Talk:Rwanda/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Editing and copying of history

This is a notice that I hope shortly to start editing, shortening and partially rewriting the history section in the Rwanda article, so it conforms with the guidelines for country articles at Wikipedia:WPC#Sections. This requires that the section be

• (a) fully referenced with inline citations (it's pretty sparsely reffed at present) and
• (b) Around 4 - 6 paragraphs in length, providing a brief outline.

With this in mind, I am currently copying and merging lines from the existing history section into the History of Rwanda article, so that the more expansive history information, which may be of interest to people, does not get permanently lost. Obviously a lot of this material is unreferenced and not really robustly verified, but so is most of History of Rwanda, so a large scale clean up will eventually be needed in that article anyway. I am putting "citation needed" tags on much of the copied material.

If anyone has any comments about this, please let me know here or on my talk page.

Thanks — SteveRwanda (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the majority of the Rwanda article several years ago, and it was the result of my PhD thesis on Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo. It took a long time to whittle it down to even this size. The "sparse refs" are because much of the information is already referenced in related Wikipedia articles that are appropriately linked.

A strange habit of Wikipedia revisionists is demanding "in-line references" when the reference is in an already existing Wikipedia link.

Many people think that the Rwanda genocide was some random hell unleashed by Hutu against Tutsi, yet nothing could be further from the truth. The Tutsi have unleashed just as many genocidal actions against the Hutu, and the departure of the colonialists left a vaccuum that allowed these bilateral genocidal tendencies to erupt in one of the worst regional conflicts in human history. You can shorten it, whitewash it, blame it on "the white man," turn it into some sort of strange Rwandan creationist myth (as the current Rwandan government references appear to be trying to do), but the background of one of the worst losses of human life (i.e. the Rwandan Civil War and Genocide, the Burundi Civil War and Genocide, and the Congo Wars) remain more complex than what some kid watching Hotel Rwanda might believe. This article is long and complex for a reason.

Having said that, I agree with moving the majority of the History of Rwanda to its own article and summarizing salient points here in a 4-6 paragraph section. The danger comes in introducing bias in that summary. Good luck.Mbabane (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mbabane, and thanks for your comments.

I agree with your comments about the complexity of the situation, and how even a PhD thesis might not be adequate to fully portray the rich history of the region. However, I also believe that the guidelines for country articles in Wikipedia are actually quite sensible. The article should be readable in its entirety by a casual reader with an interest in the subject, and be sufficiently concise that such a reader is not put off. Similarly, the article should focus on all relevant areas of the country not just its history. The sub-articles then serve as a focus for further reading on any particular area which particularly piques the reader's interest during reading of the main article and it is here that the more detailed history can be written. Hence, however difficult it may be to condense the situation into 6 paragraphs I think that's what we have to do, and make sure at the same time that it is as neutral as possible.

My current thinking for the 6 paragraphs of the history section would be:

1. Pre-history (earliest settlements, archaeology and facts about migrations)
2. Kingdom of Rwanda - rise of the Mwamis and the country as a regional power
3. Colonial era - Germans and Belgians
4. Independence - Kayibanda and Habyarimana
5. Genocide - this probably does deserve its own paragraph
6. Modern era - since the RPF took power

Finally, about the references, like it or loathe it inline citations are now part of Wikipedia policy. As it is my hope eventually to get this article promoted to Featured article status, it is therefore necessary for all facts stated to be referenced with a footnote - this is rule 1.c of the criteria. This system is transparent and makes it easy for readers to verify what we're telling them, without having to delve into sub-articles and try to root out the fact they just read. It also helps protect the article against edits without basis in fact.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing any comments you and others may have about the development of the article! SteveRwanda (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The history section has major problems. Most importantly, it contains the German colonial myth, "The twa (pygmies) were first in the area, then came the Hutus from the West, then came the Tutsi from the Ethiopia region." Because this is a myth first invented by race-obsessed German colonists, there are no satisfying PRIMARY SOURCES for this. After all, history is based on primary sources, not secondary sources. The source referenced for these myths is a travel guide that does not itself cite any sources.

That said, it is likely the pygmies were first, but the assertion that the Hutus and Tutsis arrived separately is not substantiated by any objective evidence.

--- Brian Luedke —Preceding unsigned comment added by74.107.167.120 (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Morning Brian

I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, and possibly the most difficult to get right when writing about Rwanda, not least because the issue has become political as well as historical.

