Talk:Rwandan Genocide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rwandan Genocide:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
              This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
    MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
    B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
    WikiProject Africa / Rwanda (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
    WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
     Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    This article is supported by WikiProject Rwanda (marked as Top-importance).
    WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, High-importance)
    WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
     High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
    WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, High-importance)
    WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
     High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, High-importance)
    WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
    B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
     High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Former good article nominee Rwandan Genocide was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
    Article milestones
    Date Process Result
    February 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
    Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 28, 2007.
    Wikipedia CD Selection
    WikiProject icon Rwandan Genocide is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Rwandan Genocide at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

    Burundi Genocide[edit]

    Is it fair to disregard the 1972 Burundi genocide of Hutus by the Tutsi army in the Background? Andrarias (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    The Rwandan genocide began when the President of Rwanda while returning home from a peacekeeping meeting was in his plane and shot down by a Tutsi. This flared the Hutu militia and they ended the peace keeping agreement and began a civil war resulting in the mass murder of the Tutsi race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Andrarias, it's fine to mention to the extent that it influenced events in Rwanda, and the extent to which events in Rwanda fed into conflict in neighboring countries. But just to be clear, Burundi is a very different context and what happened there had its own set of actors and stakes. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    American Role[edit]

    The article says:

    In January 1994 NSC member Richard Clark developed formal US peacekeeping doctrine, Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25).

    How is this relevant? What did it do in this particular conflict. Should at least have a link. Ileanadu (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

    PDD 25 is important for several reasons. It established reasons NOT to assist in Rwanda instead of reason TO assist. It also was used by the ambassador to UN (Madeleine Albright) to persuade other countries NOT to interfere in an "internal power struggle". It would also be worth noting that Madeleine Albright is hailed for where she came from (WW2 Poland) A child of the Holocaust was arguing pulling out the entire UNAMIR contingent and allowing the genocide to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

    Anon IP, Albright is a CZECH, not a Pole. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    (NOT A PART OF THE ARTICLE ABOVE, BUT IT IS AN INTERESTING FACT OF THE AMERICAN ROLE: "In a press conference, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in the Cliton administration claimed uncertainty that the number 800,000 deaths in Rwanda as being a number large enough to be an actual "genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    ID cards[edit]

    The article states, as part of preparation for the genocide, "Both Hutus and Tutsis were given ID cards which specified an ethnic group. These cards served as symbols in which the Interhamwe could check via the threat of force.(citation needed)". This was not something done in the immediate preparation of the genocide. Rwandans had such ID cards from at least the 1980s, and probably from the days of the Kayibanda regime of the 1960s. Certainly they were present and required in the 1980s when I lived there for 5 years. And they always specified the ethnic group. In part this was because the Habyarimana regime, at least during the 1980s, tried to keep a lid on ethnic tensions by using a quota system for places in school, university, government jobs, etc. At the time of the genocide, the nationwide organization of the interahamwe etc was such that these cards were not needed - everyone in a given locality knew who were Hutu and who were Tutsi. Ptilinopus (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

    The ID card system was instituted by the Belgians in 1935, prior to independence. Interesting tidbit: Due to the extent of intermarriage, the only criterion used to distinguish “Hutu” from “Tutsi” at the outset of the system was wealth. Regardless of lineage, anyone with more than ten cows became a Tutsi, and anyone with fewer became a Hutu. (See — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyerfekaj (talkcontribs) 05:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

    From the article: US President Bill Clinton claimed to have not fully understood the severity of the situation. Scholars have suggested that President Clinton could not have known about the genocide until around April 20, 1994, when it became popularized in the media. SOURCE? Which scholar? When? This is not a credible statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


    The Politics of Genocide by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson has some interesting views on American imperialism and its relationship to the massacres have these views been taken into account in the article? Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

    Ed Herman and David Peterson are persistent deniers of the facts of what happened in Bosnia 1992-1995. It is hard to credit they would have much reliable to say about Rwanda 1994. Opbeith (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

    Too much weight to source #35 in 'War Rape' Section[edit]

    I looked at source 35, which asserts the following text in the 'War Rape' section:

    "Compared to other conflicts, the sexual violence in Rwanda stands out in three ways: the organized nature of the propaganda that contributed to fueling sexual violence against Tutsi women; the public nature of the rapes; and the level of brutality toward the women.[35]"

    I viewed the section in the book on the Rwandan genocide. It repeats the above, but it seems too much weight in the section is being given to this particular author's assertion. Not very fitting for an encyclopedia article. Should this be in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikywiki (talkcontribs) 08:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

