Talk:Azarias Ruberwa

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Azarias Ruberwa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311110141/http://www.ruberwa.cd:80/ to http://www.ruberwa.cd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and Original Research

This article had major updates by a registered user who has only contributed to this page. It certainly paints a glowing portrait of a man who was involved in one of the world's deadliest wars. The author did add a ton of writing, so I would hate to just delete it all. But it is unsourced and promotional. AmplifyWiki (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

On 3/18 I removed the following:

However, most moderate Congolese people and other western observers and diplomats considered to be more impartial understand the complexities of the Second Congo War and point to the issue of protection of minorities as the main impetus for the war. In particular, Congolese Tutsis who live in the provinces of North Kivu, South Kivu, and Ituri. Laurent Kabila's failure to address and resolve the continuous threat by the Interhamwe, the FDLR, and the Mai-Mai on these communities is understandably seen as a legitimate reason for the need split from the Kabila regime and start the RCD movement.

References

We can discuss the intricacies of this issue, but the text added did not include any citations other than a Wikipedia page. AmplifyWiki (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal

AmplifyWiki:

Thank you for your comments. However, I think you are mistaken. I have not painted a glorified portrait of this man. Not every actor in the Congo civil wars of the 90's was morally bankrupt. In fact, Mr. Ruberwa is known as one of the most serious minded and least corrupted politician in Congolese history. And you don't have to take my word for that, just look at all the Wikileak documents between United States diplomats in Congo and Rwanda during and after the war and their correspondences with State Department officials (particularly during the Bush administration). Also, please try to read other historians and journalists who were there on on the ground and were able to describe the war more objectively than Gerard Prunier or Jason Stearns for that matter (who's become known as an Anti-Tutsi Zealot as of late).

Moreover, your perception of Mr. Ruberwa and the role of RCD in the Congo wars indicate that you probably don't have a complete understanding of all the complexities involved in the war. The Banyamulenge's had been fighting since the 1970's to: (1) Be re-granted citizenship which was taken away from them after the leaders of their neighboring tribes (Babembe and Bafuliro who historically had conflict with Banyamulenge's over land in the Ruzizi Plains) convinced Mobutu that Banyamulenge's should not even be allowed to run for public office; and (2) To make the area they live in a territory (equivalent to a congressional district in the US) so that they can have someone from their community represent them and their interests in Congo's parliament. These issues were not only legitimate but they served as an underlying crux for the wars in the 90's and continue to be serious points of contention to this day. Also, while Joseph Kabila is known for not doing a lot of things right, he was at least able to finally recognize the importance of making Minembwe a territory at the end of his mandate last year. This is one of the reasons Mr. Ruberwa supported Kabila's coalition in the last election (Dec. 2018). However, for example, earlier this month (March 2019) a Mai-Mai militia group composed of young people from the same neighboring Babembe and Bafuliro communities attacked Banyamulenge people and their livestocks and burned several houses in light of the DRC's govt's decision to make Minembwe a territory. They managed to kill over 30 people before President Tshisekedi sent the FARDC and UN Troops to stop the killing of innocent lives. This is just the latest example of how much Banyamulenge's have suffered because of ethnocentrism and tribalism in a country they've lived in for at least the past 200 years. And unfortunately, things like this have been going for a very long time and the western media covers very little of it.

In conclusion, I understand you reporting me for not citing my sources. I've had a lot going on but will try to finish citing the page by the end of this month (March 2019). However, please note that I've tried to be as objective as possible. Yes, I understand to some, Mr. Ruberwa is a hero and to others he's a villain. However, you can say that about any politician in the world including Trump, Obama, Bush, Blair, Chirac, etc. The difference between Mr. Ruberwa and most other Congolese or other African leaders in the region is that he is known for his impeccable character which has never been disputed even by those who despise RCD and Rwandan involvement in the war. If you have any further questions or comments, or would like me to clarify any other points, please don't hesitate to comment below. Eagle439 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Eagle439, I am the original poster you are replying to. Changed my name on Wikipedia and changed on this talk page to reflect that.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I enjoyed your background on the Banyamulenge. In response to your critique I must say that yes, I am sure I do not know the nuances of the Congo war as well as I could. But I do not think the same could be said of Mr. Prunier. From what I could tell from reading 467 pages of his book, he appears knowledgeable and fair in his writing. The book has an ample bibliography, goes into great detail throughout, and is colored by information gathered from interviews Prunier had with many of the key players.

