Talk:Leopold II of Belgium

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 16 January 2023 (→‎Requested move 16 January 2023: procedural close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

The lengthy introduction is excessive.

Elizabeth II has a one-sentence introduction. Henry VIII & Adolph Hitler have a one-paragraph introduction. I haven't looked at others, but the introduction for Leopold II seems very excessive. Readers simply do not need to read about HM Stanley, the Berlin Conference, etc. in the introduction.

I would recommend that the introduction be shortened to the following, with the changes/additions bolded:

.

Leopold II (Dutch: Leopold Lodewijk Filips Maria Victor; French: Léopold Louis Philippe Marie Victor; 9 April 1835 – 17 December 1909) was the longest-reigning Belgian monarch, reigning from 1865 to 1909.

In modern times, he is most well-known as being the namesake of Villa Leopolda, for his establishment of the Congo Free State, and for the many allegations of brutality during his reign of the Congo Free State. Although estimates vary, it is generally accepted that several million Congolese died during his reign -- primarily from disease, but also a significant number of deaths as a result of brutality, murder, and an impromptu monetary system that used severed hands instead of typical forms of currency, which led to militarized groups collecting hands from innocent victims for profit.

Although the term "genocide" has often used to describe the brutality of the Congo Free State, the events that took place fall short of meeting the criteria for such a description, most notably the intent to eradicate all or even most of the entire population.


.

If even this is viewed as being excessive, it could be ended after the first sentence of the second paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.37.102.223 (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view the current intro as excessively long. Per WP policy, It should be a good summary of the article. And in this case there's a lot to cover. -- Elphion (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the introduction should be shortened. I also think that the portion "through his own efforts, the owner and absolute ruler of the Congo Free State" is inaccurate and implies meritocracy. In fact, King Leopold II received great help from Sir Travers Twiss, as can be seen from page 277 in this book: Fitzmaurice, Andrew. Sovereignty, Property and Empire, 1500-2000. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:1B2:D080:B99B:FD38:EFE6:24BC:C1FD (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Through his own initiative" states it better. -- Elphion (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Excessive" is a euphemism for this ridiculous political pamphlet of a lead: 252 words about Leopold's atrocities in the Congo and 179 words about anything else during his 44-year reign.
But he did commit atrocities, that's true. I'm sure articles about other colonial powers are the same. Or are they?
Let's have a look at East India Company. This merciless money machine that squeezed India for a hundred years and caused famines that killed millions does not have A SINGLE WORD about its atrocities in the lead. In fact, the only problem seems to be that it "had recurring problems with its finances," the poor thing.
OK, maybe it's an unfortunate omission. Let's take the Indian Rebellion of 1857. This event that claimed the lives of up to a million Indians (versus six thousand British colonialists) is described in its lead as inflicting violence "on both sides, on British officers, and civilians, including women and children, by the rebels, and on the rebels".
Who is listed as the British leader during the rebellion? Queen Victoria. Surely, there must be something about the massacre of close to a million people on her page? There is! "The Queen had a relatively balanced view of the conflict, and condemned atrocities on both sides." How nice.
In conclusion, it seems that Leopold is the only 19th-century royal scoundrel deserving such a lead. But, of course, his atrocities were done in his own name, not in the name of the glorious British Empire. That's surely completely different. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of other articles to address historical reality is not a valid reason to ignore historical reality here. Rather, it is a reason to start correcting the other articles. Everything Leopold accomplished in Belgium depended on the money he wrung from the Congo. The weight of the intro reflects historical reality, as it should. -- Elphion (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's systemic. It's not about correcting articles, it's about correcting an Anglocentric world view. Good luck with that. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting phrase from the intro: "...the colonial nations of Europe authorized his claim by committing the Congo Free State to improving the lives of the native inhabitants. Leopold ignored these conditions..." Of course, the other colonial nations (a league of humanitarians, basically!) did everything to improve the lives of their natives (why would they enslave them otherwise?), so they're perfectly justified in demanding the same from the naughty Belgian kid. What a load of hypocrisy. I'll edit that into something less neo-colonial. --Sobol Sequence (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

