This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
I wonder why the article claims a death toll range of between 1.5 and 13 million. The article states that the 13 million estimate was changed to 10 million after the release of Leopolds Ghost, rendering it obsolete. This 10 million claim by Hochschild was then discarded by its own source, Jan Vansina. Why are these outdated estimates still there at the start of this article? Should we not use the most recent scientific estimates available? 82.163.44.156 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is important to state the difference between a death toll and a population decline, which is a broader term. I think it would, based on the latest research(if the 2020 research is indeed the latest), be more appropriate to put something like: population decline: at least 1.5 million 82.163.44.156 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the death toll estimate in the introduction, but someone reverted it to the original sentence(without sources). Instead of starting an editing war, it would be best to discuss this. The 13 million estimate was retrected by Nziem, so it is not clear why you would post it as a valid estimate. The 10 million has also been retracted by Jan Vansina, the source for Hoschshild. The most recent estimate based on specialized demographic research is a population decline of 1.5 million.
Especially considering the death toll on the genocide of native australians page, for instance, is based on the latest research. As it should. Old discarded estimates are interesting to be noted, but not more than that, especially if they are older(over 20 or 30 years old) and discarded by their original sources, while very recent specialized demographic research from 2020 is available. LouisBStevenson (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a little more here? Not that I've been paying especially close attention to this topic in a few years, but when did Vansina and Hoschild revise their estimates (sources)? I mostly agree with you on a preference for the most recent scholarly work, but Lauro Amandine's 2020 contribution is but one of many scholarly voices on this very controversial subject and to use her estimate in the lede to entirely replace a range of estimates may imply that there's a historiographic consensus on her figure when that has not been demonstrated. Also would prefer her work being properly represented in the Population Decline/Estimates section before being incorporated into the lede. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To start, there is a little bit of a misunderstaning with regards to the Amandine contribution. She is a historian but is not the actual author, but the one of the compilers, because this book is a bundle. The book is the result of an international collaboration of over 30 experts on both the CFS and the Belgian Congo(one of which is actually Ndaywel e Nziem, who previously claimed estimates of 13 and 10 million). This team delivered the content for this book, with each expert writing (part of) one or more chapters in the book. I am hesitant to use the word "consensus"(who decides that? What about historians that already passed away?), but it is as close as you could perhaps possibly get.
Jan Vansina discarded the 10 million claim in the 2010 book "The Kuba Experience in Rural Congo 1880-1960(page 145-)". Hochschilds estimate was based on the older work from Vansina. LouisBStevenson (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't need sources when summarizing content given in more detail in the article body, per MOS:LEADCITE. In the case, the relevant detailed content is in the "Estimates" section. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to change the lead adapt that section first (with sources of course). Possibly sources estimating between 10 and 13 million might be challenged as being outdated, but of course it would need careful evidence to establish that. From a quick look at this section, I don't think an upper estimate below 10 million has a realistic chance of being established, there is just too much contrary research. Gawaon (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the Amandine thing; the scholar who contributed the chapter (who?) then should be considered the source of that figure for deaths/population decline. That it was included in a compilation doesn't necessarily mean the other contributors in the work "endorse" it, chances are they weren't asked to offer a professional opinion about it one way or the other. With regards to the lead, I second Gawaon's point about LEADCITE. It's also just not very good form to write new content in the lead without it being represented in the body text of the article, since the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the book itself they did endorse the content, actually, that was the point of the book. Anyway, at the Genocide of Native australians page the estimate is purely the latest research number, and its the only estimate visible on that page, so apparently a consensus is not necessary, or that page has to be changed.
Secondly, in the body of the article it is clearly explained that the estimate of 13 million was retracted by the authoer(Nziem) itself, so that 13 million claim has to be removed from the intro. The body of this page states that both the 10 million claim and the 13 million claim have been retracted by the original sources.So even if we say that there is no consensus, these 2 claims are obsolete an this should be mentioned, as it is explained in the body of the page. Because now we have an intro that states an estimate of 13 million like this is a valid estimate while this estimate has been retracted by Nziem himself. LouisBStevenson (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. in nouvelle histoire du congo from 2009 he mentions an estimate of between 5 to 10 million. This has not been added to the page, i now see. LouisBStevenson (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway. The 13 million of Nziem has been retracted by Nziem himself. This is stated in the body, and therefore the 13 million has to be removed from the intro.He later gives an estimate of between 5 and 10, and in 2020 no longer gives estimate, but goes along with the estimate given in the bundle.