Mr. Prunier's quote in this Wikipedia entry is taken from what certainly would qualify as an objective source by Wikipedia standards, so it deserves its entry. But so certainly do the properly sourced additions you make. My only interest is making the best, most-well rounded Wikipedia possible. As you mentioned, some see him as a villain and others as a hero. In the article that cites him as one of the best speakers today, that author says "He is a controversial figure who is beloved or tainted by his actions during the civil war." Clearly there are multiple sides to this story; complex as you say. In the interest of the best possible Wikipedia, I feel that 'villain'/'tainted' side needs to noted in the article too.

Thank you again for your kind and fair reply. This is refreshing discourse. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. AmplifyWiki (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

________

AmplifyWiki: Thank you for your response. While I can't say I've read Prunier's book on Congo from cover to cover, I can point you to evidence that contradicts your characterization of him as a fair and impartial author. Take for example, Jeffrey Gettleman's Book review in the NY Times on April 2nd, 2009. Gettleman who was the Times East Africa Bureau chief at the time states that "Prunier has a reputation as a maverick historian... [and that] probably the best way to read him is to assume that most of what he has to say is solidly researched, but that some of it is not."

Further, Gettleman also writes that Prunier "cites unnamed eyewitnesses as his sources [to present his claims] as possible evidence of wider American involvement." Lastly, while Gettleman does agree with Prunier that there does seem to be evidence from the United Nations "documenting vast criminal enterprises set up by Rwanda... to pump Congo's minerals back to Kigali." He also notes that "the more overtly bloodthirsty material [in Prunier's book] still seems to lie somewhere between rumor and fact."

I am not here to dispute this last point about Rwandan involvement. I agree with both Gettleman and Prunier that Rwanda had many interests and motives in Congo (some of which were clearly not good). However, my counterargument to you is that you should not make a sweeping assumption that just because certain actors of RCD or Rwanda were involved in malicious acts therefore implies that Ruberwa was also involved or that he by any means colluded with people who committed those atrocities.

Unlike the MLC (the other rebel group) which was run from top to bottom by Jean-Pierre Bemba who essentially just received financial support from Uganda, the RCD was much more complex with varying factions that had multiple different layers/interests within the larger coalition. There were: (1) Banyamulenges- "South Kivu Tutsi" leaders who were primarily fighting for protection of their community; (Ruberwa, Moise Nyarugabo, Benjamin Serukiza, etc.) (2) North Kivu Tutsis- who didn't always see eye to eye with the South Kivu Tutsis (i.e. Deo Rugwiza, Denis Semadwinga, Muheto, Laurent Nkunda, etc.); (3) North Kivu Hutu's - who also had their own interests to consider (Eugene Serufuli, Celestin Vunabandi, and others); (4) Former Mobutu allies (Alexis Thambwe Mwamba, Lunda Bululu, Kin-Kiey Mulumba, etc.); (5) Other moderate Congolese politicians who supported the Movement (Adolphe Onusumba, Emile Illunga, Joseph Mudumbi, etc.); (6) The Rwanda gov't that also had their military in the Congo operating separately from RCD soldiers; (7) RCD Dissident Generals/Commanders who were only loosely affiliated with the movement but operated on their own terms and were actually the ones responsible for any human right violations or killings of innocent lives. (Pacifique Masunzu, Laurent Nkunda, Bosco Ntanganda etc.) etc. etc.

All of these separate interests presented several challenges for the leaders of RCD, including Ruberwa who while well-intentioned also knew that he nor any other RCD political leader could not control the latter group... [Aka] the military dissident factions because they were belligerent/ went rogue at times, and could never respect orders from RCD political leaders or even Rwanda for that matter.

Ruberwa is typically viewed as a villain for two specific reasons: (1) because he is a Congolese Tutsi and for some Tutsi's will never be accepted as Congolese and (2) because of RCD's perception as a tool by Rwanda to invade, occupy and exploit Congo and its resources. Nonetheless, what people like Prunier and others forget to take into account is that Ruberwa was the Secretary General of RCD-- which meant that he was solely the leader of the political wing of the group during the war. The President of RCD during Ruberwa's SG days was Adolphe Onusumba who was a military man himself and had more actual authority over military operations than Ruberwa. Again, I do not dispute that Rwanda exploited Congolese riches. However, there remains no evidence that corroborates the notion that Ruberwa or any other Banyamulenge high level politician conspired with Rwandans or the dissident military factions of RCD to participate in the looting of the resources (Note: I said Banyamulenge high level politician, and not Tutsi or RCD). Also, it's not like Rwanda was the only one exploiting Congo's riches. Angola, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Chad, Namibia, etc. all participated in the exploitation as well.