Obviously, his reign over the Congo Free State is an enormous part of his legacy, and is appropriately addressed in the lead. But after saying he was the king of Belgium, absolutely nothing in the last 3 paragraphs of the lead mentions any of his policies in Belgium; it's entirely dedicated to the Congo Free State. That seems a bit out of whack, seeing as he ruled over both places; the material about the Congo Free State in the lead can probably be stripped of some verbiage without losing any meaningful content, and maybe at least a few sentences about what he did while ruling over Belgium. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noted much the same thing about the absence of material on Leopold (the man himself and his influence on Belgium) back in 2009. More should be added to the lead (and to the article itself) in this regard. Part of the problem is that the well-known sources also focus heavily on the Congo, which is indeed his main legacy -- the project that consumed most of his energy. I resist the notion of cutting the lead significantly though: the lead is supposed to be a meaningful summary of the article, and (as I said on a previous occasion) in this case there's lots to cover. -- Elphion (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on removing any kind of meaningful content, I think it can all be expressed but with fewer words. Last night I reworked one section and removed around 300 bytes of just filler material. I'd be willing to give it a shot in the next day or so, I think the 3 paragraphs could be consolidated into 2 while still conveying all the same information; that would make it easy to put in a paragraph about his reign in Belgium without making the lead overlong. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

Do we have any sources on his crimes against humanity? Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several are referenced in the article. -- Elphion (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His own efforts

Editors have been removing from the lead the statement that the Free State came about through Leopold's own actions. This historical fact is described and referenced in the article, and is important in establishing Leopold's own responsibility for what happened there. Why are people removing it from the lead?

Claim of "Consensus" for 10 Million Deaths Not Supported by Sources

Article currently says this: "Modern estimates range from 1 million to 15 million Congolese deaths, with a consensus growing around 10 million." These are the three citations for this claim of a "consensus":

"Belgium's genocidal colonial legacy haunts the country's future". The Independent. 17 October 2017. Retrieved 9 June 2020. The Independent article says only this: "Estimates of deaths in that period range from 10 million to 15 million Africans, and the debate whether it constituted a genocide continues." There is no mention of who made these estimates or who is debating. There is also no use of the term "consensus". This is not a good source.

"The hidden holocaust". The Guardian. 13 May 1999. Retrieved 9 June 2020. Again, the word "consensus" does not appear. This article actually says the opposite. "But what has stuck in the gut of Belgian historians is Hochschild's claim that 10 million people may have died in a forgotten holocaust. In outrage, the now ageing Belgian officials who worked in the Congo in later years have taken to the internet with a 10-page message claiming that maybe only half a dozen people had their hands chopped off, and that even that was done by native troops." So we have one American journalist, Hochschild, who says ten million, and actual Belgian historians who say it was closer to six (not six million, six).

Further, "Professor Jean Stengers, a leading historian of the period, says: 'Terrible things happened, but Hochschild is exaggerating. It is absurd to say so many millions died. I don't attach so much significance to his book. In two or three years' time, it will be forgotten.' Leopold's British biographer, Barbara Emerson, agrees..."

"Controverse over standbeelden van Leopold II: Waarom is de Belgische koning zo omstreden?". 5 June 2020. Machine-translating the article into English: "The figures differ on how many victims there have been in Congo under the 23-year reign of Leopold II. In 1998 the American journalist Adam Hochschild published "The ghost of King Leopold II and the sack of the Congo" about the abuses in the colony. The book, which becomes an international bestseller, talks about 10 million deaths. Other sources speak of 2, 3 or 5 million dead." Again, Hochschild is the only one named who claims millions of deaths. "Other sources" apparently speak of millions of dead, but they are unnamed.

The article currently heavily relies on the American journalist Hochschild, or else online newspaper articles which merely quote Hochschild and allude to other, unnamed sources. Hochschild is apparently a journalist, not a historian, and actual historians (who are actually named) of Belgium and Leopold find Hochschild's claims unbelievable. I presently see no reason why Hochschild should be weighed more reliable than the historians of Leopold and the Congo, yet he is currently the #1 source for this article.

There is also no mention of death tolls in the millions in the Casement Report on Belgian mismanagement of the Congo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casement_Report

I propose that the line "Modern estimates range from 1 million to 15 million Congolese deaths, with a consensus growing around 10 million" be deleted, and unless better sources are provided, more emphasis that Hochschild is the only one claiming millions of Congolese deaths. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I see that the line "Modern estimates range from one million to fifteen million, with a consensus growing around 10 million" is repeated later in the article, with two different sources. These are also weak. The Historytoday article (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/contrarian/belgiums-heart-darkness) says "estimates for the number of people killed range between two and 15 million, easily putting Leopold in the top ten of history’s mass murderers", but like the other online newspaper articles it does not mention the provenance of these alleged estimates. The second source, "Colonial Terrorism, Global Capitalism and African Underdevelopment: 500 Years of Crimes Against African Peoples" by Asafa Jalata, uses Hochschild as the sole source for the Congo portion, mentioning Hochschild by name 28 times in a 42 page paper.

