Talk:Rwanda/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

I have moved all the links to Rwandan Genocide-related topics to Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide. (That's ALL the external links, and some of the "See Also"s.) Rwanda is a country, not a genocide, as Vietnam is a country and not a war. The Genocide is well linked from this page, and splitting the links on one topic between two pages is always a bad idea.- BanyanTree 00:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Under "Economy," the article says, "It is the most densely populated country in Africa..." Immediately ahahahahaha i jus edited the page and i hope it pisses u offfterwards, under "Demographics," it says, "Rwanda's population density, even after the 1994 genocide, is among the highest in Sub-Saharan Africa." Inconsistent and repetitive.

New stub templates

I've created two new stubs for Rwanda:

• Rwanda stubs ({{Rwanda-stub}})
• Rwanda geography stubs ({{Rwanda-geo-stub}})

Use them wisely! :-) TreveX^talk 15:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

no Rwandan ethnicities?

I have removed the following contribution to the Demographics section:

However, recent authors on Rwandan History, have discovered that Rwandans don't regard themselves as ethnic groups. The three groups have always existed as occupational types: the Tutsi were pastoralists, owning lots of cows, and uninvolved in agricultural production. The Hutus were agriculturalists and worked the land, producing food.The Twa produced pottery which was used in exchange for agricultaral and dairy products. The three groups were inter-dependent, shared the common culture, and regarded themselves as Banyarwanda. Their differences in appearance and height were only emphasised during the colonial period, which demanded that everyone was categorised, hence the introduction of ethinicity. Even today, Rwandans don't regard themselves tribes or ethnic groups, despite what foreign media has led people to believe.

I might have let the middle sentences slide as the article could use a start of a discussion of the formulation, especially since the beginning of colonialism, of what are now hard definitions of ethnicity, as well as the pull between national and ethnic identities, but I know that the "Rwandans don't regard themselves as ethnic groups" bit is false from both my "book learning" and personal experience. There's something about a whole lot of people killing each other over designations for 50 years that makes people choose a side. I would love to see the study that is mentioned. - BanyanTree 02:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst this is a highly contentious issue, I think that some mention of the debate within social science on this issue is necessary. This is perhaps summed up best by Peter Uvin in his article 'Prejudice, Crisis, and Genocide in Rwanda' (African Studies Review 40 (1997), 91-115):

Disagreement exists on the distinction between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. Are they distinct ethnic groups? Or are they socio-economic divisions within the society of Banyarwanda, akin to castes perhaps, or even social classes? Some authors suggest that by the 19th century hundreds of years of cohabitation and intermarriage had produced an 'integrated' social system wherin the categories of Hutu and Tutsi were largely occupationally defined: whoever acquired a sizeable herd of cattle was called Tutsi and was highly considered. In the same vein Rwandan emigrees in neighbouring Zaire were until recently known as belonging to the ethnic group of Banyarwanda - the local term for 'Rwandans;' many of them grew up knowing themselves solely as such.

— Uvin, 'Prejudice..., pp.92

You can find the whole article at JSTOR, but it's subscriber only. I guess they'd have a copy of the journal in most big libraries. My personal knowledge on the topic isn't sufficient for me to suggest precise wording at this stage, but I think it would be useful to point out that the debate does "exist", even if there's no academic (or popular) consensus.--Benwilson528 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between wishful thinking (even if it's done by the Rwandan government) versus reality. You're telling me the pygmoid Twa have the same ethnic history as the Tutsi and Hutu? Yeah, right. Next the Rwandan government will be trying to say that both men and women can have babies because "they were created equal". The world has seen a lot of creationist myths sprouting up, promoted by some government or other. Why should Rwanda not have a go? Reminds me of a statistic about how few people in the world believe in evolution, either. As Albert Einstein remarked: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."Mbabane (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope relevant external links are permitted here? [1] whilst having few references attempts to offer a serious (if only partially academic) overview of the ethnicity question (from prehistory to the end of the genocide) and its contribution to the genocide. Could some of it be used in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalomita (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

This reads - in parts - like Tutsi propaganda. "In reality, it was Hutus who bombed..." etc. etc. - any references at all for these assertions? Or would it be ok to add "In reality, it was Jews who burned the Reichstag..." to the WW2 entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.87.199 (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and put {{fact}} after assertions that you feel are questionable. If you know for a fact that the article is wrong, simply correct it. Citations to credible sources would be appreciated if you did substantially change something, otherwise it's just a "You're wrong! - No, I'm not." argument. Thanks, BanyanTree 18:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

survivors.