The fundamental thing to remember, though, is that nobody knows the true origins of the groups. Most historians in the books I've read on the subject, including Prunier, Chretien and Mahmoud Mamdani, accept that the truth may lie in either direction, or somewhere in between. So you are correct to say that we shouldn't assert as fact that the Tutsi were of Cushitic origin and arrived well after the Hutu. But equally, we should not say that this is just a Germany colonial myth either - because the Cushitic origin theory might well be true. Nobody knows.

Anyway, I've rewritten the paragraph to try to present all points of views equally (and shortened it somewhat so that we eliminate detail such as agriculturalists pushing hunters into the forests, which may be apocryphal). I've also eliminated references to the guide book from that paragraph and restricted it to links to Prunier and Chretien, who are both eminent historians.

Regarding primary and secondary sources, the rule on Wikipedia is that we use qualified *secondary* sources, while primary sources are discouraged as their findings can be interpreted as original research. Take a look at WP:PRIMARY for details on Wikipedia's policy here.

Anyway, let me know what you think and please provide suggestions for improvement. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru.

Thanks for your response and your changes to the article.

You're right, any theory regarding what happened several hundred years into prehistory, in the absence of good written, archeological, or even linguistic evidence, cannot be ruled out. It is also possible that the Banyarwanda arrived all at the same time from the south, in scattered groups from the West, or in a steady homogeneous trickle from the Northwest. Nobody knows.

So although the text now looks better, since it now acknowledges some doubt, it still gives primacy to the German tale or legend. It mentions the Cushitic racial theory in the present tense, not the past tense, as if cutting-edge modern scholars are proposing Tutsis really derive from Cush, brother of Ham. Further, it mentions that theory, then states, "others believe that the distinction is merely social." While it's true the the Tutsi-Hutu division does not admit of easy classification; as it doesn't fit nicely into any category such as "caste" or "race", since the related ideas changed from time to time and from place to place; still one can recognize this and either agree or disagree with the speculation that some Tutsis derived separately from Cushitic populations in the Horn.

Further, the article still says, "Between 700 BC and 1500 AD a series of migrations took place," and the divisions of Rwandan society into three groups are based on this. This still clearly implies that the best modern analysis shows that Tutsis and Hutus arrived in separate migrations. As far as I know, there is no actual evidence for this, despite the echo chamber of commentators going back to the first German colonists.

Wikipedia may seek to use secondary sources, but surely those sources should be based largely on primary sources, not just more secondary sources, since that would merely lead to the sort of echo chamber I just lamented. In the case of the supposed migrations of the Banyarwanda, the ultimate primary sources are the early wild speculations of European colonists.

Especially in the context of Rwanda, where false racial ideas and movements have exacted such a heavy toll, we need to be careful about what our ultimate primary sources are. Speculation without basis is not a good origin point for a string of secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.167.120 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why my improvement to the first paragraph keeps getting erased. I am trying to insert this near the end of the first paragraph: "Others cast doubt on the theories proposed by early European colonists." I provide an appropriate reference: < Notholt, Stuart. Fields of Fire: An Atlas of Ethnic Conflict. page 2.27. 2008. > This is a very important and relevant fact to mention. - Brian Luedke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.167.70 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Brian

I'm not sure why your text was erased - I think it was an error made by an editor when attempting to revert some vandalism here. I have modified it slightly, because it was out of context as it stood - you wouldn't know which theories were proposed by early European colonists. I've also thrown in that the current government supports the no difference theory. See what you think anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Status of French

I personally believe that we should remove french as "an official language". Government official sites are in Kinyerwanda and English, sports federations sites have turned into english... There is not any official site of the country in french. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen any direct evidence at present that French has been removed as an official language of the country, despite the fact that its status is less favoured these days.

The official government tourism page, http://www.gov.rw/government/tourismp.html still lists English, French and Kinyarwanda as the three official languages, and your statement "There is not any official site of the country in french" doesn't seem to be true - most ministries still seem to offer their sites in French, for example:

• Ministry of Education (language drop down has three languages)
• National Bank of Rwanda (French page prominently available)
• Finance Ministry (French or English from the main page)
• Ministry of Defence (all three languages available)

I have therefore reverted your change to the article to re-include French.

Thanks — SteveRwanda (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

+++French and Englisch=OK : the clear change of the use of language by Kagamé is interesting. One explication is that anglofone and francofone forces are in the battle around the Congo-river. An other version follows the battle between protestants (South of USA) and catholics (Scottisch-Stuarts-Idi Amin Dada)Vandermeeren (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't get the provided link to French being an official language to work but I did find a link from the main Government page to a tourism page (http://www.rwandatourism.com/guide.htm#2) that clearly stated French is still an official language. Sharabura (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Current government sites listing official languages

The following official sites all list French as remaining an official language of the country:

• Prime Minister's Office
• Rwanda Revenue Authority
• Parliament
• Rwandan embassy in Japan
• Tourist Board

I have not found any official sites stating that French is not official.

