Talk:Rwandan Genocide/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

FRANCE WAS CONFUSED?

It was mentioned in the article that France was confused and that is the reason why many tutsis died in the French Area called "Operation Turquoise" in Rwanda during the genocide. That's bullshit! France supported the Hutu extremists and that is why many tutsis and moderate hutus were killed in those areas. French is like a second language in Rwanda. How could the French have been confused if they speak the same language as the fucking hutu extremists? The French were in Rwanda for a purpose. And that purpose was to support and arm the hutu extremists and block the Rwandan Patriotic Front. There needs to be some god damn evidence that the french were confused. The French were training the hutu extremists. There is evidence in bbc that that is true. There's even a picture on this website and evidence that shows that France supported the Hutu extremists: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3606487.stm.

German cf. Belgian Role in Rwandan History

In all of the research and documentaries I have seen on the history of Rwanda and the region, the Belgians - not the Germans - have been credited (or blamed) with elevating the Tutsi over the Hutu using outdated race theories, after they took over the territory in 1916 during the Great War.

So, it's strange to see the Germans effectively blamed here, when all the other sources I've seen indicate they essentially ignored the area as being just the far northwestern section of German East Africa. Moreover, given the Belgian record in the neighbouring Congo, it seems far more likely that, to the extent any Europeans can be tagged with some distant blame for the genocide, they rather than the Germans are the ones who should be named. Whatever the Germans may have done during the 31 years between 1885 and 1916, the Belgians were there for 45 years after them.

That is what I was though also. People might think the Germans played a bigger part due to its history, but in this case, the belgians are the main criminals. --The monkeyhate 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Add be David 3/11/2007: The reason the Germans are mentioned is because they colonized this part of Africa first, and first introduced the "caste" Hutu/Tutsi system to provide a system of overseers to their colony. This has a direct link to more recent events.

Omittance of christian pretexts?

Why does this article fail to mention the role of christianity in inciting Hutus to committ the murders?

You want to indict all of Christianity for this episode or specific persons? Try to avoid Christophobia when making comments. Jtpaladin 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not christophobia you bastard! Rwandan church priests were openly participating in the Rwandan massacres. In fact, the Rwandan hutu extremist government lied to some civilians that they were going to be safe in those churches, only to send the killers there. I was in Nyarubuye where I saw a church with about a 1500 people. Everyone was told by the hutu extremist government that we were going to be safe at Church, but I didn't believe the government because they had already killed everybody in Rwanda. I instead hid in a hole that I dug in the ground. But I saw a church from across where I was hiding with 1500 people. All of a sudden, 10,000 hutu with machetes and guns and grenades and clubs started to surround the church that had those 1500 civilians. That's when I saw this hutu Priest inside the church go outside to welcome the killers in. Now, if I happenned to be in the church, I would of been chopped to pieces. Is christophobia the excuse to make motherfucker? What if you were trapped in that church. What the hell would you do. You need to admit that some of the church priests in Rwanda were devils and they were committing sin. And basically, the Rwandan church had a major role in the genocide. Since the churches are small areas, the hutu extremist preists just took advantage of those small areas to kill people easier. Most people were running for their lives. That included me too. Now, people were killed everywhere, because I saw dead bodies all over the place. But in the churches and schools where there is no space to run, it was easier to kill people. Some of the Rwandan churches are like the size of a living room. Now, there were NO survivors. And out of that 1500 people, about 1,400 were tutsis and 100 were hutu moderates!-Julius Ngaza

NOTICE-POSSIBLE PLAGIARISM

The following text, which I believe was copied directly from the Wikipedia article without due citation, was found at http://www.ogrish.com/archives/rwandan_genocide_Dec_12_2005.html The Rwandan Genocide was the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by a group of Hutu extremists known as Interahamwe during a period of 100 days in 1994. For many, the Rwandan Genocide stands out as historically significant not only because of the sheer number of people that were murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of the way many Western countries responded to the atrocities. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, virtually all first-world countries declined to intervene.

I decided this should be brought to attention as soon as possible, in case anything might be able to be done. 69.54.194.185 10:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

definition of massacre

"It was the worst massacre since the Holocaust." Depends on your definition of "massacre", but what about:

  1. The Vietnam War ~4 million civilians killed
  2. The Khmer Rouge ~1 million killed
  3. The Cultural Revolution ~3-6 million killed
  4. Continued Stalinist Purges (?)

I don't mean to turn this into a "worst massacre" contest, but let's not overlook some incredible human rights violations. --Chinasaur 22:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; your change of "massacre" to "genocide" was about what I had decided would be accurate. --Chinasaur 04:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's an argument that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide too, so that definition may not be accurate either. The problem here may not be what you call the killings, but maybe the use of the word "worst." -- to kill the sun 09:41, 3 Nov 2005

To the first person who posted defintion of massacre, what ithink was meant by "It was the worst massacre since the Holocaust." was that soo many people young and old were killed in a short period of time(about 100 days) and a substantially large amount of those people died before sundown even hitt. 800,000 to 1,071,000 killed isnt as much as some of the other famous genicides but either way it still was alot of lost lives.24.66.94.140 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)hope.

It seems that the word "worst" could be replaced by "fastest".


Blame on Clinton administration

I dont think laying blame on the "Clinton administration" is accurate. From what I understand, the republican congress was just as responsible for not helping enough. Mir 00:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Congress had large influence on foreign policy issues, and can also be held responsible for the lack of US response to the developing situation. Thank you for pointing this out.

