot be ignored that this article is hardly cited. Especially considering that this one is well cited. These provide Piron with his evidence. I must conclude that your argument is still lacking proper support. And as Piron has pointed out, none of them are Congolese. It would appear to me that you've in fact strayed from your original complaint with the article, it being (I believe) that the article needed additional verification from Congolese sources. I can't help but think that you've already made up your mind on how you want this article to turn out, regardless of what Congolese historians have to say.
  • Unless you can actually provide some solid proof that extends outside of Wikipedia, please yield your argument, because it really sounds like you're just professing Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. And PLEASE be civil towards Prion. Your caustic language is unwarranted. -Indy beetle (talk)
*comment -- you didn't read carefully enough.
in total, the articles add dozens of new sources.
nor do you offer a valid rationale for excluding any mention of boyle's work, which is a historically relevant period commentary on the situation, widely read at the time.
also: adding congoless-authored material was one of my complaint about the article
it was by far not the only one.
user "piron" has been completely intransigent on institing in his carefully worded text; he has reverted everybody who has tried to change the tone, even a little bit.
that is how i noticed thus problem in the first place.
& now he has reverted it again; this time, he completely removed a historical perdiod-era image of mutilated african children in the c,f.s.; which made a far more suitable lede than "king leo".
& he has not yet provided any reasonable rationale for doing so. unless he chooses to ADD historical photographs to the material he "disputes" permitting on the article?
Lx 121 (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lx 121 Piron removed said image because he and you are currently in a dispute over the article and it's standard procedure that consensus be reached here before any content changes are made to the article by disputing parties, not to mention the image wasn't formatted properly and jarred the article. The other edits he rolled back were not cited, and so we have this discussion. I do however agree that an image of the atrocities would be more suitable for the top, such as the one you posted - and we definitely should make use of the other free use photos out there - but let's conclude this discussion first.
As for my own comments on the suggested sources you made, I would like to clarify my point. Doyle's The Crime of the Congo is indeed relevant and perhaps should be included under the "Investigation and international awareness" section. However, I do not think we can use it to structure the base of the article, because of its intent as a propaganda piece. That's the problem with the other language Wikipedias: they use this material as the basis of their content, and not historian accounts and proper studies. It's not to say that Doyle's work is based in the fictitious, but sensational testimony doesn't provide us with the best info to work with for an encyclopedia. The fact the sensational testimony and dramatic literature resulted from the atrocities is notable, but should be noted in the proper section with appropriate context. If these works do have estimates on things like total deaths we can include them, but proper context should be given to that number. I hope I'm being clear here, I apologize if I was confusing before. Consider this here my full opinion on the matter.
As for my "dismissiveness" to the other sources in these other language Wikipedia, I was only evaluating the sources that described the sections on the Free State's labor systems and abusive practices, not for example, the ones that described the European exploration of the land; I looked at the sources most pertinent. Also some of them are just flat out unreliable, like the one I mentioned that violated WP:CIRCULAR. Instead of giving us lists of potential unconfirmed sources, why don't you look through them yourself and bring to us ones that 1) discuss the atrocities and 2) are reliable? Could you please refer to a specific source you think we can use? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
*comment on ONE point, as i do not have time to address the rest right now.
about the picture -- it is the matters in dispute that are supposed to be "frozen", until the matter is settled. not EVERYTHING on the page.
adding a better, more suitable lede picture should not be "controversial"
adding a historical photograph of the victims should not be "controversial".
especially when, in the entire article, there is only ONE photograph, of ONE SINGLE PERSON, as a victim of the belgian abuses. AND that image is BURIED WAAAY down on the page.:::
IF user piron is actually "disputing" ALL of these changes, that requires some explanation on their part.
& it rather proves my complaint about the user's nnpov edits here. Lx 121 (talk) 22:08, 24 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

RFC about NPOV and Undue of article

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)

  • So, assuming the question is what Slatersteven thinks it is, I have to agree wholeheartedly with his conclusion. They should certainly be included with appropriate weight, but not identified by nationality or given additional weight unless RSs sanction such attention. I think Brigade Piron's assessment of weight appears to closely follow the most prominent sources on the topic and seems deft in terms of including various opinions. If I could follow on Midnightblueowl's earlier attempt at mediation, it might help to qualify some of the broader statements (e.g. "It is generally agreed by historians..." could be "Author X argues that it is generally agreed by historians...."). I read Hochschild (KLG), the Stengers source in the article, Biaya's work in 'Shifting African Identities, and Depelchin's 'From Congo Free State to Zaire' for this assessment. While I agree that Depelchin's conclusions should be in the article, they would not significantly change the weight or discussion of the Genocide section. As the latest of multiple uninvolved editors who have said about the same thing, I hope that this one contributes to an improved article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Civility and Assume Good Faith Hi, greetings all. It's hard to respect a different point of view when you feel it is complicit in injustice, nay genocide. It's also hard to want to explain yourself to someone who you feel is doing libel against an innocent nation (at least of that specific crime). So I think it's very necessary to be very clear and assume good faith. I think User:Lx 121 was not very clear in the request for an Rfc. User:Brigade Piron objected to Congolese Genocide and is the proponent of the current status of the article, and it is he who User:Lx 121 accused of "selectively misrepresenting" & being "intransigent". Maybe better communication on both sides could have helped. It seems like "dispute resolution" request was perhaps more appropriate rather than RfC. :/ ... --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: A dispute resolution discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents before Lx decided to call for a RFC in the name of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Until that discussion is resolved (whatever its outcome) I am not sure that RFC comments are doing anything more than fuelling this dispute.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
DisagreeAgreed. As I said I thought some kind of dispute resolution was more in order than RfC. Pausing or Closing the RfC until that's done seems appropriate, However it seems it is done, it was archived, as I understand it that means it is considered done: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. No decision was taken. It took 17 days for the first comment. I wonder if administrators noticeboard was appropriate instead of Dispute Resolution. :/. I think Brigade Piron was very partial in posting it to Administrators Noticeboard instead of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The administrator's noticeboard at the top has a "Are you in the right place?" notice - regarding civility problems Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility clearly points first to dispute resolution and only in emergency and/or severe disruption situations recommends the admin noticeboard, not the case here. @Brigade Piron: clearly acted in error I believe, not a huge mistake though.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I wanted to open a new "Dispute resolution" but it says: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." It seems to me that as Brigade Peron's posting at Admin's Noticeboard was inappropriate, now this is the appropriate place for the dispute resolution. Urgh. How unwieldly!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Not NPOV If Belgian historiography is against calling it genocide, while non-belgian historiography all takes the opposite point of view, this would be of encyclopedic value, but it would be Original Research unless acknowledged by a Reliable Source. (I want to note that there is no "genocide" section, there is a "Historiography and the term "genocide"" section, I was a bit confused trying to find the section in discussion.) I think there is a definite problem in the section Population decline - "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" - so the Kuba was obviously not one of the groups most affected. So I would say that some work is necessary, the article does seem to me to minimize the atrocities. - I would agree with User:Lx 121 that there is a problem with POV. The comparison with native americans is useful, it exists in the article, but seemingly contradicting the accusation of genocide (?) as if genocide did not happen in the Americas... Genocide of indigenous peoples exists, includes the Americas and includes the Congo Free State. I believe it needs work to achieve NPOV. (I noted that the article that User:Brigade Piron cited in the AfD as proof that it could not be called a genocide was a belgian newspaper - perhaps belgians have bias against being imputed of a crime, it is not unreasonable.)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Update The whole article seems designed to minimize the atrocities. The "Population decline" section in particular seems designed to minimize the atrocities. I've come to empathize with User:Lx 121's statement that the article as it currently is would not be wrongly called "trash", and "better off deleted".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


