Talk:Rwandan genocide

Burundi Genocide

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 71.234.255.75 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

American Role

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 76.90.136.29 (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 99.132.124.49 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ID cards

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 http://gov.rw/page.php?id_article=56.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyerfekaj (talk • contribs) 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 68.119.104.137 (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility

The Politics of Genocide by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson has some interesting views on American imperialism and its relationship to the massacres http://allafrica.com/stories/201007080969.html 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 131.111.1.66, 23 May 2011

131.111.1.66 (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

"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 78.179.223.183 (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)

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 http://www.rwandainitiative.ca/symposium/transcript/panel3/doyle.html Just to make sure, there is also an archive.org snapshot of the dead link: http://web.archive.org/web/20100103060709/http://www.carleton.ca/mediagenocide/documents/transcript/panel3/doyle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.171.46 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (political development)

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: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/aug/05/rwanda-kagames-power-struggle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.171.46 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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 126.248.5.144 (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Plan to Update the Article

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(link to news article by BBC News) and the United Nation's announcement to close the ICTR by the end of 2014 (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)

Photo

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

BS

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

Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston S Smith (talk • contribs) 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.