Sadly, neither of you understands how the U.S. Constitution functions. Foreign policy is initiated by the Executive branch, not the Congress. Aside from that, if you would have checked the dates of this genocide, you will find that this episode happened during the Democrat controlled Congress. The Republicans did not take control of Congress until 1995, long after the genocide happened. So, yes, this was a Clinton failure. Jtpaladin 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

national post

[http://www.geocities.com/iwacu.geo/explosive.htm National Post: 'Explosive' leak on Rwanda genocide Informants told UN investigators they were on squad that killed Rwanda's president -- and a foreign government helped]

The above talks about how the rebels who ultimately took over Rwanda after the genocide, were likely responsible for the assassination of the Rwandan/Burundian Presidents, which was the sparking point of the genocide. The rebels were also assisted by a "foreign government" in this action. -- LaputanMachine

I revised the section to remove plagiarism from this source, adding a block quotation and citations. NYScholar 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I could not have said it better. That last statements just shuts everyone up. Clinton was well aware of what was going on. Even during the time of trouble a a tutsi woman from the Rwandese goverment got sent to the white house to personally seek help and let the people know from what she has seen, what is really going on. But in the end of all her efforts, they shipped her back home in the middle of a war with the answer, "This is not our war." So that's when the women knew that the genocide was ment to be. And that's when I learned, that politics is simply politics.

Catholic World News editorial proposing an alternate assessment and questioning of "genocide"

[1] seems like a useful "counterpoint" to the article. I hope its inclusion is agreeable now that I have clarified its stance? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry - I hope my edits didn't overlap - I only saw this after. Wizzy 12:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

That CWN article is the biggest piece of slanted crap I've ever read. Its true that it is a complicated two sided conflict (as all conflicts are), and not very well understood in the West, but that article falls just short of saying the Tutsis brought it on themselves. The RPF (who of course don't represent the Tutsis regardless of the fact that a majority were Tutsis) obviously contributed to the events leading up to the massacre. But the RPF aren't the ones who called for the extermination of Tutsis and moderate Hutus! The article presents nothing but a flimsy conspiracy theory that the massacre was the RPF's intention all along.

It becomes clear why a Catholic newspaper would be taking such a contrary position to common sense when you get to this paragraph:

In an effort to implicate the Church in the alleged plans for genocide, Kagame decided to confiscate ten Catholic church buildings and convert them into memorials for the 1994 victims. After a strong protest from Church officials, a compromise was reached: the buildings could continue to function as churches, but signs would be erected to memorialize those killed in the slaughter. The remains of those killed would be buried in church crypts.

Hmmm, funny a Catholic media source should be taking a stance against a government which is illumnating some Church culpability. --Brentt 08:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it as it has always struck me as an outlier and Brentt's comments just reinforces that. Anybody think that it is needed for alternate viewpoints requirements? - BanyanTree 14:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I am of those who lived the genocide, and question the "angel of salvation" label that the RPF and Kagame are often given. If Wikipedia is going to become a source of accurate knowledge, we need to be careful to capture the fulness of the story. That said, CWN may not be the most unbiased source either, due to the role of many priests in the genocide.
Themalau 10:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-government section POV

"rightly ousted" appears to be Wikipedia:Point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Samaritan 10:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the context :- The former favourites of the west rapidly became viewed as feudal overlords who were rightly ousted in favour of rule by the Hutu majority. I believe the intention is that the Hutu wished to create the impression that the Tutsi were rightly ousted, not that the author of the section necessarily thought that. But it is not very clear - you want to take a shot at fixing it ? Wizzy 12:10, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Hutu are the only killers?

I feel that the following is pretty biased: "This has led to a great deal of competition for scarce land and resources. Slaughtering the Tutsis is thus seen as an attempt by some Hutu to gain more land."

This states that only Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutu who were interested in gaining more land. I'm not sure about Rwanda, but I do know that there have been mass killings of Hutu by Tutsi in neighbouring Burundi, which has a similar ethnic mix and similar climate and high population density. Approximately 200,000 Hutu were killed in Burundi by Tutsi in a massacre 1972 and there was another massacre of Hutu by the Tutsi there in 1988, in the north. Burundi currently has a military Tutsi-dominated government, and there is an on-going civil war in the country, complete with concentration camps for Hutu to the present day (December 2004).

In other words, I would say that the competition for scarce land and resources affects both ethnic groups in similar ways. There has been on-going intense hatred and suspicion occasionally breaking out into terrible massacres by whichever group was in power. The largest of the massacres was the 1994 Rwandan genocide, but there have been other genocides on both sides!All that was said i think the hutu's and the tutsi's are againt each other.

There had been attempts at localized ethnic cleansing for many years, certainly by the 1950s, by both Hutus and Tutsis. Any sentence that implies that the attitudes that led to the genocide didn't have deep roots is probably inappropriate. BanyanTree 04:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In Rwanda, however, the Tutsis hadn't been in power since the days of the monarchy in the late fifties. That's not to say there wasn't oppression of Hutus by Tutsis in other places. In Rwanda, however, it was mostly oppression of Tutsi by Hutu (and Hutu by Hutu), simply because it was consistently the Hutus who were in power. Saforrest July 6, 2005 12:26 (UTC)

You're making it look like the reason why the tutsis were being massacred by the Hutus in 1994 was becuase of land. If that was the reason, the Hutus would of tried to wipe out the tutsis a long time ago because Rwanda is a very small country anyway. The Hutus have committed massacres out of their own ignorance and ethnic hatred for tutsis. The tutsis however, committ massacres in self-defense. The tutsis were never trying to wipe out the Hutus, they were just defending themselves. The tutsi government committed the 1972 masscares of hutus, "because" the hutus slaughtered several thousand tutsis first. The hutus are the main "aggressors" and they have always started the conflicts in Burundi and Rwanda. Besides, the tutsis never used probaganda and they were never funded by any outside governments to commit massacres of civilians. The hutus on the other hand, have used lots of propaganda against the tutsis and for 2 times in a row, they have been funded and helped by outside governments. The belgians encouraged the hutus to murder tutsi civilians in the 1950s while the French armed, trained, and assisted the hutus in killing tutsis in 1994. The hutus massacres of tutsis have always been for the objective of wiping the tutsis out or forcing the tutsis into exhile. The tutsi massacres of hutus have always been out of self-defense. Besides, Tutsi and Hutu lived together in peace before the Europeans came and divided them. There was no such thing as a tutsi monarchy, becuase cattle was money. Therefore, a hutu could be a king if he simply had more cattle than tutsi. All those stupid myths anout tutsi and hutus were all started by the ignorant Europeans, and as a result, this caused the tutsi and hutu to fight each other.- high id