  • Oppose I oppose this RFC, on the basis that:
  1. It is not neutral, so I can't really even figure out what's going on;
  2. Lx 121, who started it, is being uncivil, and disruptive;
  3. Lx 121 appears to be forum shopping;
I'll happily reconsider, as soon as everyone can be polite enough and provide enough reasonable evidence so that I can figure out what's going on. There is one set of facts, and the sooner we can start trying to work together to figure out what they are, the sooner this will be over. Tamwin (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Struck my 3rd point, see below. I think I'm leaving now, as the discussion seems to have become more civil, and I'm not sure I have much to add. Tamwin (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Tamwin:I agree with the problems with civility, I'm not sure about "disruptive", but I object to "Forum shopping". Brigade Peron wrongly posted it to the administrators noticeboard which basically deals with vandalism. A correct posting would have been to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, but an RfC is considered a dispute resolution process. So in regards to the accusation of forum shopping it seems that Lx 121 actually acted better and less in error than the other party in the dispute. (I actually looked at Lx 121's contributions as I thought there might be another forum at the village pump regarding this same incident but no, Lx 121 seems involved in many unrelated controversies, in many of them it seems constructively)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dwarf Kirlston: Thank you for the clarification. Then let's move forward with it, shall we? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the civility or forumshopping or ANI issues trump dealing with an RfC (this is in general, I'm opting for silence on anything other than content here). But, I'm fine with closing it as a mess of an RfC with none of the necessary requirements of an RfC. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • comment i am BUSY during the week, & i do not have time to waste on wikipedia every day.
also - how is it "forum shopping" to request an RFC, when THE ONLY PLACE THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS ON THE ARTICLE'S TALKPAGE? & the only people previously involved in a discussion about it are the people involved in the original dispute there?
because, call me crazy, but ISN'T THAT WHAT "RFC's" ARE FOR?
also, also; the ANI matter has "staled-out" with no action taken; apparently, nobody there took piron's "complaint" seriously enough to bother discussing it. & it was in any case NOT about article-content. nor was i the one who created it.
so again, explain to me about how i'm supposed to be "forum shopping", by rfc-ing an article/content dispute? or was that comment meant to be directed @ piron, for creating a spurious ANI complaint? about a user they are in a dispute with.
as for "neutrality & civility" in phrasing an rfc: how exactly do you "neutrally" describe a problem with a user who creates nnpov content, & then absolutely refuses to allow any further changes to redress this?
Lx 121 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I actually disagree with you there @AbstractIllusions:. An objection was made to this RfC exactly because of a noticeboard, the noticeboard has since been archived/considered done. So User:Lx 121 comment "ISN'T THAT WHAT "RFC's" ARE FOR?" as well as his comment that "the ANI matter has "staled-out" with no action taken;" seem appropriate and on point. These are true and very related to the arguments at hand in this RfC. An RfC is indeed as Lx 121 says considered an appropriate forum for content dispute resolution. I think Lx 121 should probably be warned, given a sermon, for civility problems, but he is not without a point in this RfC.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • COMMENT If someone would reformat this RfC in such as a manner as to be easily read and understood, I would be more than happy to participate in it. In this current setup, I have 0 idea what is going on, and what is supposed to be done. Find some phrases that you disagree with and pull them out with a replacement, and have us vote on that, rather than a whoel article. Also, display solutions to the objectionable parts, cuz else we have 0 idea what the outcome of our votes is going to be. If someone is conducting an edit war, or is showing OWNERship, than go to the noticeboards. If the VanPoPo need to be set upont his article, then ping me. Good day all . L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @L3X1:Yeah, I think perhaps the best thing to do would be to reopen this RfC. It started as unclear, proceeded largely unclearly and messily, and finally the nominator got blocked indefinitely. So I think the best thing to do would be to re-open an RfC, with clarity and formatting questions taken care of. I currently don't know how to do it myself, but I'll research a bit and find out if nobody beats me to it.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Dwarf Kirlston I would reopen it for you, but I have to run a SPI, and it will be my first ever, so I want to make sure I do it right. When you reopen, please ping me, and I'll be gald to come. Have a good day. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Meta discussion: re-open this RfC?

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)

"It seems civility problems are considered minor"? As the person being called a colonial apologist and Holocaust denier, I am not sure I agree. Even if we can move beyond that (and I suggest that Lx's tone in recent comments above suggests we haven't) then we still are confronted by the fact that Lx has been repeatedly asked to provide sourced evidence to substantiate his/her positions - by me and by others on this discussion - and has failed to do this. The burden of proof is on Lx to substantiate the claims: what this discussion needs is more facts and fewer opinions.
I realise you (Dwarf Kirlston) are trying to moderate a discussion here (and I applaud you for it), but "Are belgian historians biased?" is a frankly outrageous question - can you imagine a topic where we asked whether an article should exclude sources based on the nationality of the author? Even the Israel-Palestine conflict (one of Wikipedia's most contested topics) does not have similar provisions. I repeat: all the sources cited in the article are written by respected academics and published by respectable academic presses (most in the recent past) and no one has provided any evidence that they do not represent a fair cross-section of the scholarship on the field. You note that "[your] personal opinion is that the article is POV" but you have the burden to (i) be specific about what you (specifically) believe to be POV, and (ii) provide sources to support this. Without both these two things, there is just no point in an RFC. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just seen your comment that "I think Brigade Piron was very partial in posting it to Administrators Noticeboard". I have never used Wikipedia's dispute resolution apparatus before, never having come across such an unpleasant situation. Originally I intended to open an RFC until I saw the guidance on that page and followed it. As far as I'm aware, the AN/I board was and is the right place for this discussion.—Brigade Piron (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: I apologize for that. I judged from what I had seen, as you say Wikipedia:Requests for comment does indeed indicate the AN. It seems there are conflicting policies in this case. I looked over at Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility and policy there is very clear. I also looked at the Administrators noticeboard itself in it's "Are you in the right place?" - and again, for dispute resolution it said "To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution." So I judged - perhaps a bit more "good faith" on my part would have been apropriate. Again, sorry Brigade Piron.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: And thanks for applauding me for "trying to moderate" I hope you haven't changed your mind. I do appreciate the appreciation. I do agree that (i) being specific and (ii) providing sources are both necessary in order for this to work properly. I completely agree - I had already stated my POV concerns in my earlier post, perhaps I should have reiterated them in some way in the "new vote/discussion".--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
To be clear I don't minimize the unpleasantness of User:Lx 121 remarks against User:Brigade Piron. I think they are serious and I think serious consequences would be valid. I said "considered a minor issue" and I meant that as a comment about wikipedia policy, the way I see it in WP:Civility treats it as a much lesser evil than problems in wikipedia articles. I think User:Brigade Piron has had to deal with lot of unpleasantness and WP:Civility seems to recommend mainly that he have "thick skin". That also seems to be a problem to me.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 13:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion has been reopened at AN: pause/close this RfC and see what happens over there

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)

Wow. Well I found no evidence for their argument anyway. Perhaps we now have a chance at improving this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
indeed :)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 03:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

RfC main discussion: Article as a whole NPOV?

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)

Limited support - The article is by no means sympathetic to the Belgians or their industry in the Congo, but I do believe some changes can be made that better focus the article. This is one change I mentioned long ago in the conversation: 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, if appropriate. 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, such as their corrupt Force Publique) should only be brought up in this sense. Otherwise it seems to distract from the brutal actions of the colonial authority and pin some sort of responsibility for the atrocities on the Congolese themselves. If reliable sources permit, I think Arab slave raids could be incorporated in this manner. Another change: There is no need to mention that Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja is Congolese if we have concluded that nationality, unless explicitly brought up in a secondary/tertiary source (which we have not found), should not be considered a factor into the credibility of historians' analysis. Otherwise it does give the appearance of trying to "legitimize" (if I may) the conclusion made in the article, which I think sufficiently speaks for itself. My third change: As @Lx 121: has suggested, we can add more freely available photos. I don't think that this is really as much a matter of POV, but I do think it will help improve the article.
Overall I still think that the descriptions and conclusions of this article are solid. Lx 121 has brought up the way Free State articles on the Spanish, French, and German Wikipedia article are written to try and make a point. Which I have responded to above and I think it's safe to say that those provide no reliable evidence for a change in the overall tone of the article. I encourage other users to make their own assessment of these sources as well. Lx 121 has yet to provide specific reliable sources to back most of their claims, but has been asked to do so and will presumably follow through once they have the time. I believe I have sufficiently explained here and above why I think the article does not require major changes, only some placement of sentences and whatnot. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Belgian" historians

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)

@Brigade Piron: You commented on this topic over at Meta discussion. It seems you consider this "patent nonsense". I would agree that in the case of Israel Palestine this would be very strange. But in regards to history I see some examples of how "national" sources denied wrongdoing, while international or specifically british sources sounded the alarm. The case of Bartolomé de las Casas is an interesting case, he is Spanish, but it was used by the English against Spanish colonization. The case of Morel here seems to the point. Furthermore I would identify a nationalistic interest in "being seen in a positive light". These do not constitute confirmed bias, just a possible explanation for bias, and would need Reliable Sources confirming such. I think while you consider this something like "patent nonsense", User:Lx 121 seems to consider it fact, which I would like to criticize as well. It not "fact", I have been unable to source it, it seems Lx 121 made an assumption, not based on RS, and then passed to demand it be included in the article. Pretty unreasonable.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 13:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

phrase in Lead "general consensus that it cannot be considered a genocide."