I have tried to do further research to find support for Hochschild's claims that Leopold was responsible for millions of deaths. David Van Reybrouck in Congo: The Epic History of a People, says: "By the year 1908 some sixteen thousand children were attending missions schools, an estimated thirty thousand people had learned to read and write, sixty-six thousand had served in the army, and some two hundred thousand had been baptized. Directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands of locals had been effected by the rubber policies. Millions had been struck down by sleeping sickness and other infectious diseases." https://archive.org/details/congoepichistory0000vanr/page/98/mode/2up?q=millions

Neal Ascherson in The King Incorporated says that Casement said that the population of the Congo had fallen by 3 million in 15 years, but does not provide a direct quote. He says to see Lord Monkswell's speech in the House of Lords on July 29, 1907 for the source. Ascherson implies that the sleeping sickness was probably responsible for most of this decrease. This is one source that actually does support a claim for population reduction in the millions, but only weakly. Ascherson is apparently quoting Monkswell who was, maybe, quoting Casement. I did not see the three million figure in the Casement report. https://archive.org/details/kingincorporated0000asch/page/250/mode/2up?q=million

A.S. Rappoport's 1914 biography of Leopold does not mention millions of deaths. https://archive.org/details/leopoldsecondki00rappuoft/page/n11/mode/2up?q=million

John de Courcy MacDonnell's 1905 book King Leopold II : his rule in Belgium and the Congo also does not support the millions of deaths figure. He says that a million a year were taken as slaves in Africa (the whole continent, not Congo), but this slave trade was not the fault of Leopold. Rather, Leopold was working to abolish it. https://archive.org/details/kingleopoldiihi00macdgoog/mode/2up?q=million

Edmund Morel was a harsh contemporary critic of Leopold, does not allege millions in his 1903 "The Congo Slave State: A Protest Against the New African Slavery". Morel quotes Edgar Canisius, who says that ten or twenty thousand might have been murdered in Mongalla, but that is not millions. https://archive.org/details/congoslavestate00moregoog/page/n58/mode/2up?q=thousand

Tod Olsen, Leopold II : butcher of the Congo, 2008, says this: "According to the government’s report, the Congo's population had been cut in half since 1880. Ten million people had either died or left the Congo in 40 years." Finally, one source who at least mentions the ten million figure. However, this is a children's book, published by children's book publisher Scholastic. There are no footnotes or endnotes, only a bibliography. Hochschild is mentioned in the bibliography. Hochschild is likely again the only source for the figure of ten million. https://archive.org/details/leopoldiibutcher0000olso/page/118/mode/2up?q=million

Another by Edmund Morel, Red Rubber. He echoes the population reduction of 3 million ascribed by Ascherson to Casement and gives his own calculation of a population decrease of 1.5 million, but without any elaboration on the basis of his estimate. "The decrease of the population is appalling. By a careful computation —but which, of course, can only be hypothetical—based upon accessible positive data relating to depopulation, an analysis of the whole evidence which has been accumulating since 1890, the ivory and rubber output, the quantities of staple food-supplies wrung from the people, the spread of disease, etc., I estimate that in the last fifteen years the population of the Congo has been decreasing at a minimum rate of 100,000 per annum, or say 1,500,000 in the past fifteen years. I am convinced that is the very lowest computation compatible with accuracy. Consul Casement considers it far too low. His opinion is that the last decade has witnessed a decline in the population by nearly three millions. Of the two opinions his is likely to be the soundest, because he has seen with his own eyes the effects of the Leopoldian system upon communities which he knew in former years to be populous and thriving, and because he is a servant of the Crown with twenty years’ African experience." https://archive.org/details/redrubberstoryof00more_0/page/n227/mode/2up?q=soundest

Morel's comments above in Red Rubber are the closest thing to supporting the "consensus of 10 million deaths" line, and even then only extremely weakly. Morel speaks of a population reduction of 1.5-3 million. First, that's not ten million. Second, a population reduction is not necessarily the same as deaths. Casement describes mass migrations out of Belgian territory. Third, the population reduction is not necessarily related to Leopold's administration. Casement makes clear in his report that he believes the populations reductions were largely due to the plague and that the effects of the Belgian administration were only a secondary cause. Fourth, the line says "modern estimates", and Morel and Casement's estimates are not modern. They pre-date the first census in 1924 by almost two decades.