Go see "Hotel Rwanda". A magnificent movie. Its about the masacre that occured On April 6, 1994, the airplane carrying President Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the President of Burundi, was shot down as it prepared to land at Kigali. Both presidents were killed when the plane crashed. As though the shooting down was a , military and militia groups began rounding up and killing all Tutsis they could capture as well as political moderates irrespective of their ethnic backgrounds. Large numbers of opposition politicians were also murdered. Many nations evacuated all their nationals from Kigali and closed their embassies as violence escalated. The prime minister and her ten Belgian bodyguards were among the first victims. The killing swiftly spread from Kigali to all corners of the country; between April 6 and the beginning of July, a genocide of unprecedented swiftness officially left 937,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus dead at the hands of organized bands of militia: Interahamwe. Even ordinary citizens were called on by local officials to kill their neighbors. The president's MRND Party was implicated in organizing many aspects of the genocide.- user: DylonPipe 22:15, 14 August 2006.

Rwanda "R" flag

I fixed the flag, due to me converting the letter into a path. I do apologize for not doing this sonner. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

English in Rwanda

Why is English an official language of Rwanda? Aaker 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

English became an official language after 1990. Most members of the RPF had been in exile in Uganda and been educated there -- most therefore spoke English but not French. In addition, Rwanda's trade links with (English-speaking) East Africa have strengthened in recent years. Kahuzi 08:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The official web site of the Government of Rwanda has a fact sheet which lists the languages of Rwanda as English, Kinyarwanda, French and Swahili (in that order!). Kahuzi 16:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken French is no longer an official language of Rwanda.Apalomita (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not heard that it is no longer an official language, although English is increasingly favoured and is now the only language used in education. This page on the government official site still lists Kinyarwanda, French and English as official languages: [2] SteveRwanda (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I misunderstood a recent report which was actually referring back to the decision about language of Education last year. Doubtless it will come though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalomita (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Belgium and France

Belgium and France are the primary resposibles of the genocide by fostering hatred and discrimination. And why?? Why is that I cannot understand Europeans!(80.154.37.132 12:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Is this simply your point of view or something you back with facts?

You mean during the colonial era? They chose the most "white" looking of the native population to rule the rest of the population. It was "efficient" to use the people to hold down the people and it stuck to the racial divide of "Europe vs. the rest". And from there we have tensions, racism, massacres, etc in africa.

-G

Dictatorship?

Why is Rwanda's government listed as a dictatorship and not a republic - to my knowledge it is now, although not completely democratic, but none the less a republic?

UKWiki 12:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They vote in Zimbabwe, too, and I believe Mugabe calls Zimbabwe a Republic. Neither the 1994 nor 2003 elections for president were free and democratic. In 2008, after a national redistricting, Kagame's RPF coalition took 42 of 53 seats. Coincidence, I suppose. Perhaps 2010 will be different? Mbabane (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Distances from other countries

I've removed this section, which was added by User:Akanemoto today as I don't feel it's sufficiently interesting or notable to occupy the large space needed for that table. Also no other country, except Albania, has such information, and any decision to include it would have to be made in one place for all countries. If people disagree with me then please discuss here. Cheers — SteveRwanda 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How the section looked

This list showing the distances from G8 and G15 countries to Rwanda. (calculations with http://www.mapcrow.info/)

G8 countries.

G15 countries.