Is there is a general consensus that it cannot be considered a genocide?--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Population decline section

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)

Genocide section

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)

He seems to do a lot of work surrounding central Africa. I think he's an American, but he did undertake some research at the University of Kinshasa [2]. At any rate, I affirm your statement; he uses the word "genocide" multiple times to describe the Free State's reign. His opinion should be included in the article, I don't question his reputation. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:12, 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 really liked it. It seems to have some of the language that might be useful here. ""Professor Ben Kiernan of Yale University re-analyzes the Irish Famine of 1845-1851 and the brutal exploitation of the Belgian Congo between 1885 and 1920, in light of contemporary developments in genocide studeis. While he concludes that the genocide label does not easily apply to either instance, he demonstrates that those who pioneered civil society activism in response to these injustices presaged the modern human rights movement, being among the first to invoke concepts such as "crimes against humanity" and to demand an "international tribunal" to punish such atrocities [...] Gérard Pruniers, offers a provocative foundational analysis of genocide, criticizing what he perceives as the strict and formalist definition in the 1948 Genocide Convention." pp. 5 Provost. It seems part of the debate is indeed a debate over the definition of genocide. I read over at Genocide of indigenous peoples#Genocide debate how before the legal definition, there was a definition by Lemkin.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:57, 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)

Does the term "colonial genocide" mean anything particularly special? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: I believe that no, just a genocide in a colonial setting, due to colonialism. It's interesting/curious because Raphael Lemkin's definition was very related to colonialism. Unrelated but perhaps interesting typologies of genocides might exist - Utilitarian genocide is one of a 6 types, the list included in that article under a note. I would have liked to have seen the typologist's 1975 book/text and whether Congo was included and in what category. But the typologies are a bit off topic.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:17, 28 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)

subjects not covered, or not adequately covered, in the present article

  • Casement Report
  • contemporary publications on the subject, & their significance; both in news & cultural contexts
such as:

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)

Source: Depelchin I looked at Jacques Depelchin's 3 books on google books."Reclaiming African History" (2011) "Silences in African history" (2005), "From the Congo Free State to Zaire" (1992) Only one of them cited genocide and not referring to the Congo, it is "Reclaiming African history" that has a section called "Born out of genocide; born to live off genocide", but it notably does not include the congo atrocities. I don't mean to only search for genocide, but it seems reasonable to expect that the sources would side with User:Lx 121 on it being recognized as "genocide". There are other ways in which the article might not be NPOV but this seems the main reason. The book which would presumably be most useful, specifically about Congo Free State: "From the Congo Free State to Zaire" is not viewable through "preview" in google books, only "snippet view", which makes it harder use as a source.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Source: Vanthemasche I took a look at the second source in the list. "The Historiography of Belgian Colonialism in the Congo" by Guy Vanthemsche In the very beginning it shows a quotation from a 2006 school textbook. I don't know if it's genocide denial, but it's definitely whitewashing. The whitewashing of these atrocities seem to be very real and I would say still current. :/ It seems there was an official whitewashing that was held as public record even in universities until the 1970's and then began to be dismantled first in the universities "The Leopoldian cult pervaded not only official discourses, but also most of the writings concerning the origins and the history of colonial activity in this region." Pg 92 - as can be seen from it still being a part of school textbooks it is not yet vanquished. -This does lend credence to User:Lx 121's claim that (some) Belgian sources were biased, that the bias was based in belgium, that it was a belgian "thing". I note that the source that accuses this bias is notably also belgian, so his proposal that nationality should be marked seems still unreasonable, but finally a source on congo historiography! (analisis of historical accounts)--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 04:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Phrasing for new RfC

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:

  • In regards to the term "genocide", does what the article says reflect what is in Reliable Sources?
  • Is the current section "population decline" adequate or is it a violation of "WP:Undue weight"?

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)

  • Dwarf Kirlston Thats pretty good! I would leave out the Columbus part, I don't think it is applicable. Should a question be asked regarding the use of the word holocaust? I think it is perfectly acceptable for use throughout, but I have come across some people who think that it should only refer to The Holocaust. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Can I ask what others think of archiving the first 75Kbytes? or at least, everything before this recent RfC? The talk page is getting a leetle bit long for ease of use.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 01:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, firstly I would like to agree with what Dwarf Kirlston has proposed, but with L3X1's suggestions. As for the "population decline section" giving undue weight, I'm not sure exactly where that came up in the previous mess of an RFC or dispute conversation (point it out to me if it did), and personally I don't think that is a suitable question. There are some questions I have about it, but I think the matter can be handled with the overall POV/NPOV question. And I also agree with L3x1 that a page archive for all the old stuff would be helpful. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (Something I noticed writing up the new proposal was that the current article does not mention "crimes against humanity" not even once.) (and the International African Association is treated as a "charitable organization" when the article on it calls it it seems more properly, a "front organization")--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Ending the moratorium on content editing

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)

and somebody (admin-wise?) needs to fix the page history; most of it is presently stuck @ "congo horrors", from the recent abortive rename. Lx 121 (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I stopped by and took a look. Has it been that long since the RfC controversy? About a year! I haven't been very active in Wikipedia recently. I was not aware that Brigade Piron and LX 121 had been prohibited from editing this article in a "moratorium" @Indy beetle:. I saw just now that Lx 121 was unblocked with a promise to format his posts adequately, I am glad of both his unblocking and his promise. It seems new actors have come upon the page, the polemic as well. Regarding the page history specifically I do agree that would be nice, @Lx 121:. I on the other hand disagree with #2. I think #3 and #4 can wait. I think #5 during the RfC I looked at a few Congolese historians, maybe one or two significant ones.
I think the first thing, the first small improvement, I would put forth is the inclusion of the term "crimes against humanity". It doesn't as far as I know have the same controversial nature to describe the atrocities as the term genocide, and it seems to carry quite a bit of the negative yet neutral point of view that it seems is deserved. I am wondering if the term was maybe even coined to refer to these very events. I wonder if anyone agrees that this is an interesting first step.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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)

Belgian Historians revisited

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)

You should read the above discussions, where this issue was previously addressed. There are four editors (aside from myself) who have expressed that historians should be labeled by their nationality only if reliable sources do so. Otherwise, to give them their nationality next to their claim implies some sort of bias that has not been confirmed. One editor (who was banned) dissented from this line of thought. Keep in mind that this article does not only cite Belgians. Adam Hochschild is British, and Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja is Congolese. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Four is not a huge number comparing how many people refer to wikipedia. Facts cannot be under the *mercy* of four editors. Addition of the nationality of David Van Reybrouck is especially important because his tone of rejecting the genocide claims is strongest as he used the word "absurd". In other words, it would be hiding some facts readily available to us from the readers. Besides addition of the nationality of the historian by no means implies bias. You can look at the numerous examples I have provided where the nationalities of the people commenting on the issue is included. Editors on wikipedia cannot comment on bias, we are here to summarise the existing literature. If Van Reybrouck is biased in any way, the upcoming publications will discredit him rather than the addition of his nationality to the text. If he is discredited we will remove him as a source altogether rather than insert his nationality.
"One editor (who was banned) dissented from this line of thought." Are you threatening me for trying to insert a fact to the article?
As long as the NPOV tag remains, "content should not be changed unless new consensus is reached" means that the consensus is actually wrong. If you believe the consensus is accurate, start a motion to remove the tag. Otherwise it falls on the editors to correct the NPOV. 82.6.166.23 (talk) 18:33, 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)

If the tag is outdated what makes you think that the unanimous consensus is not outdated? What makes you believe this page is any different than the numerous pages as I cited above? Finally what makes you believe adding the nationality of the historians cause bias on the readers?
If you believe the tag is outdated, you can carry out a motion to remove the tag. However, as long as it stands there, it is editors' responsibility to improve the article.
If you need a clear statement of the points, all the articles I cited above do not carry NPOV tag, hence they can be used as an example and the nationality of the Belgian historian should be included. If you believe including the nationality of all historians is necessary, I will not oppose it, even though usually (but not always) the nationalities of the quoted people are included if there is reason to believe that they *might* be impartial and this doesn't mean they will be impartial. However, as it is, we only have the articles with no NPOV tag to guide us, unless you can provide an explicit wiki policy which prohibits inclusion of historian nationalities.131.111.5.155 (talk) 19:25, 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):

  1. The section on genocide should identify Van Reybrouck as Belgian. -- added on behalf of 131.111.5.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- Elphion (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Removing the quote "According to historian Timothy J. Stapleton, "Those who easily apply the term genocide to Leopold's regime seem to do so purely on the basis of its obvious horror and the massive numbers of people who may have perished."[91]" to pro "not genocide" paragraph. Starting the pro genocide paragraph with this sentence reduces credibility of all the information to be presented in this paragraph, hence causing NPOV.
  3. Double checking the quote including the word hecatomb. I am convinced per discussion below. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. Casement report is only barely discussed.
  5. An answer to Mark Twain, the response composed by Leopold's staff is entirely missing.

