# Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

So I left for some time, and now I come back and see that the 13 million estimate is still there? I mean, at least mention the 13 million is retracted, that at least we can all agree on, as it is a fact. LouisBStevenson (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The 13 million estimate comes from a book by historian Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem, a reliable source. The article currently says "he later revised this number downwards to 10 million due to the research by Adam Hochschild", but that's attributed to an anonymous "Readers guide for King Leopold's Ghost" – not a reliable source at all. Hence I'll remove that claim. If Ndaywel è Nziem did indeed revise his estimate, where was the new version published? We should cite that directly, or at least we need some other reliable source for it. Gawaon (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
It is from Nouvelle histoire du Congo, Brussels, le Cri, 2009, 744 p.(latest edition from 2012). LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Nouvelle histoire du Congo: des origines à la République Démocratique is the full title
I believe he states between 5 and 10 million in the latest edition from 2012 LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm unable to get access to that edition, so I can't verify (or falsify) that. As long as we don't know for sure, let's keep the text as it is. Gawaon (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I have bought the 2012 version. How do I prove the newer number? Do I send a picture of the page? LouisBStevenson (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, sharing an exact quote, and ideally a photo uploaded somewhere would help. Gawaon (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is a case of WP:AGF. If that's what it says, please make the change. You don't have to "prove" it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

At the very least we'll need an exact page number so that other editors have a chance to verify it. Also, there has been at least one case where a summary by LouisBStevenson failed verification when checked against the cited source (see near the end of Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State/Archive 2#Death toll range), so I think in this case a literal quote is appropriate to make sure that the summary does indeed match the cited work. AGF, but not blindly. Gawaon (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Does this quote help?
Pourra-t-on, un jour, déterminer le nombre de victimes à l’époque ? À défaut de précisions, inaccessibles faute de recensement, les estimations les plus fiables font état d’un recul important de la population jusqu’à 1920 environ et de la reprise de la croissance démographique à partir de 1945. La régression, imputable à tant de facteurs négatifs, en particulier aux mauvaises conditions de récolte du caoutchouc dans une grande partie du pays, aurait été au moins supérieure à un tiers de la population totale et pourrait même avoir atteint la moitié. Sur base des résultats des recensements administratifs, l’historien-démographe belge Léon de Saint Moulin a conclu : En 1880, la population du Congo ne devait pas être inférieure à 15 millions d’habitants et elle atteignait peut-être les 20 millions. En 1930, elle était plutôt de 10 millions ! Ainsi, en 50 ans, de 1885 à 1930, entre 5 et 10 millions de Congolais auraient disparu, victimes de l’introduction de la « civilisation ».

He bases his figures on the historian and demographer fr:Léon de Saint Moulin.  This book is available at the Numérique Premium collection of the Wikipedia Library. Unfortunately the online version does not have page numbers.  Zoocat56 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
It's interesting and, of course, it still entails a horrible population loss of up to 50%. It's clearly insufficient to back up the earlier wording "he later revised this number downwards to 10 million due to the research by Adam Hochschild", because neither Hochschild nor his own earlier estimate are mentioned. So we can only guess that he maybe considers his earlier estimate no longer defensible and hence switched to the one by Saint Moulin. Maybe there's more on the development of his thought in the Nouvelle histoire du Congo, which seems to be longer and a direct successor of the Histoire générale du Congo, from which the 13 million estimate came? If so, it would sure be interesting to know. If no more detailed information is available, I guess we could simply pretend that the 13 million estimate was never made and just cite the 5–10 million from his newer books instead. Gawaon (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of the latter course of action you suggest. It is clearly the author's considered opinion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The earlier estimate an Hochschild were (I think) mentioned in the readers guide that was later removed.
Either way, I am still waiting on the Nouvelle Histoire du Congo, which is hard to come by, as it is now no longer in my possession so I had to order it again.
Nevertheless, it seems that the 5-10 million estimate was already mentioned in his Histoire du Congo of 2011, so this may prove unecessary. I could change it to 5-10 million in the text, as it seems -one way or another - he no longer uses the 13 million claim. LouisBStevenson (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)