    I see your point. I found two scholarly articles that could contribute to this section. (Article 1) (Article 2). I think collecting relevant information from the two articles will help to improve the section. I plan to edit this section as part of a project for a class. Also, would changing the title of this section, "War Rape," to "Gender Targeted Crimes Against Humanity" be better in explaining the subject? I feel that the title is too broad in relation to the Rwandan Genocide. The term "war rape," as the word "war" suggests, refers to such crimes during war. War and genocide are not the same, and so, I think that the title should be changed. MinjKim (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Tabel of contents[edit]

    Something's wrong with the TOC. All sections below section 3 (Genocid) are subsections thereof, which is clearly not intended. When I wanted to fix this problem, I saw that the formatting was down correctly. There must be a technical issue that it does not render the way it is intended. Perhaps, someone else can solve it. Tomeasy T C 22:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    Fixed. Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

    Edit request from, 23 May 2011[edit] (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

    Please remove, "GO SIDIRTHA!" from the overview of the page. It is innappropriate.

    Already done three days ago. You must be looking at an old version of the page. Rivertorch (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

    Deleted Postgraduate Thesis information in Turkish[edit]

    "Ruanda’da gerçekleştirilen soykırım konusunda en fazla suçlanan ülke Fransa olmuştur. O dönemde Fransa, soykırımı gerçekleştiren Hutu hükümetinin en yakın dostu ve destekçisidir."

    translation: "France is the most accused country for the genocide in Ruanda. At that time, France was the closest ally and the supporter of the Hutu government."

    Don't delete objective university referance please. Dr.tolga (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

    First of all, please be careful not to engage in edit warring. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the content is appropriate, and it is important to engage in discussion here on the talk page first—not after (or concurrently with) reinsertion of the content.
    About the content, several points:
    1. A "university referance"[sic] isn't necessarily "objective". The phrase actually is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Whatever it means in this case, its reliability hasn't been established.
    2. What it seems to mean, based on the edit summary of your latest reinsertion of the content, is a "postgraduate thesis". That's also a vague term, I'm afraid, but I think it's fair to say that most postgraduate theses don't qualify as reliable sources for our purposes.
    3. The wording you've reinserted in the article doesn't match the translation you've provided above. The former accuses France of supporting not just the government but the genocide.
    4. Such an accusation constitutes an exceptional claim and therefore must be verifiable using impeccable secondary sources that any English-speaking editor can evaluate. If the best source you can find is a postgrad thesis in Turkish, then I'm afraid you're out of luck.
    5. Both the article wording and your translation above are written in nonstandard English. I normally just fix that sort of thing, but in this case it would be like putting lipstick on a pig. I'm going to ask for outside input. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not a reliable source, and even if it was it would violate WP:UNDUE. I have never read of France being complicit in the genocide, ever in any way shape or form. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    There are numerous reports that France was deeply involved in the conflict. See for example the book "A Thousand Hills" by NYT journalist Stephen Kinzer, which explains how France provided Rwandan genocidaires with arms, trained them and even fought with them side by side. The author notes "Nowhere does the cloud of guilt hang more heavily than over France. Others failed or refused to see that genocide was raging in Rwanda. President Mitterand and his government armed that Hutu regime; sent soldiers to defend it; supported resolutely as it carried out the genocide; helped many of its leaders escape when the war ended, granted asylum in France to some of the most bloodthirsty among them, including Madame Habyarimana; and then helped the defeated genocidal army launch a brutal insurgency in a vain effort to retake power". Here are few more quotes from the book:

    • "Bagosora, popularly known as 'the colonel of death', was among the young officers who directed the first wave of anti-Tutsi massacres from 1959 to 1963. ... he was the first Rwandan to have graduated from the most prestigious French military academy, the Ecole de Guerre"
    • Former UN general secretary Boutros-Ghali, while serving as Egypt's deputy foreign minister in the early 1990s helped Mitterand brokering "a deal that brought Rwandan government $6 million in weaponry, including seventy mortars, two thousand land mines, and three million rounds of ammunition." Altogether "France sold the Rwandan regime more than $20 million worth of weaponry and helped it buy five times that amount from arms dealers in Egypt and South Africa. When Egyptian financiers hesitated to extend credit to Rwanda, France's government-owned bank, Credit Lyonnais, stepped in as guarantor. That allowed Rwanda to buy not just small arms but helicopters, tanks, rockets, and heavy mortars. It turned one of the world's smallest and poorest countries into the third-largest arms importer in Africa".
    • "French soldiers directed artillery attacks, maintained and flew helicopters, advised Rwandan commanders on field tactics, gave the army a modern radio communication network, manned roadblocks around Kigali, and even helped interrogate prisoners accused of collaborating with the insurgents".
    • Kinzer also quotes UN general Dallaire, who directly "accused French troops of training the murderous Presidential Guard and for seizing a planeload of weapons that France had sent to Rwanda in violation of the Arusha accords".