The more I look into this the less justification I see for the line about a consensus of ten million deaths. It seems that the consensus among historians is that the millions of deaths figure is incredible, and the dissenter is the journalist Hochschild and other journalists quoting Hochschild. 50.253.11.17 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are making many of the discredited claims that have already been answered in the talk archives: that Hochschild is not a historian (he is), that he is the only one estimating millions of deaths (many other studies, including recent ones from Belgian authors, generally fall in the ballpark of several million -- an necessarily imprecise number), that there are no references to other studies (see the archives, and the section "Exploitation, atrocities, and death toll", and the article Atrocities in the Congo Free State) This is no longer controversial among reputable historians, despite the early waffling by Stengers et al. It is horrible to contemplate the massive death tolls in the Congo, or in the Holocaust, but we must face them. The constant efforts to erase their memory deny history. -- Elphion (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that it is not controversial does not make it so, nor does it excuse the poor state of the sources in the article. If there are better sources available, then the article should be using them.
You have also not shown me a source where the line "Modern estimates range from 1 million to 15 million Congolese deaths, with a consensus growing around 10 million." is justified.
I looked over at the sources on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State, and unfortunately they aren't much better.
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 sited. 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.
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.
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".
I am going to copy this to the talk page over there.
50.253.11.17 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally, we would have a tertiary academic work which explicitly says "There is a consensus growing around 10 million deaths" or something to that effect. Claims of "consensus" that aren't explicitly backed by a source but are instead made a Wikipedia editor by cobbling together various sources is a WP:SYNTH violation. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2023

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. Consensus between participants to not move anything, including myself, the nominator. I am retracting my proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the subject of Leopold II. The disambiguation page should be moved to Leopold II (disambiguation). PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While this Leopold is probably the most prominent Leopold II, I do not think that he is a well-known enough figure in English-language societies to justify the simplification. It still behooves an English-speaking lay reader to see "Belgium" in the title, as it can't be assumed the typical user of Wikipedia already knows this.
Besides that, when one considers how many other "Leopold II"s are listed in that disambiguation page, (7, for those who didn't look,) I just don't think this is a good change. At least one of them, Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor, is a pretty notable figure in early modern European history. He's the son and heir of Maria Theresa, arguably the best-known non-British queen to laypeople. He played a key role in the events leading up to the French Revolution, and is regarded very highly by many historians and Austrians. While perhaps not as well-known as his Belgian counterpart, I don't think that he is incomparable in notability.
In short, while I don't think this would be a disastrous change, I think the status quo is best. Garnet Moss (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you actually made an argument for primary topic by not just invoking the lengthy guideline but by explaining your rationale for why you think some way. This sounds like we're supposed to be voting on preconceived notions here, which would be against the spirit and letter of the guidelines and policies.
Offhand I'd agree that that the Habsburg emperor has at least similar long-term significance, but I haven't researched them recently to be able to formulate a truly informed comparison. I went to check https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Leopold_II and it shows these two articles in the right-hand side of the graph, but, the left-hand side seems broken because search traffic data is obviously missing, so 125 incoming 178 outgoing makes no sense. It is quite amusing that the most popular item is the last in the list, yet people still apparently click it so much.
I don't quite see the benefit to readers of short-circuiting navigation in cases where there's generally no big traffic and no apparent inability of readers to click the most popular item. Let's just sort the list differently, maybe so these two are at the top, and see later if this needs further adjustment. --Joy (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that placing Leopold II of Belgium first, and then Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor second on the disambiguation page, (with the rest following in chronological order,) would be a good compromise. Garnet Moss (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Garnet Moss @Joy That seems like a reasonable compromise. If both of you agree, can I close this rename discussion? PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you withdraw the previous proposal and nobody else comes forward, that should be fine. Maybe give it one more day so more people notice. --Joy (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy Okay, fine! PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be perfect. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 16 January 2023

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.

Leopold II of Belgium → Leopold II – Leopold II of Belgium is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Leopold II", as visible on this Pageviews Analysis page. CJ-Moki (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion above, we just talked about this. (BTW page views analysis can give you useful info about primary topics by usage, but it's not automagically clear, you have to present an argument, and clarify about primary topics by long-term significance.) --Joy (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leopold_II_of_Belgium&oldid=1134037399"