Alterations to the article stating otherwise should therefore be undone, unless a valid reference can be found stating that the situation has changed. SteveRwanda (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ok I think these are good references, I will include French again as official language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.233.44 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've followed this quite closely, reading a lot of press releases and news reports from Europe, North America and Africa, and I believe the Rwandan government has made it absolutely clear that English is now the only official language in Rwanda. Could someone please make the necessary changes to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As before, I don't think we can put in such a change without a reference. Please provide a link to some of the news reports which make it clear that French is no longer and official language. All websites I can find, including quite recent ones such as this from Paul Kagame:

I want to make it clear, that in the first place, we did not stop teaching, learning or speaking French in Rwanda. In fact, we have not stopped our membership to the francophone family of nations. We are still members and want to continue being a member

— Paul Kagame, http://allafrica.com/stories/201002260117.html

continue to suggest French remains official.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually spoke with the Consul of Rwanda on the phone on this subject, and he said he isn't allowed to tell North American reporters (I'm not a reporter and I told him that three times) what the official language of Rwanda country is. So honestly, I have no idea what Wikipedia should do here. For what it's worth he did apologise and said that Congo spies were spreading rumours about the government. Mardiste (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that I understand African politics, that may well be true. However, I can't comprehend how that could possibly explain the refusal of a fairly high-level representative of the government of Rwanda to share the (highly classified??) information of what their official language is. Can anyone enlighten me? Mardiste (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rwanda GDP

The figure published for GDP is for PPP, I think - in 2006 GDP was 2.833 billion (IMF stat). Maybe worth qualifying the figure published —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.32.232 (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Coup and massacre in 1973

This article mentions very little about the 1973 coup and massacre (? 30,000 killed?)[1]. Perhaps someone could add some details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samatva (talk• contribs) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Drives on the what?

Hi. I wasn't sure what was going on here so I reverted it. Please see also User talk:96.237.128.106. Sorry if I have trodden unwarily here but it did seem strange and was unexplained. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi DBaK. Seems fair enough - Rwanda still drives on the right. There have been occasional mutterings about switching over to match the rest of East Africa but I think that is quite a remote prospect now and wouldn't warrant such an uninformative entry even if the move was imminent.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Amakuru. I got no response from the editor and I think it may have just been random, or perhaps some unfulfilled editing intention. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam figures

I have just reverted a change by anon User:136.247.238.138 concerning the prevalence of Islam in Rwanda. Clearly this is an unresolved issue, as evidenced by this section, but I thought we should go with the 4.6% figure ("International Religious Freedom Report". Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. United States Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2010-07-21.) rather than 14% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html) for now, even though both are from reputable sources. Reasons for this: (a) the former purports to be from a reputable survey, whereas the latter is probably just an estimate and may be based on other unknown sources; (b) it doesn't make sense to have figures for all the other religions from one source, but muslim percentage from another; you're not comparing like for like; and the Washington Post source does not give figures for the Christian religions.

Anyway, if anyone else has other sources comparing all religions, or opinions on how to tackle this, I'd be interested to hear. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Proper names vs. generic names for job titles

Hi,

Just to initiate a discussion on the capitalisation issue for titles (President, Governor etc). I have consulted the relevant section of WP:MOS#Titles of people, and it seems clear that in most of the instances of the word "President" in the article, it should be capitalised. This is because it is a title, and therefore a proper noun. In effect, phrases like "The incumbent President is Paul Kagame" are shorthand for saying "The incumbent President of Rwanda is Paul Kagame". This matches the phrase mentioned in the above manual of style, "The British Prime Minister is David Cameron" and is clearly different from "Britain has a prime minister called David Cameron". The other supporting evidence for this is the Barack Obama article, itself featured, in which Obama's title is almost always written as "President" even when it is not spelled out in full. Although not covered by the same section (they are not people), I believe Senate and Parliament fall under the same bracket. They are both proper nouns representing the institutions of Rwanda. If the institution were to be called by some name that is not an English word, for example Dáil, you would not hesitate to use a capital letter for it.

Anyway, per my above belief I have reverted again some of the cases in which the terms had been made lower case. If others believe I have got this wrong then happy to discuss it further.