Discussion

Ad point (1): as mentioned above, the professional evaluation of whether "genocide" is appropriate has historians of many nationalities on both sides, so identifying Van Reybrouck as Belgian serves no purpose other than to suggest (without proper reference) that he is biased. Recommend that this point be stricken. -- Elphion (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Per Elphion and previous discussions, strike the point until we have a reliable source that discusses a connection between nationality and historiography on the issue. As for the other points made by the IP: Firstly, I was not threatening you with a ban. I was simply pointing out that the one editor who supported a certain viewpoint is no longer able to edit Wikipedia, thus they cannot be further consulted. Secondly, in regards to "Facts cannot be under the *mercy* of four editors", you may want to read WP:CONSENSUS. As of this moment, no larger community has overridden our decision to withhold nationality. There is no policy that requires such an identification. Thirdly, you state As long as the NPOV tag remains, "content should not be changed unless new consensus is reached" means that the consensus is actually wrong. You should keep in mind that the only reason the tag was never removed was because consensus was not reached specifically to remove it. This does not mean that the consensus surrounding the appending of nationality, an outgrowth of the POV discussion, is wrong. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

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:

  • Armenian Genocide "Contemporary Turkish historian Uğur Ümit Üngör asserts that..."
  • First Opium War "Chinese historians estimate 30–40% of the Qing forces were armed with firearms."

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)

A word on the "(it was not published)" point: Stapleton points out in his book that the manuscript was not published. That's why I added the note, because the reliable secondary source thought it was relevant to add. And this raises the question as to why the manuscript was not published: Was Lemkin not finished with it? Was he uncertain if it was worthy of publishing? Did he just never get around to it? If it had been published, it probably would have gotten more attention from academics and in the press. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not criticising your decision. I would have criticise you if you had withheld that information from the reader, however we can think of a way better than giving it in parentheses. To me, writer nationality is not really different, we are still withholding information that the reader may decide to be relevant. We shouldn't be deciding this for the reader. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The key difference here is that the source mentioned that the manuscript was not published, while the other sources that have talked about differing historians opinions have not mentioned their nationality. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:17, 26 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

  1. Double check the quote and any relevant discussion by the writer himself focusing on this choice of metaphor.
  2. Check if the phrase hecatomb was ever used by English native speaker historians or other scholars in this manner, i.e., massacring people at large scale.
  3. If we fail to find any relevant mention in step 2, we should remove the quote and any work from this writer, simply because suggesting the dead people are cattle and atrocities are sacrifices implies obvious bias. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, it is quite clear from the Hecatomb article you linked that (as supported by this citation to Encyclopedia Britannica) that the term can be used to refer to the large-scale destruction of people. The author is obviously speaking metaphorically. I do not sincerely believe he was comparing the Congolese to cattle. "Holocaust" is also derived from a term meaning animal sacrifice, but that doesn't in anyway diminish the obvious horror of the genocide in Europe. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry but if no other native speaker historian or scholar has used this word in this way, your source means nothing. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
What source "means nothing"? If you're talking about the dictionary, both Collins and Merriam-Webster offer similar definitions. Just because you don't like the word doesn't mean it should be removed. Van Reybrouck is using the word in a perfectly legitimate manner, and we are quoting him on it to explain his views on the atrocities. You have failed to provide any compelling reason to remove the quote. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I care little if the quote is removed. I am more interested in legitimate use of hecatomb by a native speaking historian to describe a similar manner. Besides [Cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=hecatomb] does not have such a word, so extending the definition to human massacres is at best vague. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster definition gives as example WSJ article about the effects of communism. That seems to fit your criteria. Zoocat56 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring to the quote that include's Van Reybrouck's use of the term "hecatomb". And I don't see how you can be so dismissive of two dictionaries and an encyclopedia (all well established and well-known) because one dictionary doesn't carry mention of the word. It's fairly obvious what Van Reybrouck means. But since dictionaries and encyclopedias don't seem to convince you, here is a quote from political scientist Simukai Tinhu in The Zimbabwe Independent: "Mnangagwa is allegedly responsible for the largest post-colonial massacre, known as Gukurahundi in which more than 20 000 people were killed. And later, together with Vice-President Constantino Chiwenga, he orchestrated another hecatomb in 2008, resulting in the deaths of more than 270 opposition activists. An article in the Telegraph uses the word to refer to a large number of deaths, as does an op-ed in The New York Times. Timothy J. Stapleton in his 2017 work, A History of Genocide in Africa (page 88) actually takes note of Van Reybrouck's choice, saying, "A recent best-selling history of the Congo suggests the use of another term to describe the tragedy of the Congo Free State [as opposed to "genocide"]." -Indy beetle (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I crossed the item out per your and Zoocat's points. Thank you. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Twain Quotations in Historiography

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)

You failed to proved a title in the talk page. I have corrected it for you.
Back to the point, Twain is not just a novelist, he is a journalist lived in that era. Quoting Twain for Atrocities in Congo is no different than quoting Al-Jazeera in a recent event. Twain's writing pre-dates 1948 definition of genocide so obviously he could not have used the word genocide. However he explicitly states "wipe out a nation", which is again explicitly stated in UN 1948 genocide definition. Finally, Twain, with his satirical work, was accepted as a reliable source for death toll. I fail to understand why he is not appropriate for the historiography section. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure when Twain's satirical book was added a source for death numbers, but it is certainly inappropriate, as the book is, at it's heart, a work of fiction. Also, quoting Twain a la King Leopold's Soliloquy is more analogous to quoting The Onion than a reputable newspaper. Just because he did solid work in other areas doesn't mean this is a good source. All points referenced to it should be removed. Their inclusion damages this article instead of helping it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the concept of The Onion. Satire is different than absurd. There is no reason not to accept satirical writings as a source. At least, to the best of my knowledge, as long as the work itself is reliable, there is no wikipedia policy discrediting a word simply because it is a satire. Moreover, the work was actually requested by British Congo Reform Association. [1] There is no reason to think that Twain himself did not reach first hand sources before composing his work. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'm failing to convey here...The entire book is framed as a monologue delivered by King Leopold, an entirely made-up, fictitious monologue that Leopold never said. It is thus unreliable and most unsuitable for use in this way. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You are claiming that a satire cannot be used as a source but you fail to provide wikipedia policies to support your point. It is not just any satire, it was written by the request of British Congo Reform Association. By discrediting the satire, you are also discrediting the NGO working on this particular issue. It was cited before and there is no reason not to cite it again. If it helps you, you can consider that work as a journalist report on how it was perceived at that time, written in a satirical manner. Besides, neither me, nor the article claims Leopold actually said those words, so your point on the monologue not being delivered is irrelevant. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 04:00, 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)

Monologues being fiction does not make the work fiction. It is actually widely regarded as an important source for the relevant atrocities. Your John Oliver example is not accurate, as A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo is at best a farce, not a satire. That pamphlet is commissioned by an NGO and Twain wrote it as a satire. He could have chosen to write in any other way. His choice of style by no means discredit his work and the NGO. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 04:39, 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)

