Talk:Rwandan genocide/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Weasel words in lead

Many historians argue that genocide against the Tutsi had been planned for a few years. However, Habyarimana's assassination on 6 April 1994 created a power vacuum and ended peace accords. Genocidal killings began the following day when soldiers, police, and militia executed key Tutsi and moderate Hutu military and political leaders.

This paragraph in the lead not uses WP:WEASEL word ("Many historians") but is also uncited. This leads to WP:OR issues related to the analysis. Wikihc (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Lede summaries do not require citations if the content is already sourced in the body of the article. See the "Preparation for genocide" subsection for further information.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

From WP:LEADCITE,

Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.

Given that the paragraph in the lead is making strong analysis on the subject and also uses the word "many",followed by "however"; citations are warranted . Wikihc (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This text is actually taken directly from a section in the body. It isn't properly sourced there. That should be fixed, then it won't matter if the lede has a citation because the statement will be sourced in the body. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it is not sourced there either. I would contend that the same citation should nevertheless be added to the lead as well, when fixed. That's because it is a complex topic with the sentence making a claim on the planning and execution of the genocide. Wikihc (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The word "many" was introduced by me, to show that there is a disagreement on whether the genocide was planned (Prunier, Melvern, Des Forges) or not (Guichaoua, Mamdani, McDoom). Btw, most of those authors aren't historians. The article previously only cited Melvern and Prunier, and gave the impression that all scholars agree that the genocide was planned years in advance. Uglemat (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 (2)

Skwizeramukunzi (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 (3)

41.186.78.136 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 19:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

There are overwhelming evidence showing that the Genocide was committed against Tutsi in Rwanda and affirmed by case laws of the ICTR now IRMCT, and according to the ICC statute article 6 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Paris, 9 December 1948 article II which talk about the definition of Genocide it is evident that the term Rwandan Genocide is not accurate and coorect, therefore it should be rectified. Rolanq (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

It's not Rwandan Genocide it is Genocide against Tutsi 102.22.187.238 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this should be changed to Genocide against the Tutsi. This name was affirmed in paragraph 127-128 of the case No. ICTR-96-4-T of the THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on September 2nd 1998. The name Rwandan Genocide does not confer to the definition of Genocide stated in the ICC statute article and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment article ii. Rolanq (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

Hello there, I would like to suggest an edit on this article;

"Please change RWANDAN GENOCIDE to GENOCIDE AGAINST TUTSI IN RWANDA"

Every statement that says otherwise should be corrected. Thank you! Sources: Nomiso.rw (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Nomiso.rw (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• An explanation for this politically-motivating pushing for the name change: In Rwanda, genocide commemorations are infused with political and diplomatic agendas. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The motif for changing the name should not be taken as political, the fact still remains that in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment article ii the mens rea for genocide is intent to destroy in whole or in part which was practiced against the Tutsi minority whereas what happened to other ethnicities (i.e Hutu and Twa) was not an intent of destroying in whole or in part but a punishment for defying the regime.

This definition can also be found in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) article 6. Therefore the political aspect of this definition should be ignored and base on the legal aspect which confirms that it is the Genocide against the Tutsi Rolanq (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The motif for changing the name should not be taken as political, the fact still remains that in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide article ii the mens rea for genocide is intent to destroy in whole or in part which was practiced against the Tutsi minority whereas what happened to other ethnicities (i.e Hutu and Twa) was not an intent of destroying in whole or in part but a punishment for defying the regime.