Quote by Dallaire

I want to include the following qoute by Romeo Dallaire, from his book Shake Hands with the Devil. I think its very relevant:

"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)" Mir 22:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the quote is excellent, but too long for this page. I put the full quote on Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide#The UN - but I think an abbreviated version has a place here. Wizzy 10:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
This is an excellent quote. Too often nations blame the failings of the UN peacekeepers when it os obvious that intervention should have occured on their part. [writer unknown]
To provide further access to the full quotation, I added cross-references to Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide in the "See also" sections of this article and the article on Roméo Dallaire. NYScholar 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Different Figures

This article says that 937,000 people were killed in the genocide. In the article on Rwanda it lists 800,000. Which one of these is correct?

It is hard to determine the correct figures, but the latest ones are an estimated 937,000. Gen Dallaire's book and other sources cite a figure of "more than 800,000". mu5ti/✏ 23:11, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
I believe the number of people murdered is estimated at 937,000, but the number of tutsis is estimated at 800,000. -jakelind

The article says that UNAMIR was reduced to 260 by the security council resolution 912. It says 270 here.[2]

Portions of this Article are Ripped Off

Directly, word for word, from a BBC publication. The BBC article was published in 2004 (see BBC), the edits were made by an anonymous editor in February of this year. So I'm changing it to keep the content but not the form of the article. Andicat 12:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Claims

"UNAMIR forces were also complicit in some of the massacres, for example when a Ghanaian detachment charged with protecting chief justice Joseph Kavaruganda turned him over to Hutu militants for immediate assassination. The Ghanaians then laughed and drank with the death squad as it attacked his wife and children."

Can we get a source for this? Otherwise, can we get a vote to delete it? Thanks. mu5ti/talk 05:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Removed POV text

I have removed this POV text.

Parts of it may be distilled into useful information, particularly the bit about the Hutu politician who was killed (if verifiable as cited) but its general tone is extremely pro-Hutu, effectively blaming the genocide on the RPF invasion.

I have also reverted this user's edits on Hutu; see Talk:Hutu. --Saforrest July 7, 2005 02:50 (UTC)

The user is paraphrasing text from the book "the lion, the fox and the eagle"---p.108, line 36 to line 6 of p.109. The book is certainly not "pro-Hutu" in regards to the rwandan genocide, yet sites instances of inefficiency of certain factions within UNAMIR forces. 132134 07:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)132134

Mastermind of Genocide

I think that the foreign government that assisted the elite strike team in assassinating the Rwandan president was the mastermind of the resulting genocide. Which foreign government was the mastermind of the Rwandan presidential assassination and the resulting genocide? -- Ed Telerionus 7 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

Intro

The intro seems to have some problems to me:

  1. Use of the term ethnic cleansing - to describe the genocide as an "attempted ethnic cleansing," where that term can mean nothing more than a population transfer, seems a bit of an understatement to me.
  2. The article also seems to state that the Hutu extremists were "ethnically cleansing" moderate Hutus. This doesn't make any sense at all. There were mass murders of Hutu moderates, but these can neither be considered "genocide" nor "ethnic cleansing." john k 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair points. Feel free to have a go at it. - BanyanTree 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've made some fairly extensive changes to the introduction to correct some of the problems mentioned above as well as to clarify what I see as the most important points about this event. In particular:

  1. I've replaced the death toll previously cited with the number that was officially reported by the Red Cross (one million).
  2. I've removed the term "ethnic cleansing" because it is too vague and, in my view, is not an appropriate descriptor for what happened in Rwanda in 1994. I also think that referring to the event by using only one term (i.e. "genocide") helps with consistency and clarity.
  3. I've clarified the role played by the United Nations and UNAMIR.
  4. I've emphasized the often inaccurate portrayals of the genocide as merely "tribal warfare".
  5. I also made some structural changes which I think help with the flow of this part of the article.

Of course, if anyone has any further suggestions, feel perfectly free to add them to the article. (On a related note, I'm sure there will be other consistency problems with the rest of the article given that my changes were limited to the introduction. I haven't got to these yet.) I would be interested in any discussion relating to the changes I've made.--Todeswalzer 18:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and genocide

There's a profound and inescapable NPOV problem for any highly-charged political topic such as this, in which equivocation is felt by each of the various sides to concede too much to their rivals. But it must be POV to assert, as the intro does, that "in actual fact" some political viewpoints on the nature of the atrocity are objectively false. Political analysis is not susceptible to standards of objectivity in this way. To make this claim is to adopt a political stance, with which a small but significant minority vehemently disagree: it's POV.

So. While it is certainly desirable to record that the majority of credible analysis characterises the atrocities as the outcome of an orchestrated and racially-motivated political masterplan, ie, a genocide, the 'pedia cannot credibly assert that this majority set of analyses is the one, true set. That determination has to be made by the critical reader according to the balance of evidence presented. What this article badly needs is well-linked catalogues of that evidence, not more political interpretation. Adhib 11:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning NPOV and references about France's "preventing foreign intervention"

The new Rwandan government, led by interim President Théodore Sindikubwabo, worked hard to minimize international criticism. Rwanda at that time had a seat on the Security Council and its ambassador argued that the claims of genocide were exaggerated and that the government was doing all that it could to stop it. Representatives of the Rwandan Catholic Church, long associated with the radical Hutus in Rwanda, also used their links in Europe to reduce criticism. France, which felt the United States and United Kingdom would use the massacres to try to expand their influence in that francophone part of Africa, also worked to prevent a foreign intervention. The bold sentece seems POV, I'm not certian though. I don't know a lot about the topic. But, if the author of this sentence/article could please provide some sources substataing it- mainly the France claim- even if they're articles to substantiate this assertion... This just needs some backup info.