    Well if you need even more proof of French involvement in the genocide than consider the reaction of Rwandan genocidaires to the UN decision to approve the sixty-day French mission Opération Turquoise.

    • Following the announcement, Rwandan "radio announcers reported jubilantly that French soldiers were coming to save the nation from the dreaded inkotanyi. French flags went up on many buildings in Kigali. People ran ecstatically through the streets, shouting, 'Vive la France!'"

    --spitzl (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think anyone has argued that France had squeaky-clean hands in the affair. Few Western powers, and certainly none that had colonial holdings, are blameless for the various atrocities committed in various postcolonial nations. The question that sparked this thread involved the unreliability of a source used to support a sentence suggesting that France supported the genocide (not supported those who carried out the genocide). It was an obvious question, but I asked it and it has been answered. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

    rivertorch, you wanted to see an english source and you are disregarding a turkish university source just because it is not written in english .now there is a very well written and explained source in english but some how you do not appreciate it so much . like it or not france is fully reponsible for the Rwandan Genocide. stop deleting sources and posts . --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    Thesis papers are not Reliable Sources per the rules of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what language they are written in, nor their origin. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Given your misrepresentation of my view, you clearly didn't read what I said above. Please read it, and then I'll welcome your informed comment. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

    Edit request (dead link in reference)[edit]

    In section "Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) renewed invasion", reference 93 has a dead link to a transcript of Doyle's quotation. Here is the new link Just to make sure, there is also an snapshot of the dead link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

    Edit request (political development)[edit]

    The aftermath of the genocide and change of regime has not all been cream and peaches as has often been presented in the media. Kagame's regime has it dark side(s) too: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

    Edit request (Minor)[edit]

    Once on the page the wrong abbreviation is used: "DRC" (which refers to the Congo). It should be CDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralo (talkcontribs) 14:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

    Get this up to FA in time for Today's Featured Article on April 7 2014[edit]

    It would be really good to have this be the Today's Featured Article two years from now, on April 7, 2014. Amakuru and others, do you think you'll have the opportunity? - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

    Condescending Tone[edit]

    Just an observation. This article takes a condescending tone towards the subjects it is written about. To be more explicit, I would say one that considers Westerners, for example Europeans, to have reached a supreme understanding of civil society while they report on less enlightened cultures. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

    Unless you can provide some specific examples, this is just your point of view. Do you have some Reliable Sources to cite that would improve the article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

    Rwandan Survivors article[edit]

    Hi. In the Articles to wikify backlog I found this article Rwandan Survivors. Since the survivors are linked to the genocide can I suggest the pages be merged? Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    Davenport and Stam's research[edit]

    It appears there has not been any discussion about Davenport and Stam's research on the genocide in Rwanda. It certainly isn't the dominant narrative, but their research was quite rigorous and was largely based on composites of other direct surveys generally considered authoritative, as well as direct work in Rwanda during the late 2000s. However, they have been banished from Rwanda and, by some, have been accused on being genocide denier (this is not a very credible claim in light of the nature of their research and the fact that they never deny a conspiracy by certain elements in the Hutu military and government to exterminate Tutsis).

    There is also a mention of Robin Philpot, and the accusation that he is a genocide denier or revisionist. There is also only quotes ABOUT his work, not citing his work or his arguments directly at all. Certainly his research is of a very different nature, caliber, and perspective than Davenport/Stam's, but wouldn't it be a good idea to at least summarize a little bit more of his reasoning for the sake of clarity?

