From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Rwanda is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa / Rwanda (Rated FA-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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-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).
Note icon
This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
WikiProject Countries (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

French or English[edit]

I hear Rwanda dropped French in favor of English as the official language in 2008? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Material copied to Banyarwanda[edit]

I have copied two paragaphs of the history section of this article across to Banyarwanda, with this diff. I will be modifying that text to adapt it to the specific topic, but noting the copy here per WP:COPYWITHIN. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I just copied another paragraph. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

source problem[edit]

Amnesty International is also critical, saying that genocide ideology laws have been used to "silence dissent, including criticisms of the ruling RPF party and demands for justice for RPF war crimes" and links to footnote NO. 71, Amnesty International 2010.

But there's no link to the actual source, only one similar is Amnesty International (2012). "Human Rights in Republic of Rwanda". Retrieved 2014-04-16. , but the year doesn't match.

And I also can't found the actual quote "silence dissent, including criticisms of the ruling RPF party and demands for justice for RPF war crimes" within the 2012 article.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jarodalien: it appears that the original reference, pointing to the 2010 Amnesty report was at some point replaced by the 2012 version, which of course had different text. I've restored the previous one and clarified in the text that the report was from 2010. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Amakuru:,I have found that article myselft using google just about 48 hours ago, just doesn't get the time to fix it here, because I'm translating this article to, thank you.

But there's one more problem I didn't found solution about the education section, there's one line I can't found the source, and I add [citation needed] already.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Added Military Paragraph to Government and Politics Section[edit]

Hi, since this is an FA class article I wanted to make it clear that I just added a paragraph on the country's military to the Government section. There was nothing on it before but there was a link at the top of the section to the military's wiki page as the main article reference.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: apologies I've only just noticed this, I've not been too active on WP recently, but thanks for the addition of the military paragraph.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some sourcing and POV issues[edit]

I've noticed that the sport section, the education section and parts of the health section of the article have some sourcing and POV/balance issues. In the sport section, there's what seems like a disproportionate focus on cricket and the cricket material lacks citations. In the education section, the detail about XO-XS laptops seems a bit disproportionate given the relatively short length of the section as a whole. In the health section, there's the passage "45 percent of women between the ages of 15 to 49, use family planning methods. This comes as no surprise as Rwanda women on average, give birth to 4.6 children throughout their lifetime (RDHS 2010)". "This comes as no surprise" doesn't sound that encyclopedic, and the citation needs to be replaced with a full footnote reference. Later in the section, there's a sub-heading "Millennium Development Goal 6", but what MDG6 is isn't explained. There may well be other issues with the article - I just spotted these in a quick scan when I was updating material about the University of Rwanda - but I'm concerned that these alone threaten the article's FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there @Cordless Larry: I should apologise here, because I've been aware of the issues you mention for a little while now, and it has been on my to-do list to fix them, but I haven't had the time yet. There is some vaguely useful content in the newly added material in the sport and health sections, which is why I've not yet removed it altogether, but as you say it's too long, and does need much more strict sourcing and balancing with respect to other content. Since you've now raised the issue here, my temptation is in the short term to largely take these sections back to how they were at the time FA was attained in 2012 (they are not fast moving topics, so I think that's reasonable), and then to come back to them in the near future when I have some time to look into the issue properly. Would that work for you? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, Amakuru, as long as care is taken not to remove any sourced, useful additions (or at least to make sure they are added back in again at a future point). It's probably worth mentioning cricket, but not with the current level of detail, and I would argue that other sports are of at least equal prominence and should be covered (e.g. cycling - see Tour of Rwanda, Adrien Niyonshuti, Rising from Ashes, etc.). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hang on though - I'm not sure it's that simple. At the time of FA status being granted, the article didn't even have a sport section! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Yes, that's true. In that case let me try to find some time - maybe at the weekend - to do a bit more of a thorough job of pulling together a decent balanced sport section. I'll leave it up to you if you'd rather leave the current content there in the mean time, or to remove it until I'm able to do that task. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to trim back and source the cricket material for now, and perhaps I might be able to help you improve the section further in the near future. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's done and I've also added some material on cycling. As a result, there's probably now too much emphasis on cycling, but I think the answer is to add more detail about other sports rather than cut the cycling and cricket material. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the whole of the sport section is now referenced. Whether it features a suitable balance of coverage between different sports is still up for debate, but it's a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
excellent, thank you for your work there. It looks good and balanced from a quick read through!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I think it needs more coverage of athletics and Paralympic sports since they're identified as two of the biggest sports in the country. It could also do with more coverage of women's sport because it's all a bit male-dominated at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Amakuru, do you think you'll have time to look at this any time soon? I don't mean to put this all on you (I've posted at WikiProject Rwanda too), but it would be good to make some more progress towards ensuring the article's FA status isn't threatened. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we really need to start making progress with this, otherwise I don't see any other option than to take it to WP:FAR. Are there any volunteers who will help me update the article and address some of the issues identified above? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Start year of the colonization era[edit]

The article states that 'The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era', but the History of Rwanda article states that 'Unlike much of Africa, Rwanda and the Great Lakes region was not decided by the 1884 Berlin Conference. Rather the region was divided in an 1890 conference in Brussels'. This should be corrected. Also, I assume the 1890 conference is the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty - but I think this treaty was signed in Berlin, see source. Ssu (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Neither the statement in this article, nor that in History of Rwanda, currently has a reference attached to it, so I don't know which one is correct. I think some more research will be needed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Alexander Domanda is insisting on adding a figure of 1 million Anglicans to the article, without a source. I have raised this on his user talk page, but there has been no response. In edit summaries, Alexander is referring to Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda, where the figure appears but is unsourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The text of this edit refers to the CIA World Factbook, but there is no figure for Anglicans given in that source. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, Alexander Domanda: if you cannot provide a source for your edits, I will remove the figure from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)