Nowhere does anyone try and state what sort of intervention might have been possible or appropriate. Suppose the US decided to intervene. Given the speed at which the massacre occurred and the distance and logistics involved, it is doubtful that American troops could have arrived in significant numbers before most of the people were killed. Or assume that they knew sufficiently in advance to deploy a substantial force (and bear in mind that the build-up to Iraq took eight months, despite the excellent lines of transportation between the US and the Middle East, or the time it took to move troops and other supplies to Florida during Hurricane Katrina). What would a strong US presence have done? As for actually getting into villages and towns and stopping neighbours from killing each other, I doubt whether that would have been possible. Just think of the problems of finding and fighting the Vietcong with 500,000 US troops. Can you imagine helicopter gunships roaring across Rwandan skies bringing down hordes of machete wielding Hutus? JRJW December 2005
Note the pro-American brainwashing in the previous post. As if the West was going to perform a full out war on some guerillas? Not likely. That's why there's other ways, most notably safe zones. Set up a camp, Tutsi's in, genocide out. Bingo bango. But of course everyone has to always point out the most difficult situations, not the most obvious. --Hurricane Angel 03:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The assertion that France prevented foreign intervention because of anglo-saxon influence is unsubstantiated, and if anyone read the French parliementary comission report on the Rwandan Genocide, it is stated that US or UK had no interests in extending their influence in the region. The only reason France would have obstructed any intervention was the fear of accusations of colonial interventionism, although Rwanda never was a French colony despite the involvement of French armed forces in training the Rwandan military within the framework of cooperation treaties between the two countries (as with many other African countries) anterior to the Genocide. In addition, because of it's links to the Rwandan armed forces, it would have been very difficult and was indeed very difficult to operate as a neutral force hence the semi-fiasco of operation "Turquoise". Any other words France in the end tried to do the right thing, but another country would have been more suitable for the operation. Blastwizard 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is widely argued that "operation turquoise" protected the genocidal government at the expense of Tutsi in the area, and may actually have caused more deaths due to Tutsi coming out of hiding believing they were in a 'safe zone' (see either of Linda Melvern's books on the subject, or Dallaire's autobiog). The French intervention also exacerbated badly the refugee situation in the Zaire camps, due to their unwillingness to disarm the militia members who fled Rwanda. The debate about French influence in the Francophone region does indeed continue, but to suggest that France "tried to do the right thing" has no place in the encyclopedia article, and I for one am glad it isn't there. Macgruer 18:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Snippet from Paul Kagame

I am doing a copy-edit of Paul Kagame, which includes this large (rather POV) part on the Rwandan Genocide. I offer it for inclusion to anybody who knows a good deal on the topic, to make sure no information is lost. Any comments on whether any part of this should be included here?

The snippet in question:

The next day, the Hutu extremists began massacring thousands of Tutsi politicians and moderate Hutu citizens. Some United Nations camps sheltered innocent citizens; however, the United Nations Mission in Rwanda stood by idly during the genocide. They had been told only to "monitor", not to interfere with Rwandan politics. On the same day, 10 Belgian soldiers were tricked and killed by the extremists. U.S. President Bill Clinton issued a statement offering his condolences to the victims' families and denouncing the rebels.

For the next couple of weeks, many questionable decisions were made. Belgium and the UN withdrew almost all of their forces, leaving all of the Rwandans behind. The United Nations Security Council unanimously voted to withdraw its troops, with France and Belgium at the forefront. Finally, on May 17, 1994, the UN concedes that "acts of genocide may have been committed." At that time, the Red Cross estimated at least 100,000 deaths at the hands of the Hutu extremists, the majority of those being minority Tutsis.

By Mid-May, the U.S. attempted to take action by ordering 50 APCs to aid Rwanda; however, an argument ensued over their cost. At this time, the Red Cross estimated over 500,000 deaths. At the end of May, the RPF (on its own) took over most of Rwanda. France, Belgium, and the rest of the U.N. did nothing to prevent the acts of genocide, of which they had knowledge; this caused Kagame to denounce France and the U.N., specifically, continually for many years. France, ironically, absolved its government of any responsibility, blaming mostly the U.N. and the United States.

Thanks and greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

the role of the USA shines in a new light, if you read the National Security Archive: "Contrary to later public statements, the US lobbied the UN for a total withdrawal of UN forces in Rwanda in April 1994" http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html

NPOV and Genocide, part II

I have a problem that I really have issues grappling with. See, with the claims of President Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, and the reactions he received from people, I must ask myself how unbiased one can be in this world, about such big and tragic events. Any attempts to question, analyze and/or counter-analyze the evidence of the Holocaust is seen as a Death penalty offense. I have no reason, personally, to doubt the existence of the Holocaust. But shouldn't people be allowed to challenge the existence of the Holocaust, or its being a genocide, or its scope, etc? I mean, if the evidence is so strong to prove it did exist - and I believe it is, why is it that we do tend to stifle the debate, and silence those that disagree?

I say this, because I was living in Rwanda during the genocide. I saw many of the massacres, and heard the calls on Radio Milles Collines to "cut the tall trees", and "kill the cockroaches", both terms that were widely understood to mean "Go kill Tutsis". So I heard and saw first hand the reality of, if not the plannification, at least the massive encouragement of the massacres by people in power at the time. So, for me, I see no problem to call it a genocide. It was unforgiveable, ignominous, and it stull haunts my nights 11 years later.