    What about a section on "Alternative perspectives," or something, discussing the various different dissents from the mainstream narrative and what distinguishes them and how they have been received in academic and political circles? In particular, it might be a good idea to clear up the "double genocide thesis." Generally the double genocide thesis is discounted as false on the grounds that, although the RPF appears to have killed something along the lines of 70,000 Hutu civilians between April and October 1994 (from sources such as the Gersony report), which could qualify as crimes against humanity but, in comparison to the 800,000 or 900,000 killed (how many of those were Tutsi and how many were Hutu is another question that could be expanded upon in an addition of Davenport and Stam's findings) under the jurisdiction of the FAR, is not genocide, or is at least not genocide of the comparable enough scale to warrant calling the period a "double genocide." However, in my experience, many people who argue that there was a double genocide point to (1) RPF atrocities against Hutu and Tutsi civilians during the Rwandan Civil War between 1990 and 1994, (2) the 70,000 or so Hutu killed by the RPF during the genocide itself, (3) a couple massacres in Rwanda between October 94 and 96, such as the Kibeho refugee camp, where thousands were counted before the RPF shut off access to the area; some have estimated there may have been as many as 100,000 dead, and (4) the massacres throughout 1996 and into 1997 of various refugee camps in Congo which killed hundreds of thousands of Hutu Rwandans and Burundians. Taken together, these numbers start to plausibly look comparable to the Tutsis killed by the Hutu Power forces in Rwanda during 1994, and the distinction between these two articulations of what might be called the 'double genocide' are distinct and should be recognized as such.

    With some time, I'd be happy to provide citations and further explanation for any of the claims I have just made. Just wanted to see if anyone involved in this article was receptive to any of these ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

    Plan to Update the Article[edit]

    Hello, I am a college student studying poverty, justice, and human capabilities. I am working on a project for one of my classes, and the project requires that we improve a Wikipedia article of a topic that we are interested in. I am interested in the Rwandan Genocide, and I would like to contribute in improving the article.

    My plan to improve the article consists of the following:

    • Adding a Gacaca Court section
    • Editing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) section
    • Editing the War Rape section (possibly renaming it as Gender Targeted Crimes Against Humanity)

    I strongly believe that an update/expansion of the mentioned sections is necessary especially with the recent closing of the Gacaca Courts[1](link to news article by BBC News) and the United Nation's announcement to close the ICTR by the end of 2014[2] (link to news article by UN News Centre).

    I need advice as to how I can find scholarly articles on the current closing of the Gacaca Courts, the plan for ICTR's closing, and the future for Rwanda's justice system. Please comment if you have any advice.

    If you have any suggestions or comments, please post a message to me on my Talk page. I would appreciate it! Thank you.

    MinjKim (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Welcome, MinjKim! I think I'd disagree with you that a separate section is needed for the Gacaca Court here. The courts are already discussed in the aftermath section. It might be worth adding a few sentences to note that the Gacaca and ICTR have finished their work, but a better place for you to do significant updates would be the Gacaca court article itself.
    As for the "war rape" section, what do you plan to change with your edits? Do most commentators appear to be using the phrase "Gender Targeted Crimes Against Humanity" instead of "war rape"? Thanks for your interest in this article, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Khazar2! Thank you for your response! I have taken your suggestions into consideration and made a new plan. Here is an outline of my new plan:

    I. Edit “International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda” section

    • a. Change title to “Justice System After Genocide”
    • b. Include link to “Gacaca Court” page
    • c. Expand more because the page does not provide enough content to have readers visit the “Gacaca Court” page
    • d. Update with current news
    • e. Add significant information with scholarly articles

    II. Change “War Rape” to “Gender Targeted Crimes"

    • a. “Gender Targeted Crimes” title- more inclusive
    • i. There were crimes other than rape

    III. Editing “Criticism” section of the “Gacaca Court” page

    • a. Use neutral tone and scholarly articles to support points

    Please let me know if you (and other WikiUsers) have any thoughts on my new plan. Thank you! MinjKim (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

    I have already made some changes to the Rwandan Genocide page (due to an assignment that was due yesterday for the class- the link to the class' Wikipage is on top of this talk page) Please let me know of any thoughts on the changes. I am having trouble finding scholarly articles to learn more about the effects of the closing of the Gacaca court system. Even though it is a vey recent event, are there any sources besides news articles that have information on the effects of the closing of the Gacaca court system? MinjKim (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

    - MinjKim, looking at the 'Gender Targeted Crimes' section, it appears there is a discussion of GTC that is general in nature and certainly not limited to this conflict/genocide. It might be worthwhile to look through WP (Bosnian conflict would be a place to start) for an article that already covers this material (and edit if need be) and use that as a "see also" tag, while editing out the general background on GTC and leaving only the stuff that is specific to the Rwanda genocide.Kerani (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


    1. ^ "Rwanda 'gacaca' genocide courts finish work". BBC News. 18 June 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012. 
    2. ^ "UN genocide tribunal in Rwanda swears-in judges selected to finish its work". UN News Centre. 7 May 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012. 


    Is there a reason the first photo is repeated in the article? Robvanvee 16:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

    Yes check.svg Done, repeated photo deleted.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


    "It is considered the most organized genocide of the 20th century."

    Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston S Smith (talkcontribs) 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    I doubt it as well. I just read it in passing and added it in. Feel free to chop it out if you don't like it, no big loss from my point of view. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    More so than the holocaust? With charts and machines? Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's right to remove that line unless numerous sources back it up, but let's not assume the Holocaust was more organized because Nazi Germany set up concentration/extermination camps - that may be more a reflection of the money the Nazis had at their disposal. About a million people being murdered in about 100 days as happened in Rwanda takes considerable organization. Either way, both are horrible and let's not risk denigrating the people who suffered in both atrocities by speculating about them - let's do them justice by making sure everything we include here is very well supported by the sources. Lemurbaby (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

    Revisionism section[edit]

    Thanks to Ludicrous Tripe for developing the section on historical revisionism and genocide denial. All the content is cited and the views presented exist; this is a real phenomenon. It's also very much the case that genocide denial is a criminal act in Rwanda, and that this is controversial as it's been claimed that political dissidents are often slapped with the charge to silence them. So the content here needs to be included. The key is going to be ensuring that the views of historical revisionists are not given too much weight as a fringe theory. That's going to require two things - 1) editing the style and content of this section to be a strictly objective summary report of facts around the phenomenon and the essence of revisionists' perspective, and 2) significantly strengthening the body of the article to illustrate the facts around the genocide, so that any reader can draw their own conclusions based on fact. Ludicrous Tripe has been doing a lot of copy editing, which has improved the article. There is much meatier work that will also need to be done to develop each of the sections, something I'm intending to do by mid-January in preparation for a GA run. The German version of this article is what I'd like this to look like by the time we're done. So given the extremely sensitive nature of the content in the historical revisionism section, and the relatively underdeveloped rest of the article, we run up against the likelihood of this section being viewed as promoting a fringe theory, which none of us want. I believe the best solution for now is to keep the content hidden until the rest of the article has been more fully developed, when it will be unhidden and adjusted in line with changes to the rest of the article. Thank you to Ludicrous Tripe for the time and effort made to research and write this section, and to improve the rest of the article as well. - Lemurbaby (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    This material belongs in the Rwandan Genocide denial article, not here. The Holocaust article does not devote any space to deniers, nor does any other article on genocide.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    Your logic for referring to Herman as a Genocide denier has left me a little confused. Raul Hillberg made the discovery of the Judenrat (Jewish collaborators during the holocaust), and received much push back from members of the Jewish community. Yet he is not referred to as a genocide denier on his wikipedia page. He certainly was a historical revisionist, considering he was challenging the prevailing notions of historians at the time. Now his findings are widely accepted. So prevailing narratives of genocides can change with time. Edward Herman in his works do not deny that major crimes happened. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to label his ideas as "genocide denial" but rather revisionists (keep in mind that there have been plenty of periods where the majority consensus of historians have been wrong on a particular issue, it is unfair to label anyone who challenges a prevailing narrative as a genocide denier, even if they are incorrect). I urge everyone on wikipedia to consider the fact that Raul Hillberg's findings at one point in time were dismissed as a "fringe theory". I also urge people to remember that eyewitness testimony is not good evidence of a genocide (even in the case of the holocaust) but there needs to evidence of specific policies that entail mass extermination. When I go to the wikipedia page on the holocaust, I see reference to specific policies (such as the final solution). On this wikipedia page I do not see any reference to any specific policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:00, 20 February 2015‎ (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out that the article exists. I'll make sure this links to it eventually. To the extent that I develop a section going over the aftermath, I will likely touch on the denial issue. Just as all the subsequent wars in Congo have their own articles but are also touched on here, a major outcome like the criminalization of denial and its ramifications for political (and economic - donors have threatened to suspend funds if the political space isn't opened up to dissidents) development in Rwanda deserves a mention here, although most likely much shorter than what's been written by LT. I'm a level headed editor, so it won't be out of balance. I'll welcome your input as the section is developed. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    A section on it definitely belongs here, but it should have a Main template and just provide a small summary of the main article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    Ought to be a short overview here with the main article linked. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I think we all see it the same way. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    I hid it again because it does need some modification- it needs to be shortened and written in summary style and the rest of the article needs to be developed to balance this out. Otherwise we risk violating the fringe views rule. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't had a chance to read through the entire article nor the section on revisionism mentioned, but I came to this page to note that a section on revisionism does belong in an article like this. Revisionism ≠ denial (although, the material read by TheTimesAreAChanging may have been denial, again I haven't had a chance to read it). Research, like that of Davenport and Stam, offers new light on the situation. That is not denial, although it has been argued as such. It would give the material undue weight to incorporate it directly into the article, but it does belong in a section on revisionism. Ryan Vesey 21:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    Ed Herman's denial is more extreme than any Holocaust denier's; the equivalent would be arguing that the Jews actually murdered several million Germans.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    Why in is the whole section still invisible? Ed Herman and the other person who he writes with, some independent researcher, might like to be removed, since their conclusions are simply incredible, certainly at least on the basis of the evidence they presented. But the remainder of the material by the two US academics is fine, and the coverage of how Kagame has used the genocide to silence critics is very important. (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