This definition can also be found in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) article 6. Therefore the political aspect of this definition should be ignored and base on the legal aspect which confirms that it is the Genocide against the Tutsi Rolanq (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Rwandan genocide → ? – Converting from edit request to mpve request on behalf of IP - no comment on merit of move Happy Editing--IAmChaos 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Change Rwandan genocide to Genocide against the Tutsi (this was affirmed in the case Case No. ICTR-96-4-T of THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU paragraph 127tried by the ICTR and decided on 2nd September 1998 ) 197.157.187.10 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: There is some academic dispute over this very issue. Academic André Guichaoua writes "in Rwanda, genocide commemorations are infused with political and diplomatic agendas". The Kagame regime pushed for the UN Assembly to rename the international day of remembrance for the genocide as the "Genocide against the Tutsi". When the UK and US protested this, the Kagame government said that they were fanning the flames of genocide denial. The Kagame government has typically downplayed the others killed during the genocide (some anti-extremist Hutus and the Twas). The UN renaming was ultimately successful, however, which was supported by author Linda Melvern (see her article here, where she also criticized resistance to the renaming). It is known, however, that the Rwandan government has a track record of jailing people for not towing its rhetorical line on the genocide, such as when one politician was sentenced for genocide denial for asking why the moderate Hutu victims were not given official tribute (here). This section of this book gives a good summary of the Kagame governments' twisting of the genocide for its own benefit, and its ethnically lopsided nature. Unfortunately, it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Use the name recognized by the UN which notes the main victims of the 1994 genocide, but in the process support the rhetoric of an authoritarian, chauvinist regime. I'll also note that if we do vote for a name change, we should specify "Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda", since there's a dispute if the 1993 ethnic violence in Burundi included a genocide of Tutsi people there. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  The politically sensitive nature of the naming of the genocide is not, I believe, sufficient reason to refuse the name change. The vast majority of victims during the genocide in 1994 were Tutsi and were targeted as such. Indeed, the only group singled out for complete destruction in 1994 was the Tutsi ethnic group. This is a historical fact, and the possibility of a political exploitation of this reality does not change that. An excessive emphasis on the scholarship of academics opposed to the change (or even those that support the title "Genocide against the Tutsi") is extremely problematic because it decenters survivors and marginalizes their voices when it is they who lived through the experience of 1994 and are most affected by the politics of commemoration. This is a point that I believe is brushed over far too often in this conversation. Almost without exception, Tutsi survivors of the genocide understand what happened in 1994 as a genocide against Tutsi and refer to it as such. It is ironic that a site like Wikipedia which seeks to make knowledge accessible and of benefit to the average internet user would privilege the voices and discourse of the few over the lived experiences of hundreds of thousands of survivors. The irony is heightened by the fact that the article once called it "the Rwanda Genocide, also known as the genocide against the Tutsi" and only recently became more intolerant enough of this name to completely remove it.