Bottom line: There is no concrete evidence that validate the villain label attributed to Ruberwa by a small pocket of people because his actual record is second to none. Moreover, if you thoroughly look into the Wikileaks documents I mentioned earlier you will see that Ruberwa is not only consistent when he speaks but he is regarded as a model by most western diplomats. Ruberwa is one of only a handful of politicians in Congo who is known for having talked about good governance, human rights, and combatting corruption throughout his entire political career. He was even one of the first Congolese politician after the war to ask Congolese rape and other sexual abuse victims for forgiveness on behalf of the new national gov't. This is also why he continues to sit on international boards and gets invited to speak around the world.

All in all, I invite you to do as much research on this man as possible. But I am certain you will ultimately find the same conclusions I've found. Above all, he is a peacemaker whose only downfall is that he was simply born a Tutsi in the Congo and has been fighting for protection of civil rights for the banyamulenge community who unfortunately continue to be seen as outsiders in their own country. This by no means constitutes a villain nor should it suffice to taint his image.

I look forward to continuing this conversation and hearing your reply.

The link to the NY Times article is: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/books/review/Gettleman-t.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=54FC9F33868C63ECDDBA988203AB20A0&gwt=pay

The links to the last two points I made above are: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08KINSHASA24_a.html https://allafrica.com/stories/200403090003.html

Eagle439 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Eagle439, I think I concede to your well-researched take on the subject and have removed Mr. Prunier's statement. In addition to what you have stated, I was actually surprised to find so little 'dirt' on the Mr. Ruberwa. The article is looking much better with its added citations. Glad we could settle this. AmplifyWiki (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The current reference [4]

What is that supposed to be? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an ibid reference which is a style not really recommended for Wikipedia per WP:IBID. Generally, an ibid reference refers to the last full reference cited which in this case would be Azarias Ruberwa#cite_note-auto1-3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Seems reliably published, but not independent of the topic.[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As a primary source it's subject to WP:BLPSELFPUB. Since I can't access the source myself, it's hard to tell how useful it is; however, being cited 15 times does seem a bit much for a primary source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I can "read" what gbooks allow, but I don't know french. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi both Marchjuly and Gråbergs Gråa Sång-- Just to clarify. I am not responsible for the "id" citation in reference 4. That was done by BukhariSaeed. In any case, the reference regards reference 3. Id means "the same" as reference 3. It is quoting Ruberwa's book. Eagle439 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, Gråbergs Gråa Sång-- Please clarify why you took down the paragraph listing him as one of the best speakers in the world. The book was published and can be cited instead of the article. Please retype the language used earlier. Thanks. Eagle439 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit:[2]? Per WP:LEAD it was not a summary of text in the article, per WP:BLOGS it's a crappy source, there seems to be no particular reason to mention the blog-opinion of Shosky [3], and his book doesn't mention Ruberwa [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Btw, Eagle439, if you intended to "ping" me in this edit [5] it didn't work. What was missing was the "successfully signing your post, in the same saved edit." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for the help with "pinging". As I mentioned, I am not savvy yet when it comes to Wikipedia. I still have a lot to learn. Please let me know if I was successful this time. Also, I wanted to respond to your comment about the Shosky book. I believe you cited the wrong book. The book that references Ruberwa is called "Speaking to Lead: How to make Speeches that make a Difference." It was published in 2011 right about when I started doing research on Banyamulenge's and Ruberwa. Also, for the record, I am not the one who originally included this in Ruberwa's wikipedia page. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Eagle439 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that book is not on gbooks so I can't see any of the content. It seems to be published by a real publisher and is not glaringly not-RS. On the ping, no. Everything has to be right in the first "publish", see Help:Fixing failed pings. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll read it more thoroughly in the next few days and learn how to properly ping. On another note, since the publisher for the book is a reliable source, do you mind if I put the information back up? Please let me know your thoughts. I want to be as balanced as possible. Eagle439 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it might fit in "Post-Government career" section, but that depends on what the source says. Mind WP:PROMO. Perhaps "Speechwriter John Shosky says that...". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)