Countries	Miles	Kilometers	Bearing
G8 countries
Italy	3274.71	5269.98	SE
France	3728.03	5999.53	SE
Germany	3866.79	6222.83	SE
United Kingdom	4328.62	6966.05	SE
Russia	5655.68	9101.69	SW
Japan	7297.10	11743.22	SW
Canada	7519.11	12100.50	SE
United States	8592.10	13827.27	SE
G15 countries
Kenya	589.84	949.24	SW
Zimbabwe	1175.71	1892.08	NE
Nigeria	1724.50	2775.25	SE
Egypt	2002.31	3222.32	SW
Algeria	2738.31	4406.77	SE
Iran	2788.67	4487.80	SW
Senegal	3206.51	5160.24	SE
India	3525.27	5673.21	SW
Sri Lanka	3568.55	5742.86	SW
Malaysia	5703.12	9178.03	SW
Brazil	5850.24	9414.79	NE
Indonesia	6202.04	9980.94	NW
Argentina	6365.54	10244.07	NE
Venezuela	6643.37	10691.17	SE
Chile	6800.50	10944.04	NE
Peru	7276.00	11709.27	NE
Jamaica	7404.25	11915.65	SE
Mexico	8906.22	14332.77	SE

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Africa whose scope would include Rwanda. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

interahamwe translation

The Kinyarwanda word interahamwe does not mean "those who attack together". It means "those who are united". This poor translation, originally from a western journalist, was unfortunately repeated over and over. The word interahamwe was used in Rwanda before the famous militia was created. Generally, it is said of any group of people who show solidarity that they are interahamwe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.200.117.218 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I disagree with this interpretation. It shows that this contributor is not a native speaker of Kinyarwanda. The the root verb of the noun "Interahamwe" is "gutera" which means to attack or to invade. What I agree with is that it was not the first time this word was used. In fact it is used several times in the epic poetry clebrating historic regiments or militia of pre-colonial Rwanda. Karambizi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.8.61 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesters?

"The Twa, the smallest minority group, were court jesters and often exploited."

Can someone please explain what the above meant in practice? It makes no sense at all to a newcomer to the subject.

Sorry, this was a representation by the Belgians who noted that the diminutive Twa were often treated as second-class citizens and often required to perform menial tasks and perform as comic performers in a degrading way. This occurs to Pygmy and pygmoid peoples throughout Africa (and many places around the world) even to this day. The poverty rate among the Twa is extreme. If any Twa are currently in government I'd sure like to know about it.Mbabane (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a few related articles on the Pulitzer site; "Loss of Trees, Loss of Life," and others concerning deforestation in Rwanda, http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=215 Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 03:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mixed Up History

• In World War II, the protectorate was controlled by the Nazi Party. Hitler's rule in the region was far more direct and harsh than the previous German occupation. They divided the native Rwandan people, based on skin color, eye color, nose length, etc., into three groups; the Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa. The Tutsi's, being lighter skinned and more "European looking" were given a higher status than Hutus. From this article,

however... from the Rwandan Genocide Article Following World War I, Rwanda became a protectorate of Belgium, whose colonial policy over the territory followed the German example and is considered especially influential in priming the genocide

Ah, now you see how this article changes regularly. Neither of these was the original statement (which was removed, along with its reference). The Rwandan government has a continual propaganda campaign to re-write history, including through this Wikipedia article, so the article regularly becomes quite bizarre. Mbabane (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

<Films

Half the films in the list aren't Rwandian films, but made in South Africa, USA or some otehr country. They can surely be linked to through the article, but as it is right now you get the sense they're made in Rwanda. --83.248.190.175 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. MrZaius^talk 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this list as clearly giving undue weight to a rather minor aspect of the country. A Category:Films featuring Rwanda might conceivably be useful, though I know of no such category for any other country. - BanyanTree 11:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have clearly re-written much of the history on this page. The amount of propaganda and misinformation on the Internet regarding Rwandan history is amazing! However, I am not up-to-date on the current structure of the government since the re-organisation of 2006. My analysis of the government was based on the 2003 constitution, which now appears to be rather irrelevant, given the total complete restructuring of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbabane (talk • contribs)

Commonwealth membership

There seems to be some confusion regarding Rwanda's application for and possible membership in the commonwealth. The Times [3] reported 20 November 2007 that Rwanda would be welcomed as a full member at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Uganda the same week but this does not appear from either the Commonwealth web page [4] or the official portal of CHOGM 2007 [5]. I therefore add this text to the intro of the article: "Rwanda has applied to become a member of the Commonwealth of Nations and a decision on its application is expected in 2009". Oyst1 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

minor currency/redundancy fix

"$25-35 million euros" under the "Rebuilding" section was changed to "€25-35 million." 69.201.134.75 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Language