  Even more concerning is that any attempt to change the title is automatically labelled as a desire to push government rhetoric or force Wikipedia to cede to authoritarianism, as if the usage of "Genocide against the Tutsi" were exclusively to those survivors with a certain political agenda or affiliation. Such an approach only reinforces the politicization of the memory of the genocide, a practice that those opposing the name change purportedly seek to avoid. Honouring and acknowledging non-Tutsi killed in 1994 is not mutually exclusive with recognizing Tutsi as the principle victims of genocidal violence (which. To suggest otherwise only harms survivors and delays the possibility of reconciliation and healing in Rwanda. Ngororero (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Possibly one-third of the Twa population was killed (even if others' role in the genocide was complicity), so I wouldn't be too minimalist about that. I have no problem with the "also known as" in the lede since the alternative phrasing is frequent enough, but this is a discussion about the title of the page. Internationally, "Rwandan genocide" still has much more currency, and international preference takes precedence over local narratives, when internationally there is a WP:COMMONNAME such as in this instance. Wikipedia does place emphasis on scholarship, that is simply how things work here. "Genocide against the Tutsi" is a much more recent narrative creation, refugee scholar Giorgia Donà writes when she spoke to Rwandans in 1996 that other phrasings, such as "Rwandan genocide," "Rwanda genocide of Tutsis and moderate Hutus," and "the events of 1994" were much more common ways of speaking of it. At any rate, if you are worried about "decentering" victims, the perhaps read this, this, and this this, which list the criticisms of the official narrative doing exactly that. This book notes that there was speculation that the rebranding was deliberately exclusionary. Rwandans' opinions on the official line of rhetoric are not unanimous. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    Not everything can be objective. You can not be a doctor and tell to the family of a patient that there was an irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustained your father (definition of Death on wiki). We are not robots and feelings matter in our decisions.. If you say "Rwandan Genocide" technically you are right as the hunted tutsis, their hunters and everyone who participated were all Rwandans. But the name has become so sensitive to Tutsi survivors that almost saying it otherwise is insulting to their pain. The question here is no longer about what is correct but rather what is right. An international community like us should not debate over how to call a horrific period in other people's life when they care so much about the name. Saying that in 1996 (2years after the genocide, people still traumatised having witnessed the worst part of human nature and in a time where killings could happen https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/rwanda/Rwan004-02.htm) people said those names, is clearly underastandable. You even included that they said "the events of 1994" which says much(they had no idea on what to call what had just happened). But whilst we remember and heal from the wounds caused by the genocide, we gain strength to say what it was. I do not know if you are Rwandan but in our culture we have a saying that "izina niryo muntu"(the name is the person). It was not a Rwandan genocide. It was a genocide against tutsi (in Rwanda) and we remember it that way. Please let's call it what it is and help the survivors mourn their loved ones that were taken away just for being of a completely invented race. Parfaitn (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Even though "Genocide against the Tutsi" has been recognized by the UN, this title comes with a lot of baggage as Indy beetle outlined. In addition, academic sources seem to prefer "Rwandan genocide"; Google Scholar gives 35,000 hits for "Rwandan genocide" and just 2,400 for "Genocide against the Tutsi"; the latter also includes a substantial number of works which actually refer to events in Burundi (mentioned by Indy beetle above) or the aftermath of the Bugesera invasion (which resulted in up to 20,000 Tutsi civilians being massacred in 1963). Even if we restrict search results to only recent academic books & papers (i.e., the last two to three years), "Rwandan genocide" still wins by a large margin. IMO, considering the problematic background of the official UN-recognized name, and the academic preference for the "Rwandan genocide" name, we should stay with the current title. Applodion (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Considering article 38 of the ICJ Satute that sets the hierarchy of legal instruments that should be based on in adjudicating such international case, international convention and treaties are superior to work of scholars, so we should base on international treaties and conventions i.e; ICC statute article 6, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide article ii which according to them the name of these events should be Genocide against the Tutsi because if you call it Rwandan Genocide it will be against the definition of genocide in the ICC Statute article 6 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide article ii, since it would require that the perpetrators be of another nationality other than Rwanda, hence it should be Tutsi Genocide since it was perpetrated by members of the HUTU ethnicity against the minority TUTSI with the intent of destroying them in whole. the members of the other ethinicities killed the itent was not to eliminate them in whole or in part but to punish them for protecting the TUTSIs. Rolanq (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Considering article 38 of the ICJ Satute that sets the hierarchy of legal instruments that should be based on in adjudicating such international case, international convention and treaties are superior to work of scholars. Law is a product of politics. This is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia prefers scholarship, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for some guidance on the matter. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose in light of what Applodion has pointed out, plus my own reasoning above. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME--Srleffler (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the name Genocide against the Tutsi might be labeled as political does not change what actually happened. The ICJ Statute in it’s article 38 states that international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states are to be considered the first source of authority and law in international matters.

Basing on article ii of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of Paris, 9 December 1948 sets the mens rea of the crime of Genocide as the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) also re-affirms this definition in article 6 paragraph 1.

With all these legal elements it is clear that saying Rwandan Genocide is not only wrong but it is also against legal facts and international conventions not to mention that there is a case law which states that what happened was the genocide against Tutsi the case is No. ICTR-96-4-T of THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU paragraph 127tried by the ICTR and decided on 2nd September 1998 ).

With all these evidences and legal facts i believe Wikipedia should change the name to Genocide against Tutsi instead and adhere to the rules and definition set by international law and customs. Rolanq (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The genocide happened in Rwanda and the Tutsis are also Rwandans, so calling it "Rwandan genocide" isn't "wrong". Rreagan007 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

.calling it Rwandan Genocide is not only ambiguous and wrong but also legally incorrect since the name would not constitute an ignorance of international law. it would be saying @Rreagan007 and @Ngororero are the same because they are editors on Wikipedia, but they are totally different Rolanq (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• • The fact that the name Genocide against the Tutsi might be labeled as political does not change what actually happened. I'm not seeing how the ICJ statute or other international convention is relevant here (if anything you seem to misreading its purpose), and no one is contesting that there was a genocide in which the Tutsi minority was targeted and hundreds of thousands killed (and neither do the near-totality of the sources which say "Rwandan genocide" either). It's not like saying "the Holocaust" or "Shoah" means there was not a genocide against the Jews in Europe. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    the relevance of the ICJ statute is to show that treaties are a form of legally binding documents as it was also re-affirmed in article 11 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, hence since they are legally binding document they should be given the highest of values be the first ones to base on in trying to interpret any international matter.