The very same section includes political discussions as well. Parliamentarians are not academics. If the only problem with Twain is him not being a scholar, we need to overhaul the entire section rather than removing the recently added information with appropriate resources. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
My point was that yes the political discussions do not belong in this section. One could overhaul the section by using the Twain quotation and political discussions as an early and modern example of genocide accusation by non-acedemics but I don't feel that this adds anything to the article. To me the Twain quote doesn't carry much weight because as a satire you don't know if he was using exaggeration or if Twain really thought that genocide was Leopold's motivation, also as far as I know Twain was not in any better position to know this than modern academics. Zoocat56 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Zoocat on this one, although the House of Commons motion does at least seem more relevant because it makes an actual accusation of "genocide". Twain does not make any such accusation, and due to the satirical nature of his book, it's almost certain that he was exaggerating everything to lambaste Leopold for the Congo's situation. Twain's quote has been connected to the UN definition of genocide without a secondary source that actually establishes the comparison, and this is, as previously stated, synthesis in violation of WP:Original Research. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Addition: We should note that Twain satirically says in Leopold's voice that he wished to "wipe a nation of friendless creatures out of existence by every form of murder, for my private pocket's sake, and how every shilling I get costs a rape, a mutilation or a life." I reason that this is near-certain exaggeration because most of the academics, such as Nzongola-Ntalaja, Hochschild, and Van Reybrouck say it was not Leopold's intention "to wipe a nation of friendless creatures out of existence", they just say he didn't care. Weisborg disagrees (saying the Free State wanted to eliminate "a portion" of the population), but I think Stapleton encapsulates the main locus of the genocide debate well: "Those who easily apply the term genocide to Leopold's regime seem to do so purely on the basis of its obvious horror and the massive numbers of people who may have perished." -Indy beetle (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Satire never means it is irrelevant. Twain reflects how atrocities in Congo is perceived in the rest of the world. Besides, had it been only an unrelated satire, Leopold would not care to respond to the accusations in the satire (almost) personally. Note that this crucial information, i.e., Leopold's response to Twain is missing from the article as well. Casement report is only barely mentioned as a further reading while it should be the main focus of the international awareness section. I will insert these when I find the most suitable position.
The problem we are facing is that we are spending so much time discussing addition of relevant information rather than discussing which vital information is missing. If we remove the Twain quote without finding it a more suitable position, we will be deliberately withholding information from the readers.
Finally, the tone of the genocide discussions section suggests even discussing the word genocide is absurd. Yet, the quoted historians, with the exception of the Belgian historian, try to emphasise that "these events cannot be considered to be acts of genocide because of technicality". Currently, the article fails to give this idea to the readers. This is why we should try to expand the "pro genocide" idea without losing the focus that historians overwhelmingly believe this opinion is wrong. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You should review WP:UNDUE. And intent is not a "technicality". Van Reybrouck uses "absurd" because it makes no sense to accuse Leopold of wanting to exterminate the population -- it would have cut too deeply into his profits. Leopold can certainly be faulted for pretending to have any interest in the welfare of the native population, and even more so for giving the Force Publique free rein in the methods used to extract goods, but extermination was never his aim. Murder requires intent; without it you have only homicide. Much the same relationship informs genocide vs humanitarian disaster. -- Elphion (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Van Reybrouck's reasoning seems to be in line with other scholars who reject allegations of genocide; there was no intent to eliminate the Congolese, it just happened as a result of the administration's and corporations' violent methods and an overall neglect for the welfare of the Congolese people. If you are seeking "a more suitable position" for a mention of Twain's book overall (not the quote specifically), than by all means it belongs in the "Investigation and international awareness" section. But we need a secondary source (which I'm sure will be easy to find) to establish that it was an important critique of Leopold and the Free State. I'm not saying that by virtue of being satire the document itself is wholly irrelevant. What I am saying is that a likely exaggerating mockery of Leopold framed in a fictional manner (i.e. the made-up monologue, even though it deals with a real, serious topic) is not an example of historiography and does in no way offer a genuine interpretation of how the atrocities can be compared to genocide. No academic that we have found so far has interpreted Twain's satirical words to be a serious suggestion of Leopold's wishes, and no academic has compared what he has said to the UN convention. The comparison made between Twain's words and the UN convention was your opinion, not that of an author of a reliably published secondary source. The opinions of editors like you or me cannot be used to draft critical analysis of text in the body of an article, a la Wikipedia prohibiting original research.
As for the Casement report, I just added information the other day about his tour of the Congo and when we finished his report. I don't think it would be out of order to expand the international awareness section. We could add how Casement deliberately took precautions to avoid Free State oversight, or how Williams was frequently discouraged by administrators not to go on his own tour. But this shall require reliable secondary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This is like the fifth time I am saying this, but Mark Twain is not just a novelist, he is a journalist as well and he is a PRIMARY SOURCE. The secondary sources use primary sources to make deductions. I fail to comprehend how a secondary source cannot be considered in historiography. Yet, as long as this quote is included in the article, I don't care where it is. If you can find a more suitable location for it, you are welcome to change it.
As for satire, I am tired to say it over and over. It is not a satire, it is a work of journalism reflecting how atrocities in Congo was perceived in western societies written in the form of a satire. It was commissioned by Congo Reform Association. You cannot discredit the NGO active during that period. If you do, you are deliberately withholding information from the readers. I contacted historians in University of Cambridge. At least one of them will include Twain definition fits in 1948 genocide definition of UN in one of his upcoming lectures. Until then, I will not re-include it.
About Belgianity of Van Reybrouck, you do the very same thing as well. Please tell me how this wikipedia article is different than all the pages I quoted above? Why are so adamant to hide readily available information from the readers? 131.111.5.154 (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, Twain was a journalist, but he was also a writer and author in general, and he never went to the Congo to take hold of the situation. At the time of writing the soliloquy, he had Morel's King Leopold's Rule in Africa and the Memorial Concerning Conditions in the Independent State of the Kongo. Thus, it seems he relied on other accounts to create his pamphlet, rather than his own research. Also, it is factually inaccurate to say the the the work was "commissioned by Congo Reform Association". He wrote it, and when Harper refused to publish it, he gave it to the association. The nationality of the historian argument has already been amply discussed but I'll restate the current consensus here: unless reliable secondary source(s) list the historians' nationality, particularly if they say it has a connection to the nature of the historians' work, the historians' nationality should not be mentioned. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
And as for your instance that the soliloquy is such a factual work, here's an quote from Hunt Hawkins' article, Mark Twain's Involvement with the Congo Reform Movement: "A Fury of Generous Indignation, in The New England Quarterly: "The Soliloquy ended with Leopold reading from a supposed reformist pamphlet (actually invented by Twain..." So, while Twain probably consulted genuine reports on the Congolese situation, he also "invented" material in the book. And this is supposed to be treated as historiography? -Indy beetle (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, you say the soliloquy is "is not a satire". This would appear to be a reversal of your previous stance; perhaps I'm wrong about that. But reliable sources seem to disagree with you. Linda A. Morris writes in A Companion to Satire: Ancient and Modern (2008) p. 394 that "Twain's anti-imperialist satire is even fiercer in King Leopold's Soliloquy: A Defense of his Congo Rule (1905)." David E. E. Sloane writes in Student Companion to Mark Twain (2001) p. 168 that the book is a "satiric soliloquy, or dramatic monologue...The original publication was accompanied by documentary pictures of mutilated Africans, a 'journalistic' expose, as well as a satire...[Twain] used harsh satire..." Notice how Sloane puts the word journalistic in quotation marks. A note in Victorian Literature: An Anthology (2014) p. 166 says "see also Mark Twain's bitter satire, King Leopold's Soliloquy (1905)." According to an article in The Dalhousie Review p. 53, "King Leopold's Soliloquy, which Twain contributed outright to the Congo Reform Association in 1905, is the most elaborate and pitiless personal satire of his career. " According to these snippets from literary reviews of the era, not only did some contemporary reviewers consider it a satire (I counted at least 3; for example, The Athenaeum calls it "a trenchant satire"), apparently the book was sometimes published as King Leopold's Soliloquy: A Satire. Need I say more? -Indy beetle (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Bolding the word satire means nothing to me. You yourself make it your job to state that it is inaccurate just because it is a satire. I am saying it is irrelevant. Leopold consulted several times with Morel and missionaries who were in Congo. This negates your point. Finally, why are you trying to prevent readers obtaining this knowledge? How can you decide which information is more important?
I have stated numerous times that not a genocide is the overwhelming but not unanimous view of the historians. It is not our duty to state otherwise, yet it is our duty to present ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION. Please stop censoring others to push an agenda. It becomes harder to assume good faith with your edits. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 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)

I tend to agree that as presented it does not fit, but I also think it should be possible to add it given the right context. Twain is certainly notable enough. Maybe a slight rearrangement of the section would be best. I am not sure on whether it is WP:Undue or not. A sentence in the right context is not much, but if we use quotes then that gives him more weight. I am not really familiar enough with the article to make that call, I just participated in the recent GAR request. AIRcorn (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: who also commented at the GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping Aircorn. I agree that Twain does not belong in this section. If could potentially belong as part of a "In popular culture" section if there 2 or more example of this in popular culture (e.g. books, movies, songs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Philip S. Foner, Mark Twain: Social Critic (New York: International Publishers, 1958), p. 13, cited in Helen Scott's "The Mark Twain they didn't teach us about in school" (2000) in the International Socialist Review 10, Winter 2000, pp. 61–65, at [1]
I agree that it is absurd to confuse literature with historiography. They set out to do different things, and are not comparable. I am also not entirely sure why Mark Twain needs to be in article of this scope (though he would certainly fit in this article). For the same reason (and because the second article exists) I would be cautious about adding an "in popular culture" section here, especially considering these caveats.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a partial list of historians and anthropologists who use Twain as a source

  • "Light on the Dark Continent: The Photography of Alice Seely Harris and the Congo Atrocities of the Early Twentieth Century" by T. Jack Thompson in International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2002. cited by 20
  • "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II’s genocide in the Congo and the Vatican" by Robert Weisbord in Journal of Genocide Research, 2003. cited by 20
  • "Enlightenment and the ‘heart of darkness’: (neo)imperialism in the Congo, and elsewhere" by Ian Stronach, in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 2011. cited by 25.