When/why did English become an official language? Woscafrench (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It became an official language after the RPF took control of the government; much of the group's leadership had grown up in Anglophone Uganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.165.61 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing Citation

I have never edited Wikipedia before, but I came across the source of the religious data under the Demographics heading and wanted to help out. I am not familiar with the code required to update it, and haven't gotten the hang of it in half an hour of poking around, so hopefully someone else will do the job for me. This website contains the non-cited data: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rw.html Thank you. --Zenwitchgirl (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Added it. Thanks, §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Time for a new Peer Review...

Been almost two years sincec last PR. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 22:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Fixed some minor adolescent vandalism, flagged page to be watched. Jamesdterry (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• There has been more juvenile vandalism today: could we watch this page more strongly?! Brequinda (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation

someone added a uvular stop to the pronunciation. was this vandalism? kwami (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the pronunciation, is a citation really needed for the non-English pronunciation? This seems slightly overboard, unless I've missed something in the Wiki guidelines. Edgbeatles (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just justification here, so we know it's not a joke. kwami (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Twa, the aboriginal Pygmy inhabitants, have probably lived in the region in and around Rwanda for 3 years.

This Can't Be Right

"The Twa, the aboriginal Pygmy inhabitants, have probably lived in the region in and around Rwanda for 3 years."

3 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.105.191 (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Today - Tutsi president in a country with 84% Hutu population

Quoting the wikipedia article :

"Today, the nation is roughly 84% Hutu, 15% Tutsi, and 1% Twa,"

The majority population is Hutu, and there's a Tutsi president - Paul Kagame - , I can't understand the democracy here. Wouldn't this lead to further resentment by the majority Hutu popultion? Maybe the Hutus like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.132.204 (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands of Hutu were slaughtered under the previous Hutu govt. Kagame is trying for reconciliation. kwami (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In the presidential elections of 2003 there were no opposition parties allowed. That was not a democratic election. In the 2008 parliamentary elections, only the RPF and its allied parties took part -- there were no opposition parties. That was not a democratic election. Is there resentment by the opposition parties? I don't know. Are they allowed to even publish their views? Are there any web sites for opposition parties? If not, you will know the answer.Mbabane (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Paul Kagame states - In 2003, he became the first democratically elected[citation needed] President of Rwanda following the genocide. - Paul Kagame'e www site is cited as source for this information. I find this difficult to understand considering the Hutu-Tutsi population figures of the country. Also Paul Kagame grew up in Uganda, not Rwanda so he couldn't have had much of a local political base in Rwanda. Also Paul Kagame received military training at the Command and General Staff College (C&GSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas ( check wikipedia article - Command and General Staff College ). My understanding is that Rwanda was a francophone country, yet Paul Kagame received military training in the USA. While I'm at it could you or anyone else tell me who funded/funds the RPF and why? Fighting civil wars requires enormous finance - military training, weapons procurement, payment for the soldier's 'labour' etc. thanks -tk- PS I've asked the same question in the discussion at the Wikipedia RPF article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.83.231 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In 1991 multiple American oil companies were given concessions in Somalia. shortly thereafter major civil war broke out, and the US (George H. Bush govt) needed regional allies. Kagame fit the bill in Rwanda, and had been in the Ugandan military as well. He appeared an ideal ally to US regional interests. So you connect the dots. Oh yeah, by the way, English is now an official language. Oh, did I mention that "everyone is created equal" in Rwanda from time immemorial? (A particularly juvenile application of the American maxim.) It's not hard to guess where Kagame got his money and weapons back in 1990 and 1991.Mbabane (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Islam