Jan Vansina retracted has 10 million claim in 2010 in the being colonized book(page 145).
Hochschild does not give his own estimate, he merely used the one by Vansina.
As other pages use the latest research as base for their estimate, I would suggest this page does so too. Otherwise we are using a double standard, especially when using claims in the lead that are not even supported by the rest of the page. LouisBStevenson (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Vansina ever gave an estimate of 10 million, but estimated a 50% reduction. Hochschild is the one who converted this to 10 million. If I'm wrong I would appreciate a reference. Zoocat56 (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the population decline section; I think it does a fair job of discussing the various theories, much better than the changes you are proposing. The actual decline under the Free State regime is unknowable at this point, and various strands of evidence point to different figures, and to different results for different sectors of the population. The one fairly constant feature of the historical accounts is that the decline was dramatic. While different researchers pursue different lines of inquiry, I am troubled by your evident assumption that recent researchers somehow have a grooved path to the truth. They are but further data points on an uncertain canvas. -- Elphion (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No not the truth. But I am from a scientific background, and it is essential that the current state of research is reflected. Not all estimates are equal: a guess is not the same as hundreds of pages of specialized demographic research. The estimate of a PHD in demography is worth much more than that of a journalist etc. That is how science works, with evolving insight. When estimates have been retracted they should no longer be used. People are trying very hard to suggest that any estimate at any time by anyone bears as much weight, which is not true, and gives a biased idea.
Moreover as I said we should be consistent: if the estimate from the australian frontier wars page are based on 1 estimate that happens to be the most recent one, than we should not use double standards. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as brigade pigion already said in science more recent scientific research (barring evidence to the contrary), IS more reliable. The new estimate is based from an international collaboration with the section written by a PHD specialist in demography. Putting this on the same level as for instance an estimate from the 90s by someone not specialized in historic demography is completely illogical. LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the summary, as it's currently in the lead, is just wrong. The body actually said: "in 2020 proposed three possible scenarios of population decline under Leopold II, suggesting that the most likely scenario is a population decline of 1.2–1.5 million people, from 11.5 million people to around 10–10.3 million people during the Congo Free State period." So even within that study, there are two more scenarios with higher victim counts. We can't just single out one and ignore the others, that would be grossly WP:BIASed. I'll try to correct the lead to bring it into agreement with the sourced body. Gawaon (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dont change my parts without informing me. First of all, in the 2020 book the 5 million number in the 2020 book was discarded as extremely improbable in the chapter. The 1.2 million number was the only one that was considered reasonable. I will change it back. LouisBStevenson (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My changes, that you removed, was based on what Sanderson say's in his conclusion, as I referenced and is still the reference. Here is the concluding paragraph:
Dans le débat complexe sur l’impact du régime léopoldien, il semblait important de se livrer à un exercice chiffré ne fût-ce que pour définir les passés possibles – et plausibles. Selon ces calculs, la diminution de la population se situerait entre 1 et 5 millions d’individus. Pour aller plus loin, il faudrait pouvoir multiplier les travaux de démographie locale sur la période la plus ancienne de sorte à pouvoir les combiner, et à ainsi construire une connaissance démographique plus fine. Ce n’est qu’à ce prix qu’on pourra préciser davantage les scénarios possibles d’évolution de la population congolaise durant la période coloniale.
[In the complex debate over the impact of the Leopold regime, it seemed important to undertake a numerical exercise, if only to define possible—and plausible—pasts. According to these calculations, the population decline would be between 1 and 5 million individuals. To go further, it would be necessary to multiply local demographic studies on the earliest period so as to combine them, and thus build more detailed demographic knowledge. Only then will it be possible to further clarify the possible scenarios for the evolution of the Congolese population during the colonial period.]
— Jean-Paul Sanderson, Chapter 7 Le Congo colonial (2020) p.124
For those who have access to the Wikipedia Library this book is available in the "Numérique Premium" collection. An English translation is available in print. Since this is contradicts your edit, I will mark it as failing verification. Zoocat56 (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right, since this version fails verification, I'll change it back to the version that actually reflects the outcome of the study. Gawaon (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