The exceptions to the above, and which I have not reverted to caps, are:

• "there are 45 female deputies, making Rwanda the only country with a female majority in parliament"
  • (For clarity I have changed this to: "there are 45 female deputies, making Rwanda the only country with a female majority in the national parliament")
• "Each province is headed by a governor"

Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, we have to go according to our MOS, and not the constitution of Rwanda, which I did not even check for that matter. (Do they really capitalize generic nouns?) I see that you acknowledge the distinction that needs to be made, i.e., proper or generic noun. There are plenty of instances where this gets wrong, even on featured Wikipedia articles. So, I would not use other articles as a reference.

In the end, we will remain with quite many instances that can be viewed from both perspectives, and I think you have realized that as well. E.g., "Each province is headed by a governor, appointed by the President" or "with each subdivision and its borders established by Parliament."

In the two examples above, I think it would be perfectly fine not to capitalize President and Parliament, but I do not want to revert you again. I understand that you read these instances as "the Parliament/President of Rwanda", hence a proper nouns, which makes sense too. From my reading, these instances are generic but I cannot hold your interpretation is wrong.

As for Dail: Yes, when such a specific word is used, it would be much clearer that the use is that of a proper noun, and yes, I understand that in many instances one could substitute such specific terms (if they existed here).

Most important for me was to point out that we cannot simply capitalize all instances: Generic nouns are not capitalized. With this in mind, and perhaps slightly different interpretations of the generic-proper distinction, I think we can happily improve the article together. There may still be any instances where capitalization is just wrong, to all of us. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Plural of Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa

According to my readings, it is far more common to not inflect the words Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa, when using the plural form (i.e., no plural s). I made some changes due to this rule. Just wanted to put this up here, to see whether anybody objects. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue came up during the last peer review actually, as I had initially been a bit inconsistent about it. However, when I researched the matter it seemed that in English text "Tutsis", "Hutus" and "Twas" is the most common so I changed all instances over to use those forms. It jsut seems like there are a few more sources using the -s plural. For example: Philip Gourevitch book, the BBC, the New Times (quite an important source as it is the local English language newspaper). There are a few that use the inflected, for example NY Times and Gerard Prunier's book (Prunier is French, however so English is not his native language) but seems to be less common. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was reading Leave non to tell the story and The preventable genocide, both use the plural regularly without s. How can we make an educated decision here? Perhaps somebody has a dictionary that would be authoritative... Tomeasy _{T C} 18:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be no -s on th end of these. If you want to make them plural, they should be Abahutu, Abatutsi, or Abatwa. These forms are exceedingly rare in English, so Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa are the best alternative. Ionius Mundus (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Abahutu etc. is the Kinyarwanda plural form, but as you say it is very rare to use those forms in English (except sometimes for "Batwa" as a collective noun). However, what makes you say "there should be no -s on the end of these"? As you can see, the reputable sources I mention above all do, so it's certainly not *wrong* to do so (we don't have an official board in English to tell us what is wrong or not). It's just a question of which form is more common, and IMHO that comes out somewhat in favour of the -s form. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it difficult to determine whether "Hutu" or "Hutus" is more common. Doubtless, both are widely used. However, there is a morphological argument to be made. Look at demonyms from around the world. Those that end in -an, -ard, the Arabic-derived -i, and a few other select suffixes always take -s in the plural. The vast majority of all other demonyms (French, British, Swiss, -ese) do not take -s, though exceptions like Poles, Swedes, and Kurds can be found. When it comes to African demonyms - many of these ending in vowels, generally the non-s plural is more common with the -s plural as a viable alternative. Yoruba, Igbo, and Ndebele are more widely used than Yorubas, Igbos, and Ndebeles. I think the pattern carries over the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa, though in older literature Bahutu, Batutsi, and Batwa are commonly seen as well. Ionius Mundus (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually don't feel very strongly either way on this issue, so if you prefer it then I'm happy to go through and change all plural forms to Hutu/Tutsi/Twa.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Seal of Rwanda

Yesterday, I uploaded the Seal of Rwanda to Wikipedia because the Commons file commons:File:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg has a very dubious licensing status. In particular, (a) as this is a national symbol, I understand its usage is restricted independently of copyright; and (b) the actual Copyright status is not given in the existing file; it has been marked as if the uploader is the copyright holder, and under a GFDL license, neither of which can be valid.

Having researched the matter, I have not been able to find anywhere in the Rwandan constitution of other documents which specifically permits public domain usage of this symbol, which means the only legitimate usage is under "Fair Use" guidelines, similar to those which apply for File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg. The specific usage for which I require this file is the Rwanda article, and the licensing status for the Seal was flagged up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive1. It is therefore something that has to be resolved before the article is put up for FAC again.