There are references for the growing Muslim population in the Religion in Rwanda and Islam in Rwanda articles. These include sources such as the US Dept. of State. kwami (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't just leave this info in the article with the {{fact}} tags still attached to them. Since you are the one that wants to include the information it is up to you to add the sources. See WP:BURDEN - it clearly mentions the word "inline citation", and says, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." It is not up to me or El C to have to look through those articles trying to find the sources ourselves. Khoikhoi 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can. I am not editing the article, I am merely reverting biased deletions. I am not taking the time to rewrite it. It is inappropriate to blank material merely because El C doesn't like it, or because you don't want to take the time to improve it. The citation tag is there, and hopefully someone who is involved with the article will take it from there. kwami (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple sources to the main articles. Of course, we should also cover the increase in conversion to Evangelical Protestantism after the genocide, something which I know nothing about. kwami (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to rewrite anything. Simply replace the {{fact}} with the sources. The point is that anything with citation tags can be easily removed unless a source is added to replace it. Khoikhoi 01:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But then I have to read through the sources to make sure I'm not misrepresenting them, and then I'll have to rewrite the section because, given that it's not very well written, I'm sure they won't be the greatest match, and then for balance I'll have to go into Evangelical conversions, of which I know absolutely nothing, etc etc etc. It's a pain. There were already refs in the relevant sections of Religion in Rwanda and Islam in Rwanda, and I've added a couple more. I suppose I could simply slap them on here, but that seems rather underhanded. kwami (talk)

1. You did not add any sources, User:Kwamikagami, you simply reverted the entire thing, again: and three times today alone.

2. Yes, it is now your responsibility to add sources, or don't revert it back. Policy is not made via subjective wishful thinking.

3. I, actually, don't care one bit if it says that the Muslim population shrunk three times or grew three times (you claiming it's a pov removal is therefore just a straw man, seeing that I could not care less either way). Try not to assume the negative.

4. Again, you had a week, you failed to source the claims during that time (though you did remove the {{unbalanced}} tag).

5. Thus, if anyone been in breach of our pov pushing and breaching our sourcing guideline, it is yourself, and no one else.

6. So no, "the citation tag is there, and hopefully someone who is involved with the article will take it from there" is not an acceptable approach now, a week later. That's not how Wikipedia runs. We don't leave bits unsourced indefinitely if we can help it.

7. Nor do we allow for I-didn't-write-it so-I-magically-have-license-to-restore-unsourced-edits deus ex machina ruleslawyering loopholes. You do not get to revert-war the unsourced bit indefinitely, or until someone comes along. Anything you put back into an article becomes your responsibility as soon as you do that. Please, it's time to shape up. El_C 01:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now you WP:POINT blank both the religion and demographic articles, with an inept argument about deleting what I disagree with and so on. Such nonsense. I don't disagree with anything: I just want everything to be sourced so I know it's not made-up; you keep assuming bad faith about my motives. And now you've blanked even the sourced sections unrelated to this. I'm astonished you've been allowed to carry on for so long in the first place, damaging articles with impunity. I'm out. El_C 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked out some of the sources on the Religion in Rwanda and Islam in Rwanda articles. The first claim that was unsourced was "the current percentage for the Muslim population is believed to be around at 14%." This is apparently from this article from the Washington Post, which is also used as the source to say that the percentage of Muslims have doubled since '94. Now, this article says:

"Following the genocide in 1994, a number of citizens reportedly converted to Islam, either for protection or in search of meaningful reconciliation. Conversions tapered off in 1997, and according to the mufti of Rwanda, the Islamic community has not seen any increases in conversions over the past year."

It also says "a 3.5 percent increase in the number of Muslims from the U.N. Population Fund survey in 1996". Going back to the Washington Post article, one can see that it says, "In contrast, many Muslim leaders and families are being honored for protecting and hiding those who were fleeing" and "Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide."

However, I can't seem to find a source for the sentence, "and a fraction converted because they realised that Muslim Tutsis did not die in the genocide since Muslim Hutus had refused to be swept away by Hutu hatred." Another question is why we give the Demographics section so much emphasis about Islam, when there isn't really that much mention of ethnicity, language, etc.

