Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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:

• I would suggest a rewrite of the "Estimates" section, replacing the bullet point list with a full prose paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Britain and America"; this would be more accurate as "United Kingdom and United States". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• The lede doesn't quite summarise the contents of the article as per WP:Lede. I'd add a sentence or so to the lede discussing the debated applicability of the term "genocide". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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:

• Is Pakenham's book really the thirteenth edition? Or has there perhaps been some confusion, with it being the thirteenth printing? For a book to undergo thirteen editions is frankly astonishing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• The Drumond chapter needs page numbers listed, given that it is a chapter within an edited volume. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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've removed it.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 24 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)
          • I appreciate the problem. Without any clear experts on this issue I'll try and offer some more specific advice on the images, to the best of my (limited) ability. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:06, 31 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 added some more text to the lead, covering the genocide paragraph. It's inelegant but I think it covers the points you mentioned? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good, although I would definitely merge it into the paragraph above it rather than having it hang there as a lone sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Done.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:54, 29 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'm not sure I agree. The term "Congo Horrors" has currency in German and a few other languages, but not really English (see this google book search). There's certainly no hope of it claiming to be a WP:COMMONNAME. "Atrocities" is at least fairly descriptive.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)