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)

I shall respond to both what you have said further above and right here. Firstly: So now you agree it is satire? You saying "It is not a satire, it is a work of journalism" seems to negate your later statement that "it is irrelevant" whether or not the piece is satire. I think it is rather obvious that with a statement such as "wipe a nation of friendless creatures out of existence by every form of murder, for my private pocket's sake, and how every shilling I get costs a rape, a mutilation or a life," it matters a great deal if it came from a satirical work. Especially since the academics really seem to disagree with this propaganda piece's assumption that Leopold wanted to "wipe a nation of friendless creatures out of existence". Secondly, I've read two academic peer-reviewed articles on Twain's writings on the Congo (Mark Twain on the Congo and Mark Twain's Involvement with the Congo Reform Movement: "A Fury of Generous Indignation"); neither mention this quote when they discuss the soliloquy. You have listed several reliable sources that cite Twain as a source (what is it they are citing, the Soliloquy?). What are the citing him to support, exactly? Matters of fact surround Leopold's motives, or are they using his work as examples of the Congo Free State propaganda war? Let me summarize my argument about the why the inclusion of this quote is incorrect, especially in the Historiography and the term "genocide" section:
  • King Leopold's Soliloquy is a work of satire. It even includes stage directions (hence the alternative classification as a "dramatic monologue"). It is not a work of historical literature. Thus a claim that it is historiographic is weak.
  • The actual quote itself says nothing of the word "genocide".
  • As evidenced by its lack of mention and discussion in the two peer-reviewed articles, or any of the other works cited in this article, the quote does not have any historiographic significance (unless you can provide a reliable source that would show otherwise). "Relevance" here is determined by what the secondary sources say, because it's a discussion of historiography.
  • This particular quote actually reads in full as follows "They tell it all: how I am wiping a nation of friendless creatures out of existence by every form of murder, for my private pocket's sake, and how every shilling I get costs a rape, a mutilation or a life." "They" are his critics; Twain is interpreting what Leopold's critics were saying. You have put in this Wikipedia article that "Mark Twain suggests Leopold's motives were to "wipe a nation of friendless creatures out of existence by every form of murder, for my private pocket's sake, and how every shilling I get costs a rape, a mutilation or a life."" In reality, Twain is not saying anything about Leopold's motives. He's paraphrasing what the critics are saying about the Congolese situation. This is a statement of what was occurring (whether or not it was true), not what was intended, which seems to be the basis of your argument for inclusion of this in the discussion about genocide. After all, the academics who reject the genocide allegation do so because of the lack of intention from Free State authorities to deliberately hemorrhage the population demographics of the Congo.
You say "Please stop censoring others to push an agenda." What agenda is it I'm pushing exactly? Also worth noting that you say "others" as if I were acting against a consensus formed by a group of people. Let's review what the "others" in this discussion have said about the inclusion of this quote under the Historiography section:
  • Aircorn: "I tend to agree that as presented it does not fit, but I also think it should be possible to add it given the right context. Twain is certainly notable enough. Maybe a slight rearrangement of the section would be best. I am not sure on whether it is WP:Undue or not."
  • Barkeep49: "I agree that Twain does not belong in this section. I[t] could potentially belong as part of a "In popular culture" section if there 2 or more example of this in popular culture (e.g. books, movies, songs)."
  • Brigade Piron: "I agree that it is absurd to confuse literature with historiography. They set out to do different things, and are not comparable. I am also not entirely sure why Mark Twain needs to be in article of this scope (though he would certainly fit in this article). For the same reason (and because the second article exists) I would be cautious about adding an "in popular culture" section here, especially considering these caveats."
So am I acting against what others are saying? I don't think so. You are, however, acting against what others are saying by consistently reverting me to include this quote in the section. Funny of you to "remind" me of WP:3RR when you insist on Wikipedia:Edit warring the quote in against consensus. Now, as for the consensus on the omission of nationality of the historians, here is what the other editors have had to say on this talk page, aside from myself:
  • Brigade Piron: "the nationality of the writers we cite is absolutely irrelevant unless another reliable source raises the issue."
  • Midnightblueowl: "I disagree with [the] view that we have to state the nationality of the historians being cited; certainly, there are no Wikipedia policies urging us to do so and I am not aware of any reliable sources which emphasise the impact of a scholars' national identity on the historical study of this issue."
  • Slatersteven: 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.
  • Elphion "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." and "as mentioned above, the professional evaluation of whether "genocide" is appropriate has historians of many nationalities on both sides, so identifying Van Reybrouck as Belgian serves no purpose other than to suggest (without proper reference) that he is biased."
As a note on what Elphion says, I would like to know where they got "Hochschild is on record as calling out several Belgian historians for watering down the seriousness of what happened in the Congo". I have yet to find such a claim in King Leopold's Ghost, but if I do it obviously should be mentioned. Perhaps Hochschild wrote about it in a nother work.
I think this address everything. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for finally providing something worth answering.
First point, those writers quoted soliloquy. You can check how and why they use it from the given texts. Secondly, Mark Twain reflects how atrocities in Congo was perceived by the western media. His work was instrumental in the events transpired in 1908. Therefore, it is relevant. Thirdly, I am not adamant to have this quote is historiography, as long as we find a more suitable place within this article. Note that Congolese genocide Google search redirects to this page and we need to present all relevant information, including Mark Twain's. Keep in mind that one other user suggested "Twain is certainly notable enough. Maybe a slight rearrangement of the section would be best. I am not sure on whether it is WP:Undue or not." Thus, as long as we find some place for that quote, I will not push it to be in that particular section. Note that I can just search for a historian quoting that exact quotation from soliloquy and add it with double reference to fit this into your historiography definition. This is time consuming, but doable.
Moving to the writer nationality, all I see is that editors in this page erroneously come to a conclusion. Editors are humans and four of them can easily make the same mistake. I gave seven wikipedia pages above, most notably Armenian Genocide. Being under constant protection and hundreds of editors watching the page, it gives a good reflection on how to proceed in this situation. Mentioning the writer nationality is an unwritten tradition of the Wikipedia. Editors have a task to reveal all relevant information to the readers and unlike the four editor of this page, writer nationality is considered relevant by the overwhelming majority of the editors. So, as long as you can convince me this article is somewhat different than all the other wikipedia articles I listed above, I will keep pushing writer nationality, regardless of how many people objects to it.
By the way, after I listed several points above, I stopped adding Belgian in the article. I waited for other responses, however, no one actually responded to all points other than stating "We came to a conclusion before". If you are unwilling to discuss, what is the point of me writing several points in the talk page?
As a final point and as a gesture of good will, I will not object the protection being lifted and the Twain quotation being removed, as long as you suggest me somewhere more suitable in the same article that we can insert it.
Cheers. 131.111.5.155 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Note that Congolese genocide Google search redirects to this page and we need to present all relevant information, including Mark Twain's. I think you should take note that we are not beholden to any external outlet when producing our content; we are governed by our own policies and consensus.
Seeing as one of the academic articles that discussed Twain's Congo work said that King Leopold's Soliloquy elicited a significant response in the United States, I'd be fine mentioning the publishing of the work in the article under the Investigation and international awareness section. However, I'd object to using the direct quote. No academic work I've found has pointed to that quote as specifically important; in my research so far I've only seen it included in large passage quotations. Perhaps you've found otherwise? It would be arbitrary then to single out this quote as somehow more significant than anything else Twain says in the book. And even if we did find a direct quote, we do have a sub article, Congo Free State propaganda war, for a reason. It would certainly be relevant to add there, but here it might be WP:UNDUE. Note that we have already mentioned Twain's involvement in the reform campaign, as well as Morel's, Conrad's, and Doyle's yet we don't quote their works (except for Morel's estimation on the population loss). Congo Free State propaganda war is the proper place to flesh out discussion of these public figures' activism.
As for the author nationality, you say, I waited for other responses, however, no one actually responded to all points other than stating "We came to a conclusion before". If you are unwilling to discuss, what is the point of me writing several points in the talk page? Note that when I pinged the other editors for discussion I said "also take note of the above conversation on historians' nationality". None of them engaged in this topic, though I tried. My views on this matter are already well represented in the above discussions—in my own comments—which you can clearly see, so I have little more to explain. You say Moving to the writer nationality, all I see is that editors in this page erroneously come to a conclusion. Editors are humans and four of them can easily make the same mistake. This is true, but before you start calling our view "erroneous" keep in mind that perhaps you could just as likely be the one who has erroneously come to a conclusion. The local consensus on omitting academic nationality in lieu of the importance of it being made clear (or even being mentioned, for that matter) in a reliable secondary source stands, and the only way it could be changed would be citing a policy on the matter (which we do not have) or showing proof of a wider consensus to the contrary (which does not exist). Since you are alone in your opinion on the nationality, the only way you're going to have a chance of having the nationality added is if consensus for some reason changes. I wouldn't object to you calling an WP:RfC on the matter to get a wider range of views. You say I will keep pushing writer nationality, regardless of how many people objects to it. I'm not sure if you mean your personal opinion on the matter will not change or you will continuously edit or comment on the talk page on this matter. The former is of no concern to us; you are fully entitled to your own opinion on the matter. However, keep in mind once consensus has been made clear you cannot simply continue to push against it on the encyclopedia. Editors are expected to WP:DROPTHESTICK once a solid consensus has been reached. If for some reason the consensus did change in favor of adding nationality, I'd have my misgivings, but I would have to stop advocating for their omission. Actively violating consensus brings about bans. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Update: I've removed the Twain stuff again, because I think the consensus is quite apparent at this point that this is not how this stuff should be included. My above comments on how it may otherwise be mentioned—if at all—still stand, and I'm open to discussing them. I've also repinged the involved editors in the Twain discussion, if they want to further clarify their positions. @Aircorn:@Barkeep49:@Brigade Piron: -Indy beetle (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Who removed the NPOV tag?