    Genocide is a matter of international concern as it was stated in numerous United Nations address since that's the case only international legal instrument should be based on in defining any situation that involves Genocide as it [1]has been seen and not base on personal arguments and news papers when the law is not silent

    since you agree with the fact that the killings aimed at destroying the Tutsi ethnicity in Whole and you agree that it was a genocide, then if you call it Rwandan Genocide it will be against the definition of genocide in the ICC Statute article 6 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide article ii, since it would require that the perpetrators be of another nationality other than Rwanda, hence it should be Tutsi Genocide since it was perpetrated by members of the HUTU ethnicity against the minority TUTSI with the intent of destroying them in whole. the members of the other ethinicities killed the itent was not to eliminate them in whole or in part but to punish them for protecting the TUTSIs.

    All of the above show that it was a genocide perpetrated by the HUTU against the TUTSI, therefore becoming the Genocide Against Tutsi. Rolanq (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    • It was a genocide perpetrated by the Rwandan Hutu extremist government and its agents against Rwandan Tutsis. At any rate, the scholarly reason behind "Rwandan genocide" seems quite clearly to mean "genocide that happened in Rwanda" and not "genocide targeting Rwandan nationals". The ICC Statute and Genocide Convention say nothing about naming genocides, just identifying them. If you disagree with the scholarly consensus so be it, but Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Perhaps in 20 years no one will say "Rwandan genocide" and "Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda" will be clearly preferred, but that is not the case at the moment, as demonstrated by Applodion's statistics. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

      BoldYou can not argue with legal reasoning while basing on layman and personal belief, if you understand what happened why not give it real meaning, since it would comply with the law? however even the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS clearly states that Wikipidia can only report what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion meaning this rule allows for moving of articles so long that it suffices those 3 criterias, given the case your reasoning are not based on any legal or actual facts which is why i think mine should be given more value and move the article. Rolanq (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

      • I'm basing my arguments on scholarship and reliable sources, which is how Wikipedia works. Your personal interpretation of international treaties is not helpful. Perhaps it's just your wording, but this is not a matter of "compliance" with the law. Treaties and declarations do not place any legal burden on Wikipedia to name its articles. If you want to make an argument about the name, you would do much better to cite reliable sources, such as statements and article written by academics and published either in peer-reviewed journals or books. Failing that, there is little more to discuss. The fact of the matter is (as far as has been ascertained), more reliable sources prefer the term "Rwandan genocide", thus more weight is given to that name than to alternative names. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

        it is not my personal interpretation of the treaties because the interpretation emanates from from a case with the effect of res judicata (THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU paragraph 128).

        forgive me but I find it absurd that Wikipedia would rather opt for a legally wrong narrative over a legally correct one just because it relies on books based on personal views of academics.

        The ambiguity of the name Rwandan Genocide gives room for denials and negation.

        I strongly urge you to support moving this article basing on legal and accurate reasoning. Rolanq (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to trust an academic before I'd trust a legal decision. The legal process is not exactly foolproof, and the international legal process is especially sensitive to political effects. Wikipedia is under no requirement to toe the international line. We can certainly publish it, with attribution, but it's only one of many sources in this area. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This atrocity is widely known as the "Rwandan Genocide". That wording is quite correct: it was a genocide in Rwanda. Most English speakers have no idea about the difference between Hutu and Tutsi, or the finer points of race in Rwanda. Unless there is some shift in academia or common usage, it should stay as it is. I'll also note that the UN calls it the Genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda, which has somehow been left off this RM, making it inaccurate anyway. Even if the long title were equally prominent in the literature, a concise title is preferred on Wiki. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very definitely the common name worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Substantially agree with CaptainEek's arguments above. --130.111.39.47 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022 (2)