But for the 4 years I lived in Rwanda (90-94), the RPF of Paul Kagame killed a great number of Hutus, selectively. And in my country the DRC, the RPF - allegedly - killed in the vicinity of 200,000 Hutus who have just disappeared. And most of the nearly 2 million Hutus who crossed the Rwanda/Zaire(now DRC) border in 1994 were not genocide perpetrators (although they hid among them); they were mostly Hutus that were REALLY scared of what the RPF would do to them... The current Tutsi-led regime in Rwanda must be looked at very carefully, and objectively, and the aura of innocence they have garnered from being the so-called "saviors" - and it is true that they did , de facto, put an end to the genocide - must be reevaluated. I have said this many times, and every time, people silence me as a revisionist! I can be a revisionist for something I lived, and saw with my own eyes!!!! The genocide did happen, in my view. But a whole bunch of other things happened around it too, and they are being eluded, for the sake of political correctness, and Western World guilt for their inaction. That's not fair, that is not a NPOV, and I wish some people would look objectively - more objectively than me even - into that. Themalau 06:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you say. I have tried to rewrite the article on Paul Kagame including his role in the DRC. Sadly i just dont have the knowledge to fully elaborate on his role. Maybe we should work together?
As for the larger point you are making, you are also right i think. But you shouldnt forget that it has always - ALWAYS - been the case that people tend to think of something either as "good" or "bad". I dont think it is "political correctness" as you say, but its a psychological reaction which occurs when the facts arent as neat as people would like them to be. It's called cognitive dissonance, and you can see it active on Wikipedia a lot. For example, lets assume you have three propositions in your head: 1. Paul Kagame is "good". 2. Rwandas role in the DRC was "bad". 3. Paul Kagame was responsible for this. Obviously these three arent entirely consistent. The normal psychological reaction to this would be either to say "Paul Kagame isnt that good", "Rwandas role wasnt that bad" or "Paul Kagame wasnt responsible". People's brains want the facts to be entirely consistent, and in order to do this, the other sides of any argument tend to get underappreciated.
In the case of the holocaust, i can understand the unwillingness to allow any denial. But if it were up to me, i would agree that if you allow the argument, people denying the holocaust would have a lot harder time. Now they can just (as Ahmenijad did) point to the fact that it is illegal to talk about it and claim its a conspiracy. If it were legal to talk about it, he would have to prove his point, rather than just shout it out loudly. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Pardon my brevity, but I strongly disagree. If you want to include the information that 200 000 innoscent Hutus were killed by RPF, you will need valid (and GOOD sources), not just claims. I do not have any opinion for or against RPF, but everything in Wikipedia must be sourced, and accusations of genocide must be sourced very well. Heptor talk 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speke's role

"Another school of thought argues that the violence in the region is a result of the same European theories of race that led to the Holocaust. These ideas were propagated by John Hanning Speke".

This isn't clear to me; did Speke propagate theories on the cause of violence, or the theories of race that ultimately led to the violence?

REPLY: John Hanning Speke proposed the "hamitic hypothesis"- that is, race theory that the tutsi were 'more white', closer to being 'european', and therefore 'better'. Macgruer 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

offending pictures

Hi! I read the article about the Rwandan Genocide, and I found some of the pictures (showing victims etc) very offending. Not only towards me (more than to a certain extent), but mustn't there be more sensitive users? I think it is quite irresponsible of you when this is supposed to be a site open for everyone. I wouldn't for example allow my children to even visit this page when I know it contains such explicit material.

Thanks! /Johannes

There is nothing nice about genocide. To write about it without 'the bad stuff' is even less responsible. Wizzy…☎ 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johannes, I appreciate your feelings on this, but Wikipedia is quite clear that it is not censored for the benefit of minors. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer for more. While editors don't go out of our way to offend, we also don't hesitate to put material that some may find objectionable as long as it is appropriate to the article. Pictures of victims of a genocide in an article about that genocide are definitely appropriately. Regards, BanyanTree 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the two comments made above. I think it's ridiculous for someone to be looking up a page about genocide and then be offended that there are gruesome pictures/descriptions. Genocide by its very nature IS gruesome. Furthermore, there are no gratuitous pictures of violence, etc. on this page; quite the contrary, the photos included in this article are essential for communicating the facts of this subject matter. --Todeswalzer | Talk 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The pre-colonial history section

This looks like interesting material (assuming it doesn't violate WP:NOR - see here), but it seems vastly too large for this article, and would be better placed as a merge with pre-colonial history in the History of Rwanda. If we could summarise it in a paragraph or two, with emphasis on the historical causes of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, I think that would be sufficient. — SteveRwanda 10:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
I also have to say that there are some serious issues with this article - the structure is horrible and there is a complete lack of citations. If you look at how an an ideal article would be designed - context leading into well referenced detail on the actual events of the Genocide in Rwanda with a section on the effects - this article falls far short. There may be partially the result of nobody wanting to tackle integrating the subpages PZFUN translated over from FR but mostly it's just the lack of some knowledgeable, skeptical and judicious editing. I have removed the {{GA}}. Anybody who actually read some background literature willing to put a knife to this article? - BanyanTree 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The lack of references is a very poor feature of this article. It was quite correct to remove the GA template. This is going to be a hard article to write - not just to keep NPOV in the writing, but to cite everything in an accurate and NPOV way too (many sources are bound to be biased). Good luck to whoever takes it on! TheGrappler 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The Pre-Colonial History here provides more information than is available in History of Rwanda and Rwanda, and is maybe even in conflict in defining the (existence of) differences between Hutu & Tutsi. I don't think it really belongs here, at least not in such detail. I'm going to add at least links between the three articles. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can combine/divide the three articles properly. Themightyquill 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The Grapper, it isn't a lack of references - it is that they are at Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide and are not well-connected.
Banyan Tree, I have read some, but by no means all of the referenced material, and am surprised that you think the article is so poor. I guess a lot of it is the usual criticism of "old" articles - lack of inline citations which are very in vogue these days. Pcb21 Pete 11:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pete, I am a fan of the new Cite notes but that's not my major concern. An article named the Rwandan Genocide should be about the genocide. It should briefly give the run-up's key decision points and decision makers, clearly describe key events and processes of the actual genocide and then briefly describe carry-on effects and other results to lead readers onto further topics. If you look at the article, the entirety of the description of the actual genocide as experienced by Rwandans lies between the "Genocide" 2nd level header and the "UNAMIR" 3rd level header, a total of three paragraphs. Of the remaining content, much is weakened by a outsider-perspective that I find unhelpful, such as the heavy focus on UNAMIR and Dallaire. This article attempts to tell you about everything but the actual genocide.
Going back to the citations, I see them as a way to moderate the wash of editing making fairly substantive changes. Has anyone else noted the slow motion edit war over the past year or so among multiple users over whether the number of dead is 800K, 1 million, something in between, or more than 1 million? Before anyone starts throwing {{sofixit}} at me, I would if I felt at all confident that I have a sufficient grasp of the topic to make the decision over what should stay, what should be removed and what should be moderated down to a subpage. If I ever manage to read the four books on the Genocide on my bookshelf, and feel like attracting some flaming, I may have a go at it, but I stand by my stated opinion above. Regards, BanyanTree 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sher

"Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself," said one Hutu who was forced to take part. definitely needs to be referenced, or more likely, removed. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've discovered possibly inadvertent plagiarism in this passage (see earlier comments on recurring plagiarism throughout this article). Instead of removing the information, I added appropriate quotation marks and citations in revising it as a "blockquote." More help from other editors is needed with removing plagiarism and authentically documenting material in this entry by adding quotation marks and giving more citations of sources for paraphrases and quotations. NYScholar 22:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

end of the Genocide

the genocide ended "mid-July 1994" why? how? this is completely omitted. Darker Dreams 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article cites the political process leading to the end of the Genocide. Previous editors attribute the historical end to the Genocide in paragraph 4 and later in the article. NYScholar 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Basic Cleanup

I've been adding links to other wikipedia articles where it seems necessary. I am concentrating on long sections of text without such links with the goal of making it possible for readers unfamiliar with some of the terms and references to quickly link over to articles on those subjects. I'm not going to be doing much else besides the links and minor grammar fixes.

The long historical sections duplicate a lot of info in the Rwanda article and should perhaps be trimmed but I'll leave that for a later date. Lisapollison 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This article needs much more cleanup. Many sections are still missing verification sources. See particularly the section on "Arms Shipments," which provides no citations or attributions at all for its statistics. It appears to be plagiarized from sources. Compare the other language versions (esp. French). Help needed with cleanup of this article still. NYScholar 18:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{cleanup}}.

I've also indicated in many places [citations needed] after doing some further preliminary cleanup. I am encouraging help from other editors due to pressing deadlines and lack of time to do more. Embedded in-text parenthetical citations keyed to the extensive Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide are preferable (in my own view) at this point. [Some of the references that I've added to the main article's "Notes" may still need adding to that Bibliography. I've provided the needed information and added many of them, but I haven't time to do any more revision. Updated.] NYScholar 17:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Further update: See the comment on the talk page for the Bibliography. The notes in the article and the Bibliography are in MLA Style format now and fairly consistent (except if information was not supplied by original editors; I've added some of the information, but other editors need to help complete this work). NYScholar 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda revealed, in his testimony before the ICTR, that the genocide was openly discussed in cabinet meetings and that "one cabinet minister said she was personally in favour of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over."[5]" Is this cabinet member Pauline Nyiramasuhuko? Just curious; her name isn't mentioned in this article but I think maybe it should be. Boris B 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

International reactions?

There are a few sentences regarding actions by the world community before the genocide, but nothing about the world reactions of the genocide after it had happened. I think that's very relevant. --The monkeyhate 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"those horrific 100 days"

The 3rd paragraph in the intro discusses "those horrific 100 days". While I imagine (not having been there) that the genocide was horrific, this statement seems a little excessive for an encyclopedia article. I'm going to change it to "the genocide." Natalie 01:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Darfur"

Removed the below as editorializing POV; I suppose one might add a neutral statement noting that the Rwandan situation has been invoked regarding lack of foreign intervention in the reported ethnic cleansings and conflict in Darfur.

"The current Darfur conflict recalls the sorry role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide, leading some to fear its inability to prevent further massive loss of life and misery in the Sudan and elsewhere in Africa (Gourevitch 2006).[1]"

"Encyclopaedic"?

This is "encyclopaedic":

"Throughout January, February and March, he pleaded for reinforcements and logistical support. The UN Security Council repeatedly refused his pleas. Annan's faxed response had ordered Dallaire to defend only the UN's image of impartiality, forbidding him to protect desperate civilians waiting to die. Next, it detailed the withdrawal of UN troops, even while blood flowed and the assassins reigned, leaving 800,000 Rwandans to their fate."?

I think this whole article needs to be revised for its language and overall tone. I understand the complexities of writing a political piece, but, even if it's not "Britannica," Wikipedia shouldn't have an article that so reeks of personal virulence.

(Commando303)

Protect this article?