131.111.5.154 (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Aircorn on April 4. El_C 11:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aircorn: The IP has reverted your action, citing no consensus. Perhaps the issue should be discussed. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to refer to me, either use my full IP, or the Cambridge IP. I have set five points above and only one of them is addressed, this is why I reverted it. Please check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove 131.111.5.155 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It was added for an issue that was found to have no consensus during a Good Article Review a year ago. As such it is no longer relevant for that issue. I have no problem with a more specific tag being added for the current dispute, although ideally some sort of consensus could be reached. AIRcorn (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Potential Source

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 were actually involved in the atrocities?

How many Belgians(ethnic germanics) were actually involved in performing the atrocities?

I don't think there is any source which says, and I don't think racializing responsibility would be helpful. However, based off of what the sources have said, it's probably safe to assume that most every person of authority in the administration or in a corporate concession (not all of whom were Belgian nationals), whatever number that is, bears some responsibility for the atrocities. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Edited the intro to make it clear that death by diseases were exacerbated by natives being forced to switch from regular crops to rubber.

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)

Well we may never know how many of the disease related deaths were the fault of the state. I've modified the language you added, since it wasn't a matter of "food policy" per se that weakened the population; it was wider social disruption (as the sources say), which to my understanding included food shortages because so much of the population was forced away from their regular livelihoods and had to perform labor for the concessions with paltry compensation. I don't think the Free State had a "food policy" - perhaps that was part of the problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned table

Europeans in the Congo during the government of Leopold II [1]
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

  1. ^ Sanderson, Jean-Paul (2010). "Chapter 2.1.2. La reconnaissance des chefferies". "La démographie du Congo sous la colonisation belge. p. 121.

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)

We are not an indiscriminate compilation of information and we do not seek to “stimulate debate”. This information belongs on the Congo Free State article, not here. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:50, 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)

Because it is irrelevant?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
What historians seem to have determined as far as what was relevant about Europeans and their number in the Congo al la the atrocities is that the colonial administration was minimal, and that much is said. To say more is WP:OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:52, 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)

The problem is that we'd be adding it because you think its important, not because a reliable source indicates that it is. That's original research. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
And in addition, Midofe1996 doesn't appear to be listening. As I indicated above, no one is arguing that the Europeans alone directly killed all the people who died. It was the conditions resulting from the colonial regime that led to the massive death toll. -- Elphion (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Removed again. -- Elphion (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I support Elphion's removal. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
I also support removal. --PJ Geest (talk) 10:24, 4 October 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)

We've already explained why we do not think that info belongs on this page; no reliable source has linked some sort of relationship between the demographic progress of Europeans over time and the atrocities in the Congo (beyond what is already mentioned; i.e. their presence was small). Do tell, what propagandic agenda do you think we are serving? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:00, 5 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)

  • In regards to because the Belgian government is accused of 10 million deaths, the article does not say that. The Belgian government was disinterested in the Congo and took over to prevent more atrocities (and public embarrassment). No one and nothing here is making such an accusation against the Belgian parliamentary regime. As for the "agenda" items you assume we have:
1- For European population figures and in terms of the responsibility of Belgian people, the article states, In 1900, there were just 3,000 white people in the Congo, of whom only half were Belgian. Make of that what you will. Second, I'm not seeing where we are exaggerating the atrocities. There we many witness accounts and reports of what happened. The debate surrounding the causes of population decline, the actual death toll, and whether or not genocide occurred is well represented. If you think that the numbers or crimes our exaggerated, you ought to produce some reliable sources which say such.
2- Err, what is "the real story"? Do you mean to suggest that the text of this article is "fictional"? First, please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Second, Leopold was in charge of this government, and sources accordingly hold him accountable for its performance. I have yet to find a good source which has tried to absolve the king of the atrocities. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Mass mutilation in the Congo, Epondo

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)

I will need others to decide if some of your sources are wp:rs or not, but this [[8]] is not as it is a wp:primary document. Nor am I sure that you are not cherry-picketing the guardian sources, which clearly comes down in favour of the "The hidden holocaust".Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 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)

MY mistake, that is still there, I got confused. The document is a primary source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 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)

Yes all of your additions are gone, as I am unsure about your additions, one source is not really usable, and I need others to check if the others are (as I do not have access to them) reliable, or support your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 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)


The commission d'enquete is a primary source, so it is not reliable in this context (wp:primary), you should use secondary sources, from well known historians. Johan Op de Beeck is not a good source because he is not even a historian and historians find his work biased (Drie historici lazen Johan Op de Beecks biografie van Leopold II: 'Dit boek is erg tendentieus' --PJ Geest (talk) 14:12, 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)

Hochschild is a historian (BA in History and Literature), Writer-in-Residence at the Department of History, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 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)

I have never heard of him, that was my point about never having seen their work (also please read wp:indent). As for Van Reybrouck, as I have also said. I have not read his work. But others undid it so they may have. I note you gave no page number for either source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 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)

For much the same reason, no page number and it was part of a larger edit that uses primary sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Epondo case seems WP:UNDUE here. This is not the article on the Casement Report (where points on its accuracy might be worth scholarly examination). I do not see how questioning the validity of one supposed mutilation victim in an article concerning the a 20-year period with deaths of thousands to millions (of which hundreds at a bare minimum were probably mutilated) is instructive. Try something like that at Holocaust and people would think you're a Nazi. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Also Hochschild, Van Reybrouck, and Daniel Vangroenweghe are all historians. I've read the former two. If Vangroenweghe wrote that the mutilation's were overblown that seems a perfectly fine thing to include, directly attributed and sourced, of course. As long as a historians' work isn't regarded as fringe I think it's fine to include it. There is such a lack of consensus on the atrocities in the CFS that we have to try and weigh all the significant viewpoints best we can, but we can't treat like on view is "right" and another is "wrong". -Indy beetle (talk) 17:30, 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)

Requested move 19 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

that's hardly a WP:RS—blindlynx 01:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extremely low numbers in the opening paragraph

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)

  • I agree that the lede was not accurate, but I disagree with your interpretation. 20 million was an estimate of the entire Congolese population, not the deaths. Modern estimates appear to range from 1.5 to 13 million, which is what I've written. And the reason why it would be outrageous to imagine such low numbers for the Holocaust is due to much better records being involved there; Europe had pre-war census records. The Congo did not. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    OK. Thank you for the clarification & making the change. —Jiaminglimjm (talk) 06:22, 23 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)

Wars about hands

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)