    This content is being removed, why is it still hidden? @TheTimesAreAChanging: @Ryan Vesey: @Lemurbaby: @LudicrousTripe: Darkness Shines (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Hello. I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging. Genuninely, why keep this Herman and Peterson thesis in this article? As people above would agree the claims they make rely on ignoring a large amount of counterevidence. So I think calling it genocide denial is accurate, and so their argument should be moved to the denial article? RwandaPanda (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Hello Darkness Shines. Some people have said that the Herman and Peterson book is not solid enough to be in this article, that it is poorly argued denial rather than legitimate revisionism. I agree with this assessment of their work, which does not seek to counter the mass of evidence that the Tutsi genocide was planned. For example, how about all the weapons imports, the radio broadcasting, the survivor testimony, and so on. None of that is dealt with in their book. Nor could it be given the handful of pages the two of them devote to the topic. The research by the other two Americans seems much more detailed, lasted a decade, does not deny the Tutsi genocide, relies on expert demographic studies, and so on. This to me seems much more solid, and so I think it qualifies as legitimate revisionism. Certainly there can be little doubt that Kagame is not a good man and has caused much suffering in the Congo, and puts people in Rwanda jail and assassinates them, so it suits him to not have any questions asked about what else happened apart from the Tutsi genocide. RwandaPanda (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Genocide denial is genocide denial, regardless of how poorly it is argued. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Yes I agree. Sorry if my way of phrasing things has given an impression otherwise. I have added Herman and Peterson to the Rwandan Genocide denial, what do you think? RwandaPanda (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Since Darkness Shines pinged me...I believe we should be careful to avoid giving undue weight to Herman and Peterson's fringe theories when there is a dedicated article on the topic. The Holocaust omits any mention of Holocaust denial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    Correction request[edit]

    The second sentence in the third paragraph starts "Continuing ethnic strife resulted in the rebels' displacing large numbers of Hutu in the north". The apostrophe shouldn't be there. Please could someone with editing powers correct it to "Continuing ethnic strife resulted in the rebels displacing large numbers of Hutu in the north"? (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

    Done, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


    >> France to open Rwanda genocide trial >> Rwanda: re-opening old wounds? (Lihaas (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)).

    Gender-targeted crimes / general structure of the Genocide section[edit]

    @Darkness Shines: - I'm intrigued as to why you didn't like the changes done by @Lemurbaby: this morning. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the whole "Gender-targeted crimes" section needs to be vastly shorter than it is now. For interest I've copied the entire section to a user page User:Amakuru/Rwandan Genocide/Gender-targeted crimes, and measured its readable prose length using User:Shubinator/DYKcheck. It comes out as 11,509 characters at present, and that doesn't include the bullet points at the bottom. Given that per WP:Article size#A rule of thumb we're ultimately aiming for a length of maximum 60,000 characters here, that 11,500 is clearly vastly too much. Personally I think two or maximum three paragraphs on this topic as a subheading of "Genocide" is sufficient.

    This is not to belittle the issue of gender crimes in the genocide, by the way, just that this is essentially a summary article for the whole Genocide and there is a lot of material to cover. So individual topics can't get more than a couple of paragraphs with a main article link in general.

    Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

    I do not like the changes as he messed it all up. If he wants to do it he can do it properly. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Darkness Shines, I appreciate you wanting to maintain the quality of the articles you created. I do the same. But the changes I made will actually enrich your article, and reverting them actually lessens the quality of what that article could be. There is good quality information in what was moved there, and it expands significantly on the content. It needed to be copy-edited and duplications needed to be removed, which I was intending to do (your help would have been welcome), and I had already begun that work yesterday. If the link on the Rwandan Genocide article to the "main" Rape during the Rwandan Genocide article is to be kept, it is only right and logical that the main article be longer and more complete than the related subtopic in the Rwandan Genocide article. But as it is now, the "main" one is shorter and less informative than the subsection in the Genocide article. If you want me to "do it right", I will finish the edits in a sandbox and then paste the entire thing into the article. But please let me know that you are not going to just revert it, because it's a lot of work to undertake and would be done in good faith. As it is currently, it does not belong in the Rwandan Genocide article. It overbalances the content, as Amakuru confirmed. - Lemurbaby (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    BTW Thank you Amakuru for moving the content to that userpage. I can work on it from there if needed. In the meantime, I'm going to spend some time today working on this article and I'd like to start with going back to the shortened section I put together yesterday. - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    Don't bother, I am already in the process of doing it, and intend to see it done correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    All right. I'm happy to help you with the copy editing once you're done with the changes, if you'd like a second pair of eyes on it to polish the English. - Lemurbaby (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

