Talk:Belgian Congo

Needs RWification
How do I add this and the other two articles I just added to the category of articles needing a point of view more appropriate to this website? I realize the tone is rather dry right now. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:What_is_a_RationalWiki_article%3F#RationalWikifying_an_article

Ashy Waves (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added all of them to the Articles needing RWification category for you. Please be aware that it is a hidden category that is not displayed on pages. Spud (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Ashy Waves (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , for some reason I can't find the little form in the user interface that you use to fill out nice looking references. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice looking references? You mean . It's easy enough just to type that out on your keyboard like I did.
 * And it's now just gone midnight where I live and I'm off to bed. I hope you'll be all right until tomorrow. Spud (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I actually meant the things that come out looking like this. It's sort of hard to remember what all the little parts of it are called. Ashy Waves (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever added the photo. It really helps get the point across. Ashy Waves (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

death count
this article claims 8-10 million people were killed. this is from what I've seen a controversial figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Exploitation,_atrocities,_and_death_toll have a read of this. it seems to be fairly convincing to me that the estimated number isn't very well backed up and is a very rough guesstimate, and that many deaths attributed may actually be a result of widespread smallpox and other diseases. I will change the main article to reflect this, feel free to change it back if anybody knows better. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2a02:c7f:567c:2f00:445b:dfbf:4cae:349b / talk
 * The article provides one source saying a million from 1968 and then one saying ten mil. The addition to the article, especially the “surely it was all disease killing them” part seemed to border on atrocity denial. 12:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

These sources are not comprehensive and are guesses. the article should represent this better and should state the fact that the high figures are not strongly backed up. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2a02:c7f:567c:2f00:445b:dfbf:4cae:349b / talk
 * No death count from that era can be totally accurate, but they’re also not just guesses either. There’s a reason a range is given. 17:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes and this range should actually be 1-10 million from the sources i can see. i will change it to this to better represent the current understanding of the matter. &mdash; Unsigned, by: John woo / talk / contribs

Footnoting convention
Is there a way to have footnotes #2 to #17 appear under one footnote? Like have them be "sub footnotes" under one footnote? Having all the footnotes in a big series after a sentence is unsightly looking. Pjotr (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of such a feature in RW. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. It might be some kind of new Wikimedia thing? Vee (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)