Change Rwandan Genocide to Tutsi Genocide (this was affirmed in the international Case No. ICTR-96-4-T of THE PROSECUTOR VERSUS JEAN-PAUL AKAYESU paragraph 127-129 decided on 2nd September 1998) Rolanq (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It seems that a move request was opened in the previous section, please feel free to comment there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

what weight should be given to legal accuracy in relation to that given to academic publications 21:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Rolanq Rolanq (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)12/04/2022

I have removed the RfC tag here, since an RfC is already going on above to answer that very question. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

==

Not genocide of people, genocide and abuse of almost exclusively men, as per usual global gynocentrism; hutu women were also part of perpetrators and organizers, Sharlach, 1999. Sure tutsi women were also abused, but nowhere near killed as much. 70% of population was women after it, (so at least 2,228m lacking men), Jones, 2002.Gendalv (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Change 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi to Rwandan genocide

The article currently opens with "The 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi,[2] occurred between 7 April and 4 July 1994 during the Rwandan Civil War. During this period of around 100 days, members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group, were killed by armed militias. The most widely accepted scholarly estimates are 1,000,000 over Tutsi deaths." I suggest that this be changed to "The 1994 Rwandan genocide occurred between 7 April and 4 July 1994 during the Rwandan Civil War. During this period of around 100 days, members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group, were killed by armed militias. The most widely accepted scholarly estimates are 1,000,000 over Tutsi deaths."

This would better match the title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:2430:7F:7DE8:C8D0:A3C6:867C (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• The recent changes which led to the opening you have read have been reverted. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regards to other genocides" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regards to other genocides and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regards to other genocides until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

"Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regard to other genocides" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regard to other genocides and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Peculiarities of the genocide of the Tutsis in regard to other genocides until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

New evidence for assassinations and genocidal massacres by the RPF and their cover-up by the UN under US pressure

As far as I can see, the new findings from this article in a South African "paper of record" (according to the Wikipedia article about it) https://mg.co.za/africa/2020-11-29-exclusive-top-secret-testimonies-implicate-rwandas-president-in-war-crimes/ are not yet reflected in the article. 79.100.144.23 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Numbers don't match

Math don't work. In Demography of Rwanda we can find info that there was cc 7 milion people in Rwanda in 1994 of those 15% was Tutsi ..or cc 1 milion. If there was 1 milion Tutsi victims of genocide that mean no Tutsi left. Yet again you claim in article that today there is 1-2 milion Tutsi in Rwanda today. 109.60.11.192 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• The article does not claim that 1 million Tutsis dies in the genocide, it just notes that the Rwandan government claims that. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How much were you paid??. To say that is a Rwandan genocide so,you mean there was a tribe that came and killed rwandans?? Stop that please the truth is "it is the Rwandan genocide against the tutsi"

let's put truth forward the people who sponsored this genocide against the tutsi are trying to change the truth by putting a lot of money to pay the youth and say that it was the Rwandan genocide..... If you want to know the truth come to Rwanda and testify from the hutus who participated in killing of the tutsi in 1994 who are now already forgiven by the tutsi and already reconciled

• Visit the nyamata genocidal memorial site* to get more about this genocide against the tutsi

I strongly thank the RPF Inkotanyi who saved rwanda 🇷🇼 🙏 from this disaster and brought equality. Though it was so difficult to forgive but we can never forget.

• Paul Kagame*tried and managed to convince the tutsi to forgive the hutus who killed their relatives.