    International responses section[edit]

    Hi Amakuru, it's exciting to see this article transforming so quickly! I realized today that it may be a long shot to have this up as today's featured article by April 7, but let's give it our best. :) One significant change that strikes me as needed is the condensing or removal of the international responses section and shifting most of the content into the related "main" article. The French role probably deserves its own article. I've been looking at a translation of the German version, which I think is really excellent and serves as a good model for what this article could be. - Lemurbaby (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

    Indeed. I don't know why, but I'd completely forgotten until recently that this year's memorial week is the twentieth anniversary one. I was in Rwanda during the tenth, I can't quite believe that was a whole decade ago now. And you flagged it up on this page almost two years ago, so no excuse really! I hope that at the very least even if we don't quite make it over the TFA line that we can get a mention in "on this day" and if so, we still want the best possible article for people to click through to from the main page, not to mention the hits resulting from added interest that may be generated if the anniversary gets any coverage in the international media. Regarding the international responses, I think I pretty much agree with what you say. I think the international response is worth some sort of mention, particularly as (a) the French involvement is a subject of active discourse even do this day, and (b) the international response is often mentioned as having been notably lacking. But it's way too long right now, and we don't need separate France and United States subsections. The only other thing I'd personally do would be to place Operation Turquoise somewhere separate from the general discourse on French and international involvement. That was a clear and distinct part of the narrative of the genocide itself. Even that wouldn't be a huge part though. I'll have a look through the German article as well, and maybe the Finnish one as well as that also seems to be featured.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


    I've just completed this subsection of "Genocide" section, which aims to provide an outline of the major events of the genocide from start to finish, in a few paragraphs. I thought this was important because otherwise if the whole section is dedicated to specifics, the chronology ends up fragmented, between "initial events" and "RPF invasion" with no clear way to follow it. I'd be interested in any feedback on whether this is a good idea, and also if there are any important facts that I've omitted here that one would expect in a timeline.

    Having done that, the remainder of the "Genocide" section can be dedicated to specific subtopics, including the existing "Planning and organization", "Gender-targeted crimes" and "Death toll" (or variants thereof), as well as a section with more details on safe havens, survivors, possibly some specific examples of incidents and anecdotes. Again, any ideas on this, or contributions would be useful!

    I've left the section "Escalation of killings" in for the time being, because it has some material not repeated anywhere else, but I imagine that will be restructured shortly and that section wouldn't persist. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

    Template needed[edit]

    I think that this article, along with all the others related to the 90s civil conflict in Rwanda, should be included in a template (either a bottom template or a campaignbox template). This, in my opinion, would be very useful and would make it a lot easier for readers to know more about the events that occurred in the country during this period. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

    7 April[edit]

    Not TFA for the twentieth anniversary then, unfortunately (I've been too busy in real life recently time give it much attention) but I have at least listed it under selected anniversaries for 7 April so well get a small main page mentioned on Monday. Fingers crossed we can get over the line in time for the 21st anniversary next year!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

    Into too long[edit]

    The introduction is too long. Do something about it. -- (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    It's fine according to WP:LEADLENGTH. Also, WP:SOFIXIT. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014[edit]

    Hi, could someone please update the following links? Change to and to Thanks! 2003:74:CE21:2E01:894D:C84:587C:95D2 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

    Yes check.svg Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

    Davenport quote[edit]

    In the revisionism section, if someone could please check whether Davenport has been misquoted (he could definitely be considered an authority on African conflicts/peacekeeping in Africa, so I find it odd that he would label the Tutsi "Francophone"). Most Tutsi were actually Anglophone (spoke English in addition to Kinyarwanda and were less likely to identify with French culture compared to the Hutu).

    "A great deal of effort has been extended to make sure the focus stays exclusively on the Francophone Tutsi victims...."

