The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rename to Atrocities in the Congo Free State. General consensus is to keep the content branch, but that the current name should be modified. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congolese Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is at best a WP:Fringe Theory and also certainly a WP:Content Fork of Congo Free State from where much of its content appears to have been derived. The citations in the article are imprecise and often misleading - I quote from Hochschild who is ironically cited extensively in the article: "no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different" (NYRB, 2005). I suggest a redirect to Congo Free State#Humanitarian disaster —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I'd also add that, for those of you who can read French, there's an useful summary of the various historiographical arguments in a newspaper here, concluding that any use of the term genocide is wrong because of the differences between the historical events and the legal definition of genocide used by the UN. I'd also note that the article author's attempts to include the events on Genocides in history have been reverted by another editor with a summary of previous discussions - which can be found here.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we do as there are articles on the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and Hitler. I would at the very least allow the article to grow before nominating it for deletion. I certainly believe that it can easily pass WP:GNG NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm failing to see how the UN's technical definition of "genocide" enjoins us in any freaking way, shape or form. Make mine Keep; this is a heavily documented business over many years. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A simple look at google books and google news will show that significant evidence exists for this genocide. You can view the numerous sources here. [1] . Book such as [2] and [3]. You will see google news providing sources such as [4] , [5] and the Wall Street Journal [6] Also Robert Weisbord stated in the 2003 Journal of Genocide Research that attempting to eliminate a portion of the population is enough to qualify as genocide under the UN convention. In the case of the Congo Free State, the unbearable conditions would qualify as a genocide. Weisbord, Robert G. (2003). "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II's genocide in the Congo and the Vatican". Journal of Genocide Research 5: 35–45. doi:10.1080/14623520305651. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point (and applaud your subsequent contributions to the article which makes it much more balanced) but I still feel that the fringe theory rule still applies and I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that this could not be done better within the main article. Especially since the title "Congolese genocide" is controversial at best.

Newspapers sources aside (since this is a controversial period, where people often have stronger feelings than they have knowledge), I do think more academic sources would be needed to support such a claim. I agree that Weisbord's article is a significant step, but as I judge from his authography, he does seem to use the term "genocide" very liberally indeed (does he claim that Afro-Americans were the victims of a genocide in the 1950s?) I do think that we should stick to the UN definition where possible, or this whole field will get out of hand.

Perhaps this discussion would also be of interest to @PBS: as another contributor to this area? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And @Elphion:, who has also contributed to a debate on another page.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There are two separate issues here: (1) Do we need separate articles on "Congo Free State" and "Congolese Genocide", and (2) Is "Genocide" appropriate in this context. I don't for a moment want to hide the horrible humanitarian disaster occasioned by Leopold's Free State (or his responsibility for it), as my editing of Leopold II of Belgium should make clear. Both Leopold II of Belgium and Congo Free State cover this unblinkingly. I think the jury's still out among professional historians about whether "genocide" is appropriate; it's a highly charged word, and its application in this case is arguably not NPOV -- though it's absolutely appropriate for us to document that many people do apply it to this situation. But for this AFD, for me the primary point is (1): Congolese Genocide is currently no more than a stub. Congo Free State already discusses the consequences of Leopold's regime in far more detail, and since that's the principal historical significance of the Free State, that's an appropriate place to describe it. I don't see the point of the second article except to get the word "genocide" on the table, and we can do that in the first article. -- Elphion (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. There is enough specifically on the horrendous nature of governance in the Congo Free State to justify an independent article (although one wonders what would then be left for the Congo Free State article). I would however suggest renaming this to Atrocities in the Congo Free State, as "genocide" is controversial. The article should certainly give a neutral discussion of the use or non-use of the term. Another reason not to stick with the current name is that "Congolese Genocide" can mean more recent episodes of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Congo (the sense in which the term is used here, for example).--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed rename is very sensible, if it is indeed retained. Note this for another example of "Congolese genocide" being applied to the period post-1996 - it's the first google hit for the term "Congolese Genocide". —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's partly why I think "Congo Free State" is the right place to put this -- it identifies the period unambiguously. -- Elphion (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more than enough here to justify it's existence as a seperate article, not seeing a POV or Fringe aspect. Artw (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell it's only the use of the term "genocide" that's NPOV. While that may be journalistic shorthand for "largescale slaughter", neither lawyers nor historians apply the term to the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State. For one thing, while seeking to make profits without regard for human life, the Congo Free State Company that ran the colony didn't target any specific ethnicity for destruction.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: notable string of atrocities. A standalone article should exist for the atrocities; it has been referred to and covered for a long time, and it had a significant effect, with a death toll between 2-15 million, which strongly contributes to notability per WP:PERSISTENCE. Esquivalience ^t 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Congo Free State (leaving a redirect). That article deals with the matter in a NPOV manner. As I read that article, the killing was because the king had expropriated tribal land and imposed quotas that could not be met, with a death penalty for failure. He was pledged to stop slavery, but in fact (in effect) enslaved the inhabitants of his territory. However the people were killed for rebellion, not meeting their quotas or other "offences", not just for being black. Genocide measn killing people en mass becasue of thier race. This does not apply here. The whole thing is built on an article having appears on the subject in a learned journal (which I have not seen). This colonial regime was clearly atrocious and thus guilty of atrocities, but not all atrocities constitute genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename: Since genocide is a term with (supposedly) precise legal meaning, I suggest to rename it. For example Atrocities in colonial Congo. Let me note that in other languages there exist a established specific terms for these historal ongoings, for example in German you have ("Congo horrors"). It is considered a particular historical topic, and it is particular and outstanding historical atrocity, so a specific article on that topic is due.

Whether it was a genocide or not can be included as a section of discussion in the article. 84.208.101.131 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. "Atrocities in the Congo Free State" sounds about right. The atrocities themselves form an important topic, but whether or not they are a genocide is a minor subtopic. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Congo Free State#Humanitarian disaster. If others believe a content fork is warranted, I am OK with renaming as Atrocities in the Congo Free State as the use of "genocide" is controversial. - Location (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.