In short, I think that kwami should have been more specific in citing the references, El C and I could have made more of an effort to exmaine the articles that kwami mentioned. However in the future kwami, please keep in mind that if you want something included, it is up to you to provide the references. Khoikhoi 02:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First, he didn't mention any articles, until today. Second, it is still not my burden, it is his. As a matter of principle, I reject your argument outright. I'm trying to keep fabrications out of thousands of articles. Next time, I'll just use my administrative discretion (the line can be rather thin, it certainly was here), and use brute force. He wants to restore unsourced bits, he faces the burden of sourcing them. Bye. El_C 02:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not your burden. That's why I haven't re-included the unsourced information in the article. The two refs that I cited can be used as they seem reliable enough to me. Khoikhoi 02:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to have him read just the first sentence of WP:BURDEN, but he came across as being above policy. There is no content dispute because I have no preference for, nor an opinion, of the material. It just seemed like he could be reasoned with, and when it proved not to be the case, it was... striking. El_C 02:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I come to this problem as an outsider (an English Christian). I would suggest that the best solution would be to remove the third paragraph of "Demographics" (giving reasons for conversion) from this article. Instead it should be added to the "Islam" section of Religion in Rwanda, which is at present very brief, probably due to that now having its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Without bothering to integrate them"

User:Kwamikagami wrote: I'll add the refs without bothering to integrate them into the article. I don't like making such unbalanced edits, but it's better than being in this stupid argument. And so, he did. So now, instead of having a citation for each claim, we have like six citations at the end of the paragraph. I don't understand: User:Kwamikagami did a poor job to punish us for insisting he lives up to wp:burden? Also, I'm reminded: does it make sense, per WP:UNDUE to devote over half the demographics article to just one group, which numbers 5-to-15 percent. Throughout this dispute, User:Kwamikagami has justifies ignoring his citations wp:burden by arguing I am biased here and there, and so on, but what about his bias: having a pro-Islam discussion take up over half the demographics section, when Islam is still a small group in Rwanda (albeit, if it grew so rapidly, that deserves mention). This shouldn't be about just citing the sources, but making sure the demographics section is balanced and representative of Rwandan demographics. Thanks. El_C 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to rewrite the section to meet your criteria. Yes, of course it needs to be developed, but I'm not the one to do it. I'm merely trying to prevent you from gutting the section due to a misunderstanding of "undue weight". I apologize for my suspicions if you'd forgotten you were the one that started this, but that does not place me under your editorial control. kwami (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree. Seems to be just trying to make a point, and the user's history is full of edit warring like this. 78.146.199.120 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring against sockpuppets of banned users, summaries of which you posted elsewhere (and, gee, which the sockpuppets themselves used for the same argument you're making now), is "making a point"? kwami (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the socks weren't identified as being so until after you edit warred. Therefore, you have no excuse, and I fully support a block of up to a month for you, for long term abuse. 78.146.199.120 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Out of vengeance for my getting you banned? Funny how you happen to be writing from the same city as all the anon. sockpuppets. kwami (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But you were quick of accusing myself of being the ip you were revert warring against. Speaking of revert warring. I contend that the section is unbalanced, but I am prohibited from tagging it with {{unbalanced}} because Kwamikagami (who has reverted the article, what, tens of times now, against multiple users) will revert war to remove it. Getting his way. El_C 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I never accused you of being the anon IP. I mentioned, a week and a half later, that at the time I suspected you might have been the anon IPA, and that given your misrepresentations I wouldn't be surprised to learn I was right. Even if you take that as an accusation, I was hardly "quick" in accusing you, and anyway I have since accepted your explanation of the misrepresentations being due to forgetfulness, not intent.