    BBC documentary[edit]

    Should this recent BBC documentary or any of its contents be included on this page? Perhaps as an external link?

    seems to be required. See here a short analysis about it: Mocvd (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

    Completely new view of the genocide since an BBC report?[edit]

    Sorry, I do not have the time and ability to do it, could anyone more able to check this and possibly make the required adjustments please? Mocvd (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

    Anyone considering making changes based on the documentary, should perhaps also note this letter of rebuttal signed by 38 people here: Reissgo (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    I second what @Reissgo: says. The article should be based on secondary reliable published sources, which overwhelmingly assert, based on eyewitness testimony from those on the ground at the time, including the UN peacekeepers and journalists, that the genocide was primarily directed at Tutsis. Those responsible have in many cases been tried and found guilty by international courts. Until that overwhelming consensus changes, any other view is a fringe theory and probably not meritous of consideration.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    These new allegations hinge on the veracity of 1991 census[1]. Prof. Stam claims there were 500,000 Tutsi before the genocide and 300,000 survived, which is a rather high number. Given between 500,000 and 1 million were killed, this seems to indicate that most of those killed where Hutu. But there's evidence that the 1991 census under reported the numbers of Tutsi by ~40%, many registered as Hutu to avoid discrimination and the government under counted Tutsi in schools and to keep public employment quotas low. This is not considered by Prof. Stam. Also, given the annual 3% growth rate, even if the 1991 Census was correct there would have been 650,900 Tutsi not half a million by July 1994. Taking under reporting into account, it's believed there were 910,900 Tutsi before the killings started of which ~150,000 survived.[2] --Diamonddavej (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

    France as perpetrator[edit]

    There is an issue currently with the list of "perpetrators" in the infobox on this article. has inserted three times now, the inclusion of France in the list. This has already been discussed above, and I believe the consensus there is that it is WP:UNDUE to include an assertion that France participated in the genocide. Some sources in Rwanda have been known to assert that, for example [3], but the vast majority of reliable sources do not include France as a direct participant in the genocide. Many more sources do accuse France of assisting the regime or failing to act, but that's a different question, and would not merit inclusion in the "perpetrators".

    As far as I am concerned this is a fairly straightforward case, the inclusion of France is unsourced and violates WP:NPOV, but I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

    Number of death people in genocide , something cant be correct[edit]

    The article says, that up to 1 million people were killed in 1994. So why did the population jut drop for 60.000 from 1994 to 1995 The shrinking of population number already begun 1990.

    1990: 7,2147 Mil Einwohner

    1991: 6,9737 Mil Einwohner

    1992: 6,5451 Mil Einwohner

    1993: 6,0663 Mil einwohner

    1994: 5,7285 Mil Einwohner

    1995: 5,6638 Mil Einwohner

    So the polulation dropped altogether 1,6 million or 21 percent from 1990 to 1995,but the year,where the genocide happened, it just dropped 60 thousand. Can there be a fitting reason for that, or is something wrong about the whole story?

    Source of my numbers is the Worldbank:

    [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:56, 14 April 2015

    Data is not complete, it uses estimates when actual data is not available. David C 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    @ I'd have to check the exact numbers to figure out what's going on, but one possible reason why the actual population may not have actually dipped much in that period is that as the RPF took control of the country, a large number of Tutsi refugees, who had been living in Uganda for 30+ years, returned to Rwanda and settled in the areas won by the RPF. This influx may have been enough to offset the numbers killed. I'll have a bit more of a look at the figures later on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

    The segment "Death toll" says:

    Out of a population of 7.3 million people–84% of whom were Hutu, 15% Tutsi and 1% Twa–the official figures published by the Rwandan government estimated the number of victims of the genocide to be 1,174,000 in 100 days

    According to Worldbank ,7.3 million is indeed nearly the population of 1989, not the number from 1994 before the genocid officially started. So either the numbers of the Worldbank are wrong ,or the number of deaths during the masacre.So maybe everything just a propaganda lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:32, 14 April 2015‎

    Yes, I think using the official Rwandan government figures is probably not the best approach, as it is not at all clear how they arrived at their figures. Gerard Prunier did a very detailed analysis in his 1995 book on the subject, and came up with a wide range of possibilities from 500,000 to 1 million. That is the headline figured used in the lead here, and across Wikipedia. The 1,174,000 figure should probably not appear as it is not scientifically sourced. But either way, saying "everything is just a propaganda lie" is taking it too far - all analyses I have seen points to a figure of at least 500,000 as a bare minimum.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

    Surly massacre of Tutzi is not propaganda lie, but something is deeply wrong with all numbers we can find on internet. Just one look on graph on this page..70% of population increase in just 7 years...sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)