I've noticed several incidences of vandalism on this article in the past few days (although it is far beyond me why anyone would choose a page such as this to vandalize). I think we should consider protecting it for the near future. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC) 8-bit theater

I also have no idea why an unknown person put "8-bit theater" after my comments. It doesn't seem to accomplish anything -- discussion or vandalism alike. --Todeswalzer|Talk 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you to Alex9891 for protecting this article. --Todeswalzer|Talk 20:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected this article after two days. The level of vandalism on this article recently has been about what one would expect of a fairly high profile subject. Please just watch this article for the occasional vandalism and do not request protection except in cases of sustained vandalism, per Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Thanks, BanyanTree 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

infobox

Rwandan Civil War
Date 1990 & 1994
Location Rwanda
Result Tutsi victory
Belligerents
Hutu tribe:
Interahamwe
Impuzamugambi
Rwandan Armed Forces
French Army		 Tutsi tribe:
Rwandan Patriotic Front
Uganda
UNAMIR
Commanders
Juvénal Habyarimana
Robert Kajuga
Georges Rutaganda
Col. Théoneste Bagosora
Gen. Augustin Bizimungu
Idelphonse Hategekimana		 Paul Kagame
Yoweri Museveni
Maj-Gen. Roméo Dallaire
Strength
Unknown Unknown
280 Canadian UN soldiers
Casualties and losses
Unknown 800,000 to one million Tutsi killed

I have removed this military conflict infobox from the article. While I appreciate that these can be useful when there are two clearly identifiable sides, they tend to be confusing in low-intensity conflicts. Its use in this genocide is just weird, if not misleading. There are issues of Tutsi v Hutu, as many Hutus were killed as well. Uganda is listed as a combatant along with UNAMIR, fighting the French, which did not happen. It's possible a table that doesn't pigeonhole everyone into neat classifications as if this was a Napoleonic era battle would be useful, but this boilerplate just doesn't fit. - BanyanTree 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- it seems to reaffirm the impression that the genocide was simply a civil war, as the Hutu Power government proclaimed. --Todeswalzer|Talk 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with BanyanTree. Wizzy…☎ 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong to get a infobox man? It was not only a genocide but also a civil war in Rwanda. Killerman2 14:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is about the 1994 Genocide, not the civil war that started in 1990. And above you will see the other substantive issues, such as putting UNAMIR and the RPA together as if they were fighting together in a military alliance. - BanyanTree 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeay but then I creature a own article about the 1990 Rwandan Civil War, so surly one body going to REDIRECT to Rwandan Genocide and what a mean with UNAMIR was putting together with RPA are for at it was battle between the UNAMIR and Hutu militans. Killerman2 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand this sentence. Could you fix the spelling/grammar to clarify? - BanyanTree 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there are so many things wrong with the infobox I don't know where to begin . Hutu and Tutsi are not "tribes"; the French government would never openly admit to assisting the MRND government; the Canadian flag is pretty hard to justify given that for a good portion of the conflict the only Canadians in UNAMIR (and Rwanda in general) were Dallaire and Major Brent Beardsley. If one throws in Canada one might as well add Bangladesh, Cameroon, and all the other countries from which UNAMIR people came. Anyway, I'll stop there because the infobox has been adequately rebutted by others. --Saforrest 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Rwanda

There are many references to the film 'Hotel Rwanda'in this article. I don't think that this should be included because the article should be soley baed on the genocide and not on a film based on it. The film was created after the event and there were a few notable differences in the film from the actual events. I think that all references to the film should be removed Ryanpostlethwaite 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

facts/citations

A quick search of the article and I found 41 { { fact } } (citation need) points. This is clearly excessive! They need to be removed. I removed a few. I also added a long quote from Dallaire to prove others, although, for the record, for anyone even remotely interested in this, it is KNOWN that most moderate politicians were quickly assassinated. It is also known that UNAMIR helped rescue others. DDD DDD 12:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the more helpful approach be to provide citations, rather remove the "citation needed" templates? - BanyanTree 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, are we going to go in the Holocaust article and write { { fact } } after every paragraph. Some bold statements surely need paragraph but *known* people who were murdered or who took part in the murdering... why do we need to put a fact after it. We know those things. No encylopedia has a fact citation after every sentence or in every paragraph. Isn't the point of the encyclopedia to present facts for people to digest. Here's an example of what I am talking about: "Four days later, the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR to 260 men.[citations needed]" And this one: After the victory of the RPF, the size of UNAMIR (henceforth called UNAMIR 2) was increased to its full strength, remaining in Rwanda until March 8, 1996.[citations needed]. We know these things.DDD DDD 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If you look at The Holocaust, on average every other paragraph is cited or has {{fact}}. You can safely assume that another editor will eventually challenge all the statements you've removed challenges to.
It would perhaps be more helpful if the sentences were reworded to remove ambiguity. Look at the sentences "Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh,has been criticized" and "His actions are credited" - passive constructions that avoid saying who criticized and who credited. If Wikipedia doesn't offer tight writing that doesn't leave readers in a fog, perhaps a cited source will. I already am on record above criticizing the structure of this article, but references can and do help ground an article. - BanyanTree 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do they mean confusion on the behalf of French Troops? The French troops were the ones who armed the Hutu Genocidal Government. They knew what was going on! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.108.171.130 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC).

I am relatively new here, but how would I input a citation if my source is a book? I would like to help cleanup this article if I could.--Light Dragon 16:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Harvard referencing and a full citation. -Pgan002 10:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanked section

The following section was removed from the article on 31 October 2006. Should it be cleaned up and restored to the article? --Muchness 18:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC) I would say it should. However, I am a little pressed for time at the moment, but I will try to help clean it up later.--Light Dragon 23:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ICTR Statement of 16 June 2006: A "landmark decision"

In a press release issued on 16 June 2006 by the United Nations, as Kimenyi observes, "Eleven years after its establishment and four years to its closure, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has [finally] recognized that genocide happened in Rwanda in 1994":

In a statement issued on June 16, [2006][,] the UN-backed tribunal legally recognises the genocide that took place in Rwanda between April 6 and July 17, 1994. This comes two years after the UN officially accepted its failure to stop the genocide, which claimed an estimated one million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Rwandan government has welcomed the Tanzania-based tribunal proclamation, but says it has been long overdue. Acting Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga said on Wednesday: “This is a very important ruling. It is a historic landmark and it also proves wrong revisionists of the genocide.” He however observed that the court had made the proclamation rather late, saying that it ought to have done so several years ago as former Prime Minister Jean Kambanda had admitted his government had planned and perpetrated the genocide.

