Talk:Rape during the Rwandan genocide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rape as a weapon of genocide

All the sources agree, rape was used as a weapon in this genocide. The section title is accurate to that fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up by later today. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The lead shouldn't include information that is not found in the body of the article. Currently, the Shattered Lives report is not even mentioned in the body, much less the information about how frequently cited it is.
   • Background, "instances such as rape, forced impregnation and forced abortion are all methods used in pursuit of genocide." - This feel like you started with one sentence and ended with another. "instances such as rape...abortion have been seen" would be OK, or "ethnic cleansing, and rape...abortion are all methods used in pursuit of genocide" would be OK, but the current structure is ungrammatical.
   • Background - obviously this isn't an article completely about the use of rape in warfare, so you don't want to get too in-depth. However, as I was reading this section, my main question was whether this form of warfare has become more common during the 20th/21st centuries, or whether it has been practiced with approximately the same commonality throughout history. Do any of your sources address this?
   • Rape as a weapon, "According to Amnesty International, the use of rape during times of war are not a by-product of conflicts, but are a pre-planned and deliberate military strategy." Does AI mean this about all occurrences of rape during war, or just certain instances?
   • Rape as a weapon, "He believes that the deliberate infection of women with HIV is evidenced from survivors testimony, and that this is confirmation that the act of infection is deliberate." The first and second clauses of this sentence are redundant.
   • Rape as a weapon, "and sexually mutilated them with sharp sticks or gun barrels." Sexual mutilation or sexual assault? If the first, this could be incorporated into the previous sentence. If the second, the term should be changed.
   • Estimates of victims, "Rape during wartime has become commonplace." - This is repetitive after what was talked about in the Background section. It is unnecessary to repeat it here.
   • Aftermath, can we get translations for "les enfants mauvais souvenir" and "enfants désirés", please?
   • War crimes trials, "The first woman charged for genocidal rape was Pauline Nyiramasuhuko." Some background on her, please! Who was she/what office did she hold that put her in a position to be in charge of the genocidal rape?
   • War crimes trials - I have no idea what the last paragraph is trying to say. This might be because it's one long sentence, but it needs to be reworked.
   • Trials - were any of the individual soldiers ever tried? The trials section talks about the trials of the higher-ups, the government officials and media, but nothing about the individuals who actually carried out the crimes. What about the officers of the troops who conducted the rapes? The "rape squads" of HIV-infected men?
   • Overall - You mention in the Rape as a weapon section that Hutu women who hid Tutsis were targeted. Is there any information on how many Hutu women this covered? What was the split between extremist (participating in the violence) Hutus and more moderate members, who either didn't participate or actively helped Tutsis? Is there any information on how many troops/civilians participated in the rapes, either in specific numbers or in percentages?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref #10 (Münkler 2004, p. ?.) Why the question mark?
   • Overall, the refs in the article are really, really good - I am seriously impressed by the quality, quantity and attention to detail.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • See a few of my comments above in the prose section, which really relate more to coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • It looks like there was a bit of dust-up in February, but everything is good since. I'm actually amazed at stability of this article; I would have thought that it would be much more controversial/attract a lot more IP edits.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few questions, above, but overall a really solid article. A truly horrifying moment in history, but it's good to see it getting the attention it deserves here on WP. Dana boomer (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dana boomer: I think I have covered most of the issues raised, dunno what happened with the ref with the question mark, so I removed the sentence. Estimates for those who participated in rapes are not anywhere that I have read. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dana boomer: this one has been around for quite a long time, where is it at? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC) (Milhist coord)

@Peacemaker67:She has not been online since 3 june. And while I hope she is OK, I think I need another reviewer to take over. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Dana suddenly went inactive, I'll place this back in the queue for another reviewer to wrap up. Wizardman 19:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Dana's done the heavy lifting here, so I'll finish up the review today. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've checked the responses to Dana's points, and believe it now meets the GA criteria. I've added the year of the genocide in the first sentence of the lead, as not all readers will know when it occurred. A couple of suggestions if you want to take it further; more information on prosecutions or impunity regarding these crimes (including the estimated number of perpetrators), and some non-Rwandan examples (such as Bosnia) in the Background and Rape as a weapon of genocide sections. A really good article with excellent referencing. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rape as a weapon of genocide

All the sources agree, rape was used as a weapon in this genocide. The section title is accurate to that fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Source questioned

I have not been able to check the correctness of footnote [5], which seems dubious. This is for the sentence "During World War II, rape and mutilation were commonplace as troops invaded enemy territory and typically attacked women first", sourced to "Audoin-Rouzeau (2003, p. 158)", i.e. to "Audoin-Rouzeau, Stéphane; Annette Becker (2003). 14-18: Understanding the Great War. Hill and Wang." The book is not searchable on Google for me, but its index and ToC are visible on Amazon. According to the title of the book and the index info, the book as a whole is about WWI, not WWII, and p. 158 would be concerned with atrocities committed in 1914. Could we have a precise citation what Audoin-Rouzeau & Becker say about WWII on that page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Another sourcing/summarizing issue

The following passage from the "background" section is in need of repair:

"Gender-targeted crimes, especially rape, is a war economy, which is the process of producing and allocating weapons to inflict violence in the most efficient way.[8] Rape allows ethnic cleansing to be carried out more effectively and efficiently. With this ideology, women became more than prizes and became the main target.[9]"

(Sourced to: [8] "von Welser 1993: 149" and [9] "Münkler 2004: 82")

Problems:

1. First sentence is ungrammatical (verb agreement error)
2. The entire sequence of ideas is in fact taken from Münkler, not from von Welser. I haven't been able to check von Welser directly (and I assume the article author didn't consult her directly either, as her book is in German and not online). However, from the way she is cited in Münkler as well as in other works [1], she herself wasn't making any such claim about "war economy", but was merely quoting an opinion expressed by some (apparently anonymous) war witness. Since the war witness herself is not a reliable source on matters of such politological interpretations of the war, we can't use this judgement here, certainly not in a way that states it as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice, making it appear as if it was some kind of profound scientific analysis rather than a one-off quip by a random observer, and also certainly not in this form where it is misattributed to von Welser.
3. The wikilink to "war economy" is wrong, as we are dealing with a rather special ad-hoc meaning of "economy of war", not with the normal concept of "war economy" that article is about.
4. The final sentence, "women became more than prizes and became the main target", makes no sense taken out of its context in Münkler's discussion like this (Münkler is comparing modern forms of sexual violence in war with older forms, where women were supposedly seen primarily as war booty).

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Overly close paraphrasing

The following passage constitutes overly WP:Close paraphrasing:

The genocide in Rwanda did not occur by chance, and neither was it in response to the death of the president, Juvénal Habyarimana. The genocide was the result of years of meticulous planning, as a critical part of the genocide was the participation of the general populace in the killing. One Rwandan theologian has put forth the argument that the genocide itself would not have been possible before the 1990s, and that there had been preparations under way for years, and that participation by the media was a "structured attempt to use media to influence awareness, attitudes, or behavior".[13]

Here is the original from the cited source (Green 2001–2002, pp. 733–776):

The Rwandan genocide was not a chance incident. Nor did it arise solely in response to President Habyarimana's death. The genocide was the culmination of sweeping efforts that had been meticulously planned over a period of years. The participation of the broader population was a critical aspect of the Rwandan genocide [...] In fact, a Rwandan theologian has argued that the genocide would have been inconceivable before the 1990s and that it took four years of preparation to make mass violene possible.³³ To this end, the media participated in a "structured attempt to use media to influence awareness, attitudes, or behaviour".³⁴

Apart from the copyright/plagiarism perspective, there are also two further problems caused by this misuse of close paraphrasing: first, several statements that are clearly the individual author's interpretative opinion and ought to have been hedged as such (that the genocide "did not occur by chance", that it was "meticulously planned", etc.) are now presented as simple facts in Wikipedia's own voice; second, the final quotation is misattributed, as the footnote makes it appear as if the literal quote was being attributed to Green, and/or to the unnamed "Rwandan theologian", when in reality Green is himself quoting and attributing the two statements to two different third parties (the "theologian" is one Tharcisse Gatwa, while the authors of the literally quoted bit are Christine L. Kellow & H. Leslie Steeves.)

This needs repair, or removal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note removed

I am removing [2] note "[a]", under the first mention of "in an act of genocidal rape" in the lead sentence, which contains the quotation "It is also rape unto death, rape as massacre, rape to kill…", sourced to Sharlach 2000, pp. 92–93. Reasons:

1. The quotation is misattributed. It may be cited after Sharlach 2000, but Sharlach isn't the author; she merely quotes it, in turn, after MacKinnon, Catharine A. (1994), "Rape, genocide, and women's human rights", Harvard Women's Law Journal 17: 5–16, p. 11f.
2. The relevance and connection of the quotation to the lead sentence is not clear. What does "It is…" mean? Was this quote intended as describing the events in Rwanda? As describing why the events in Rwanda count as genocidal rape? As defining what genocidal rape is, in general? As describing typical properties of genocidal rape?
3. As it turns out, the quotation is from a paper that was written before the Rwandan genocide and doesn't mention Rwanda at all. The passage quoted is concerned exclusively with describing events in Bosnia, arguing why MacKinnon thinks rape in that particular war constituted genocide.
4. The way the note is currently inserted in the lead sentence naturally suggests to the reader that it is a reference supporting the claim being made in that sentence: that the events in Rwanda were "an act of genocidal rape". For this purpose it is obviously unsuitable.

I'm not saying the quotation couldn't possibly be used somewhere else, contextualized properly, perhaps in a background section on how the concept of "genocidal rape" was developed. But where it sits now, it constitutes a grave form of source misuse.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

note restored stop fucking hounding mr the rollback eas a mistake btw am on mobile Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have no substantial argument to raise here (again, as in so many other cases), then the edit will be reinstated in a short while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fut. Perf. that this quote doesn't belong here. MacKinnon's article is about rape during the Bosnian War (it looks like she discusses Croatia, too), not about Rwanda. It's disappointing that Darkness Shines is uninterested in discussing this at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Akhilleus: Actually MacKinnoins quote is how she defines genocidal rape, which is why it is in there, just behind the internal to the article on Genocidal rape. So why does a definition not belong in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not part of a definition in MacKinnon's text – and even if it were, your presentation of it would still be misleading, as your note isn't presenting it as part of a definition either. (On a different note, thanks for reverting the Wikinger socks; it's appreciated.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

bad translation?

"enfants désirés", which means in french "desired kids", is translated as "children of hate". i would guess that the french adjective is wrong? or is it sarcastic? Sacdegemecs (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing out this inconsistency. This came about by some sloppy quoting back in 2013 that unfortunately went unnotice for two and a half years [3][4]. The original publication cited [5] has "enfants indésirés", "un-desired children, which obviously makes a lot more sense. This still leaves open the question why the author, Marie Mukangendo, chose to translate this (rather neutral) French expression with the (much more dramatic) "children of hate", but she does. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"gender-specific form"

Could you tell me what a non-gender-specific form is? 2607:FEA8:2A5D:2C00:2983:90C:21E9:E495 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)