This man deserves the noble peace award 105.178.42.125 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Most reliable sources call this the "Rwandan genocide" aka a genocide which happened in Rwanda, so we call it that per our general policy at WP:COMMONNAME. Please signal your domestic political preferences elsewhere. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

sad

it was a very sad time 2601:153:800:6DD0:895A:6D72:DF61:F93B (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Am asking my self how you call it Rwandan Genocide like people which not Rwandans killed Rwandans while The tutsi ethnicity was the one targeted because they were on tutsi side ! Some Hutu extremist killed tutsi ! So stop your nonsense it's Tutsi Genocide!killed tutsi that

Change needs here! Not Rwandan Genocide but Tutsi Genocide! Hutu killed Tutsi and they both Rwandans so where is the difference in you Rwandan Genocide! You can do better that this as Wikipedia the biggest in the world..!! 102.22.142.115 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice correction... notes needs to be taken. 102.89.44.114 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

See below. The WP:COMMONNAME across all sources is the one in use.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Ikiza

There is no mention of the 1972 Ikiza killings in the Background section of the article.

Although they happened in neighboring Burundi rather than Rwanda, I believe they are important to understand the background of the Rwandan genocide. OlBoes (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

"kinship" is mistakenly worded as "kingship" in the section "Pre-independent Rwanda and the origins of Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups" Vladverde (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024

Not Rwandan Genocide but 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi 2A00:F41:34A3:1AAA:1CC3:E4EB:B04D:665B (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

It is not 'Rwandan Genocide' but "The Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda" for the former contributes to genocide tactical denialism,and doesn't align with UN General Assembly Decision 72/550 of 26 January 2018 and (2) Resolution A/RES/74/273 of 20 April 2020, in which the General Assembly “[reaffirmed] 7 April as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda”.: https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12000.doc.htm

The Genocide against the tutsi" captures the historical facts of what happened in 1994 — genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda — and left no room for ambiguity. The tactics of genocide denial and revisionism were well known and documented. Some people promoted the theory of double genocide in the futile belief that it might divert their own responsibility. The more than 1 million people who perished in the genocide were killed in the most horrendous conditions because they belonged to a group that was dehumanized and targeted for total extermination"-Rwanda in General assembly,26 January 2018

Genocide requires a special intent. Indeed, to be qualified as genocide, a crime needs to fulfil at least three conditions: (1) it must be committed against members of a specific group listed in the Convention;a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group (2) the members must be targeted "as such" (as members of that group), and (3) they must be targeted with the intent to destroy them in whole or part.

Therefore, based on this definition, it's impossible that the 1994 genocide in Rwanda targeted Rwandans altogether, unless the author of "Rwandan genocide" suggests that (1) there were three separate genocides in Rwanda – one against each group:hutu;tutsi;Twa or (2) a single genocide against the Rwandan national group, which would mean that victims would have been targeted, not for their “ethnicity” but for their Rwandan nationality. And we know that both options are historically untrue.

2) The crime of genocide in a specific place doesn’t exist just because it was defined in an international convention. This crime needs to be established by a court of law, which has to demonstrate that members of one of the four groups mentioned in the Genocide Convention were targeted, as such, to be destroyed in whole or part.

For the case of Rwanda, the crime of genocide was established by the Trial Chamber of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (#ICTR) in its very first judgment, "Prosecutor against Jean-Paul Akayesu" of 2nd September 1998. In this judgement, the Tribunal concluded that “the crime of genocide was indeed committed in Rwanda in 1994 against the Tutsi as a group”.

This judgement was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR, which, on 16 June 2006, issued a judicial notice (ICTR-98-44-AR73(C)) that concluded that it was a “fact of common knowledge” that “between 6 April and 17 July 1994, there was a genocide in Rwanda against the Tutsi ethnic group”. This judicial notice settled, once and for all, the legal debate on (1) the qualification of the crime that was committed in Rwanda in 1994 – it was a genocide – and (2) the group that was targeted – it was the Tutsi ethnic group.Therefore it's not Rwandan Genocide but Genocide against the tutsi in Rwanda.

https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/april-2021/remembering-genocide-against-tutsi-rwanda-27-years-later Sage2024 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. See the previous discussion on this topic for the community's views, in particular policy regarding WP:COMMONNAME. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

Umwana250 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to add accurate information about the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

"Change Rwandan genocide to The 1994 genocide against the tutsi" Y3rash (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

For further context, this has been disputed before. I think a formal RfC should be requested if a change such as this is sought. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024

change the title "Rwandan Genocide" to "1994 Genocide against the Tutsi" or "1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda" Tam7ust24 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)