Talk:Rwandan Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] not a civil war
ALthough there was a civil war in 1990, the situation in 1994 should not be considered as a civil war, but morely as a genocide that occured. Simultaneously, however, Tutsi rebels were trying to liberate the Rwandan Country, so they in a sense were in a civil war, but the general population of Rwanda witnessed a genocide that was much more national than the civil war. Lets just say that what really happened from 1990-1994 was a planned genocide (with the help of the French) that occured in 1994, with a low-level civil war between the RPF and the Hutu extremist government occuring at the same time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.133.253 (talk • contribs) 25 November 2006
- I have removed the box with long paragraphs that roughly repeated the actual text of the article. - BanyanTree 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
However, the article does not mention how France armed the Hutu genocidal government, so you should put the box back in!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.171.130 (talk • contribs)
- Why not add that to the actual article, as opposed to writing paragraphs in a box? You may have noticed that I've started rewriting the 1990 conflict section with citations. I'm sure that I'll get to the French participation eventually. If you want to work together, please write citing sources in Wikipedia:Footnotes, so I know what is sourced and what I have to replace. Thanks, BanyanTree 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
What is wrong to have a infobox? It was a civil war between 1990-94. Killerman2 16:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the precise definition of the war changes depending on the sources. I've seen the Civil War defined as being only the main fighting in 1990, 1990 to 1994 excluding the genocide, 1990 to 1994 including the genocide, or through the refugee return in 1996, or even to now. Besides the factual issues outlined at Talk:Rwandan genocide#infobox, the box is just confusing as it cannot cover the about four very different situations covered in the article. I would say that the military conflict infobox does not fit this article and should be left off.- BanyanTree 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Propaganda present.
There is a lot of propaganda present in this topic and on this page.
It is claimed that by having 37 advisors in the Rwandan military that France played a substantial role in the genocide. This strains belief. Furthermore, frequent genocides of both Hutu and Tutsi took place between 1959 and 2002, in Burundi, Rwanda, and the Congo, of which the Rwandan genocide is only one. This further makes the ongoing large scale clashes between Hutu and Tutsi very unlikely to have been caused by the French.
Furthermore, it has been presented that the Hutu government of Habyarimana "immediately" began genocide after the invasion of the Tutsi RPF forces. This is clearly misrepresented. There were several cease-fires before the 1993 Arusha Accords, and it was 4 years between the invasion by Kagame's RPF and the genocide. Four years is hardly "immediate." The genocide therefore must be viewed in context of the large scale civil war that was not only occurring in Rwanda but also burundi. Mbabane 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the NPOV tag as the content in question has been replaced with that from Rwandan Patriotic Front. The writer/s of the contested material appeared to be confused and added content specific to the genocide here. - BanyanTree 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)