Second, go right ahead and put an unbalanced tag on the section. Why do you think I'd revert that? As I've said several times, I agree that the section is unbalanced. Or summarize it and link to the main articles, since you're the one who objects to the passage. What I object to is you repeatedly gutting the article of notable material. kwami (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There, I've done it myself. kwami (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

After reverting it out so many times, now yourself add it. Wow. Is this provocation just entertainment for you? El_C 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment? I could ask the same of you. "So many times" ... do you actually believe the stuff you write? You added the tag twice, on Aug 10 and Aug 14. "Twice" doesn't equate "many" in the minds of normal people. But that's not the issue. Both times you added it with inappropriate comments in the text about how the article is messed up because of me:

"one editor (User:Kwamikagami) keeps adding the unsourced and speculative text that takes up over half of the section size.";

"one editor keeps adding unsourced text (six fact tags) that takes up over half of the section size"

ignoring, of course, that I'm the editor who added the six fact tags in the first place! When I reverted this nonsense with the comment "don't misrepresent my edits", I thought it was obvious what I was objecting to: I didn't care about the tag, which didn't misrepresent anything, I objected to your ad hominem attacks, which did. Don't you think that if I added an 'unbalanced' tag to your version with a comment, in the text of the article, that,

"there's much more to it that this, but one editor (User:El C) keeps gutting this section of notable material",

that you would have justification to revert it? I'm perfectly within bounds to revert any edit that contains a personal attack, and you should know better. kwami (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks? From me? When? I challenge that to be untrue. El_C 06:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can say that you are acting discreditably, and I could say that you are a discreditable person (which I didn't). Tell me you know the difference. El_C 06:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it doesn't belong in the text of the article. Tell me you understand that. kwami (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

just a typo or vandalism or.. what ?

It is stated that voltage is 220V per rabbit. I suppose it is a typo or a vandalism but being not certain, please someone fluent in english correct it if needed. Wentu (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. That is the funniest "typo" I have ever seen. No Energizer Bunnies, those. Mbabane (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Higher Education and Education

There is no reference to higher education including public and higher education. I wanted to see a list of universities (perhaps to contribute to them in some way) but there is no information. Perhaps someone can add necessary sections and pages. Sarmadys (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Claims of American involvement in the assassination

The sentence on this page that state:

Yet others have claimed U.S. involvement in the "crash"/assassination [17] in an effort to undermine French influence in the region and improve U.S. access to Congolese natural resources.

Is misleading, as it is asserted by former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to a French reporter based on *heresay* evidence. Boutros Boutros-Ghali even says someone told him that someone had heard from someone else. If that isn't lightweight hearsay, I don't know what is. This is no more than Boutros Boutros-Ghali trying to deflect his culpability in this tragedy. "Others" should be changed to "Boutros Boutros-Ghali" and a "French journalist". Supertheman ^(talk) 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but Kagame _was_ trained in the US (Fort Leavenworth, 1990) just prior to and during the invasion of Rwanda from Uganda by Kagame's RPF in 1990 and 1991. The ensuing Civil War that followed was dramatically escalated when the plane was shot down in 1994. Don't forget, the US had lots of weapons in the area because of the Somalia conflict (including the Battle of Mogadishu), where an awful lot of oil was at stake. It needed a regional ally, which it had in Kagame. The US didn't care about Hutu and Tutsi differences -- it only cared about having a regional sympathetic dictator with whom it could ally. Kagame was perfect. So what if Kagame's army appropriated a few weapons, or got the idea to shoot down an opponent's plane? Who am I to say that it was done without US involvement? Of course, I'm only making logical assumptions. Only Kagame, his inner circle, and the military politicos in the US who helped train Kagame (from that George H. Bush era) would know for sure exactly the scale of US involvement. One day, perhaps, that information will eventually be released under the Freedom of Information Act in the US, but never in Rwanda (at least not while anyone associated with Kagame is still in power). That would just make the civil war flare up anew. There is no way that either Kagame (nor the US) could ever admit that they likely caused the genocidal backlash against the invading Tutsi army by the Hutus (even if they had actually done so). Such information would have to be buried at least for a generation. Perhaps re-check Wikipedia in 2075.

Boutros-Boutros Ghali didn't cause anything. He (and the UN) may not have responded in strength or effectively (which in reality is par for the course for the UN), but he didn't create the situation. Kagame did, by starting the Civil War with the aid of the US. Mbabane (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 28 has a bad link

Reference 28 has bad link, the URL it gives is not about the Benebikira Sisters Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.245.76 (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The figures about the religious breakup might need some update (the current percentages are based on the International Religious Freedom Report 2004). According to International Religious Freedom Report 2007: Rwanda they changed considerably (again). Gugganij (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)