It's in Chapter 10, just after the fourth section break. -- Elphion (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Chapter 10, the wood that weeps?
Because I cannot see that particular statement about villages harvesting hands in other villages(ergo war) to give to soldiers as currency... LouisBStevenson (talk) 22:26, 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)

Ah thank you!
But is this the correct source then for the statement? It says that villages waged hand wars on each other so they could pay off the soldiers in hands. Maybe I am interpreting too much, but I always thought this meant that villagers went to other villages to cut off the hands of those people (out of desperation), so when soldiers would go to their own village for rubber quotas they could never meet, they would just pay them in the hands they cut off from other villagers, as a kind of bribe or something, so the soldiers would leave them alone.
What I read in this quote is marauders ( on CFS orders I presume) who attacked a village, killed/shot people and cut off hands from their corpses, which is a different thing is it not? Its also an effect of the same policy, but not the same thing as the hand wars quote. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:59, 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)

I would personally suggest using an other source that clearly states exploited villagers were so desperate they started attacking other villages to gather hands to bribe force publique soldiers, or removing the sentence alltogether.
There must be a better, more clear and unambiguous source. 90.145.171.39 (talk) 16:53, 12 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)

Very poor state of sources in Population decline section

I have copied this over from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Two quick things. "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. Yeah Gibbs isn't being used to support a 10 million claim. He's being used to support "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." I'm not sure how that confused you.
Secondly re Lemkin's figure: 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. Academics quote other academics all the time. The figure is Lemkin's. By your logic, we could never use one source to quote anyone else. Also, you misunderstand the "unpublished" thing. The source immediately cited is Schaller's paper, which is published. But historians, journalists, etc. consult unpublished material (archived documents, diaries, etc.) all the time. What would be disallowed would be directly citing Lemkin's manuscript, since it's not been published and therefore would not be accessible to the public. But since Schaller and Stapleton have consulted his writings and published their findings on what he said, we can use that. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion regarding the 10 million claim. As I said in the beginning, this was copied over from my response to Elphion on the Leopold II article, and he used this section to defend the 10 million figure on that page. My criticism of Gibbs as a source is less relevant to this page, except that I maintain Gibb's assessment of the consensus thirty years ago would not necessarily be the consensus today.
I don't think that I misunderstand. Indeed, historians use unpublished sources all the time, but those are primary sources. It is not appropriate to play telephone by citing an unpublished secondary source in order to pass it off as published. "But since Schaller and Stapleton have consulted his writings and published their findings on what he said, we can use that." It is not apparent to me that this is what is happening- have you reviewed the source? Schaller is merely describing the views of Lemkin. "In Lemkin’s eyes, the imposition of Belgian colonial rule in the Congo and the forced labour of the indigenous population that went with it was an unambiguous genocide. He estimated that 75% of the Congolese population was “wiped out in the space of a few years.”36 His unpublished manuscript on the Belgian Congo is not only interesting in this regard but also reveals Lemkin’s perception of Africans". There is even a dialog box for Lemkin in the article right now. I do not see how posting direct quotations from an unpublished secondary source is excusable under the Wikipedia guidelines. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
We are not, we are using a published RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Schaller is a published RS on the views of Lemkin, and that would be a fine source for an article on Lemkin. Lemkin is not a published RS re the population decline in the Congo. It seems clear to me that Schaller is making a distinction between Lemkin's views and Schaller's own views. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please read wp:or and wp:rs, we do not analyze or second guess RS, we accept what they say has been fact-checked by them (it is why they are an RS). Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not second guessing Schaller's assessment of Lemkin's views. However, they are at best a tertiary source.
The Wiki policy is :"The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Schaller was only reporting Lemkin's views. Lemkin's unpublished opinions went through no "professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments."
The quote by Lemkin for the 75% population decline is a much greater percentage than those given by any of the other sources listed in the article. As Lemkin is out of the mainstream on this, we should expect a little higher standard, no?
To use Indy beetle's example, if Tommy wrote an article saying that Johnny had written an unpublished manuscript on the top secret aliens, it is not appropriate to use Tommy's quotations of Johnny's words as the source for the article on top secret aliens. Especially without noting the context of Johnny's words in the article. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
How do you know that, how can you know that? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Please specify what you're referring to. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
That you know " Lemkin's unpublished opinions went through no "professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments". Besides it is relevant as we do not know that Schaller did not check then. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Because Lemkin's manuscript was unpublished, it should be assumed that it did not go through any such process unless proven otherwise, per Wiki guidelines. Schaller's paper is not about the Congo, it is about "Raphael Lemkin’s view of European colonial rule in Africa". 50.253.11.17 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Citing published work ensures that information on Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Verifiability (this is the main purpose behind that requirement). What this protects against, for example is me citing "Top Secret Government Report on Aliens p. 3" to say aliens exist. Then when someone asks me, "Where did you get that source and can we check it?" I say "Sorry it's not published, I took a peak at it in a secret government facility, but you have to believe me!" In this case, the claims and quotes about Lemkin are available in published books and academic papers (Schaller and Stapleton in this case) which theoretically you or anyone in the world could get access to either on the internet or in a handful of quality libraries. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    I do not see "Schaller and Stapleton" cited anywhere in the article, only Schaller, 2005. edit: nevermind, I see now that you mean Stapleton is a separate source on Lemkin's views, in a different section of the article than the one I am presently criticizing. THAT line in the article at least makes it clear that Lemkin's views are unpublished. "In an unpublished manuscript from the 1950s, Lemkin, coiner of the term "genocide", asserted the occurrence of "an unambiguous genocide" in the Free State, attributing most of the population decline to the repressive actions of colonial troops." edit 2: On closer inspection of Stapleton, Stapleton's only source on Lemkin is actually Schaller, 2005. I think it is fine to use Lemkin's unpublished words regarding his opinion that the incident was a genocide, as Lemkin is obviously notable on the subject of genocides, but it is not appropriate to use Lemkin's calculations for population reduction as they did not go through any kind of review, and apparently all we have is Schaller's short summary of his unpublished manuscript. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    Lemkin posited that 75% of the population was killed. - This is the only estimate made by Lemkin that's mentioned, it's not even a raw number. That there is disagreement about the actual number of deaths is made quite clear, and while I personally disagree with some his conclusions, I don't see why his claims aren't at least significant. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    I am not sure what you mean by "a raw number" or how that's relevant. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
    And I'm not sure how your objections are relevant to this information being included on this page. You seem focused on winning an argument with another user on a different page. You need to see what sources that page is using. Your criticism over there is well founded, but you are attempting to criticize this page for something it does not say (consensus for 10 million deaths). Continue your discussion over there, and bring relevant sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This needs closing as it is all based on wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. If reading the cited sources is "original research", then no article could be written. I have not performed original research nor proposed the inclusion of original research. I have only evaluated the sources that are already on the page to make sure that the source actually says what the Wiki article claims they're saying. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, what do we say they do not say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I will write a summary of my proposed changes to the section later when I have time. Please do not move to have this discussion closed until then. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Or you could just give one example of where say something that is not supported by a source. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Table of European population during the period of Leopold II

Europeans in the Congo during the government of Leopold II [1]
Years Number of europeans
1890 430
1895 1076
1900 1958
1910 3399

References

  1. ^ Sanderson, Jean-Paul (2010). "Chapter 2.1.2. La reconnaissance des chefferies". "La démographie du Congo sous la colonisation belge. p. 121.

Civilian attack template

@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)

I see, I suppose I was mistaken, though reading Template:Infobox civilian attack and seeing all the parameters like "defendants" "time" and "weapons" and the example usage being the 1993 WTC bombing imply this should be used for specific single instances. It was the "attack type" parameter that jumped out at me here. I feel it is difficult to summarize this years-long sequence of events in the Congo by "attack types", since the problems of the Congo Free State during had several origins, the most important one being a coercive forced labor system, which isn't exactly an "attack", though it included individual attacks and reprisals on locals. The strongly-related demographic decline of the Congo during this time had causes which were rooted in the labor system but weren't caused by deliberate "attacks" e.g. famine due to food shortages because people had to go collect rubber instead of growing crops. "Colonialism" isn't an attack either per se. Maybe the more generic Template:Infobox event would be better? I don't know. The purpose of an infobox is to give a concise summary, I'm just not sure how to do that here. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is atrocious quality

So many segments have zero sources whatsoever, or are entirely irrelevant. 80.195.3.151 (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Aside from the lede, all sections have at least one source (all actually have multiple sources), and your aside about "irrelevant" material means nothing without further explanation. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State/Archive_1&oldid=1186193802"