Presented as "one of the most significant rulings of the Tribunal," this "proclamation" is quoted in full as follows:

ICTR Appeals Chamber takes Judicial Notice of Genocide in Rwanda

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on 16 June 2006 ruled that the Trial Chambers must take judicial notice of the following facts:

The existence of Twa, Tutsi and Hutu as protected groups falling under the Genocide Convention; The following state of affairs existed in Rwanda between 6 April 1994 to 17 July 1994: there were throughout Rwanda widespread or systematic attacks against a civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic identification. During the attacks, some Rwandan citizens killed or caused serious bodily or mental harm to person[s] perceived to be Tutsi. As a result of the attacks, there were a large number of deaths of persons of Tutsi ethnic identity; Between 6 April 1994 and 17 July 1994 there was genocide in Rwanda against Tutsi ethnic group. This land mark decision was delivered by the Appeals Chamber on Prosecutor's Appeal on Judicial Notice, dated 16 June 2006, in the trial of Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse and Nzirorera, ICTR-98-44-AR73 (C). The decision will have an immediate impact on the trial proceedings in the Karemera et al case, and will be felt in all of the current and pending trials before the Trial Chambers of the ICTR. Judicial notice of the above matters means that they are to be taken as established beyond any dispute and not requiring any proof.

This is one of the most significant rulings of the Tribunal, given the consequences in terms of putting the occurrence of the genocide beyond legal dispute. It can be recalled that until now the OTP has had to in each case lead evidence and prove the occurrence of the genocide. This will no longer be necessary.

In the view of the OTP the ruling should now silence the ‘rejectionist’ camp which has been disputing the occurrence of genocide. By relieving the OTP of a substantial burden of proof the ruling has the potential to shorten the cases as each will essentially focus on the personal involvement of the accused person in genocide.[2]

References

  1. ^ "[I]t is not surprising that we [the US] have stayed out of Darfur. That, truly, is Rwanda’s lesson: endangered peoples who depend on us for their salvation stand undefended." (Talk of the Town: Comment: Just Watching)
  2. ^ Official press release. Online posting. ICTR. ICTR/INFO-9-2-481.EN Arusha, 20 June 2006. 23 June 2006.

Rwanda in Media

The article mentions three media sources. 1. Hotel Rwanda. 2. Shake Hands With the Devil. 3. The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. 2 and 3 are the same book (Failure of the humanity in rwanda is the subtitle. However it would be wroth adding the film "Shooting Dogs" produced by the BBC, as an alternative third film.

Tom

I've removed the redundant link and added a link to Shooting Dogs as recommended. I also added a link to the film Sometimes In April. --Muchness 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

Ive just reverted an edit which you can view by clicking here, I just didn't feel it flowed well after the changes. By all means if anyone has a different opionion feel free to change it back.

Grammer error or typo.

In the text there is "transport alone they were charged 6,5 million USD by the American army"

Should there be a period instead of a comma in the number figure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.60.168 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Pigs?

I don't know if this is only my own confusion but the section, Land Ownership starting off with "As Huti pigs centralized their power and authority..." seems... wrong.

Include Possible Environmental & Population factors?

I have been reading the book Collapse: How scoieties choose to fail or suceed by Jared Diamond,and it notes that massacres still took place even in regions that were predominately Hutu. It notes that soil erosion was high (due to a lack of soil conservation practices), Rwanada had inefficient agricultural practices and a high population desnity, plus a scarcity of available land, with large farms tending to become larger and vice versa. According to him, this led to bitter intra-familial fueds over inheritance, and was also a contributing factor (Basicly, poverty and disputes played a role in determining who got killed, at least in what order). The book mentions studies by two Belgian economists, Catherine Andre and Jean-Phillippe Platteau. I don't know where to find their research on the Rwandan genocide, but perhaps someone could? Their research was on the Kanama commune, in Northwest Rwanda, according to Jared Diamond. --Light Dragon 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Including Belgian claiming that the genoside was due to soil erosion seems like a bad joke --Mtjs0 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Diamond seems to have based the entire chapter around one journal article, with some backing from Gérard Prunier's work. Nobody would dispute that land issues had a major role, but Diamond seems to have taken his general thesis, found a matching case that even he states is out of the ordinary, and then extrapolated out to the genocide as a whole. There would have to be a lot more supporting literature for land degradation to be placed in the center. The paper by Andre and Platteau is "Land relations under stress: Rwanda caught in the Malthusian trap" Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 34:1-47 (1998), if anyone wants to take a look and see what merits addition to the article or a sub-article. - BanyanTree 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction to this article is way too long, it needs cutting down by at least half, the rest should move into the main article space. When you first look at the article, it looks like your reading an essay, not an encyclopedia article, thats why I've added a clean up tag RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and actually I was thinking about clean up for some time. I also think template {{Cleanup-section}} would be more appropriate since the intro isn't lacking only by its length but rather its contents. It doesn't summarize the article but goes into detail on UN failure and IMO even takes sides and presents POV. The most of the intro isn't on genocide but on international community. May be parts of it should be moved to the talk page immediately and rewritten. What do you think?--Pethr 03:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your idea sounds good to me, and theres no point in having 2 tags at the top which basically say the same thing. The section is by far the worst for POV and goes into way too much detail. As I'm not an expert on the subject, just generally interested, I feel it would be better for someone with more detailed knowledge to sort out, but as I've previously said, it needs to be cut down a hell of a lot. The introduction should just give a brief overview, i.e. the main parties involved, the the general outcome of what happened RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This link may help

Just a suggestion: a UN website Abeg92contribs 23:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)!