If anyone knows of a reason why the Commons file is legitimate, then please let me know. Otherwise I will mark the Commons file as to be deleted and re-upload under Fair Use in the Wikipedia space. Many thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to commons:File talk:Coat of arms of Rwanda.svg. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Footnote #46 UNDP (II) 2010?

Footnote #46 UNDP (II) 2010 doesn't link to anything down in "References". I expect it should be UNDP (II) 2011. Alarbus (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - good catch!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Health section

Hi, I separated the health section from education because I created a redirect from Health in Rwanda; this is because there is a template on many pages called 'Health in Africa' (see Category:Health in Africa for example) and it automatically links to Health in Rwanda - please keep the 'Health' section of this page separate, and at some point I hope we can write a separate article on Health in Rwanda (and thus remove the redirect, etc. A separate Health section is common in a lot of country pages. thanks. --Karl.brown (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've recombined the sections, as this article is going through a nomination to become a FA, and short sections won't help with that, per WP:BODY. Not every item with its own country specific article should have its own section on the main article; that is an inventible result of the fact that we have to write in WP:Summary style about topics as massive as countries. Your point on navigation was good though, I've inserted an anchor which solves both our problems. When a health article is written, its main should be placed next to the education one. Cheers, CMD (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

rwanda places

you should visit lake kivu and volcanoes natinol park — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeduff76 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition to culture section

It's unusual for a country article not to feature anything about sports. Perhaps this could be added to the culture section? !203.206.101.76 (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. I will look into adding this when time permits. For what it's worth I have just removed the following from the article:

In May 2012 the British Prime Minister David Cameron auctioned a bat signed by Indian cricket "God" Sachin Tendulkar to raise funds for building a cricket stadium in Rwanda.

If we ever write the sports section we could consider adding something relating to this fact there. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance on the Main Page

Congratulations are definitely due to all the editors who worked to get this article up to FA status, which is how it is featured on the Main page as today's featured article. Thank you all for the great work. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to second John Carters remarks. Sometimes a high school is TFA, and sometimes it's an entire nation. Nice job! --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Rwanda

The way the name of the country is pronounced by Rwandese people sounds more like "gruanda". If you look at the article on France, the French-language pronunciation of the country name is included. If main article editors agree (Amakuru?) perhaps you could make that addition and link it to the Kinyarwanda language article. Regards, Lemurbaby (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I've heard the "rw" sound pronounced many times by Kinyarwanda speakers, and it occurs many times in the language, not just for the country name (uru- is one of the standard prefixes of Kinyarwanda, and when followed by a vowel the u is changed to a w to make urw- for example urwego, which apparently means a stage or rank). That said, I've always found it difficult to pin down exactly what sound is being pronounced; there is a hint of a g there, but it is not a full g, and it is unclear if it comes before the r or between the r and the w. I think the word "Rwanda" is a two syllable word for Bantu speakers, whereas English speakers tend to give it three.

So the difficulty with this is (a) figuring out what the sound actually is [I may be able to ask for some clarification on this from Rwandan linguistic friends], (b) how to translate this obscure sound into IPA pronunciation code, and (c) finding any sources that verify that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

construction of ethnic groups

While one could discuss the historical existence of races like "Tutsi" and Hutus" in premodern history, one can clearly show that these "races" were clearly constructed ones in modern history. When the Belgians introduced passports, the number of cows that someone owned decided, among others, wheter you got a "Hutu" or a "Tutsi" stamped into his passport: Less than 10 cows = Hutu, more than 10 cows = Tutsi... --178.8.32.50 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hominids in East Central Africa

Human and pre-human populations surely existed in what is now Rwanda long before 10,000 years ago. Why does this article state the opposite? Why does it not explain whet prevented habitation that is known to have spread not only over Africa but over the whole main land mass of this planet before the emergence of modern humans, who, doubtless were in the area in question before 8000 BCE? 72.228.190.243 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any sources to support this? I am not an expert on ancient history or paleontology, but all the books I have read on the topic suggest that there is no evidence of human habitation in Rwanda prior to the period mentioned. The earliest modern human remains have been found in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania but again, I don't think there's any evidence they crossed over to Rwanda. As I say, if you have any sources that discuss this question then I'd be very interested to see them! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to hinge on glaciation as the thing inhibiting early human populations, so response is on Talk:History of Rwanda. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)