[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Paul Kagame

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePaul Kagame is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 17, 2013Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
December 4, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

FAR comments

[edit]

In order to avoid a long FAR, I am posting my comments here. Please post responses underneath each bullet point to help keep the conversation organised (similar to how an WP:FAC is structured). I am also conducting a copy-edit of the article as I read it, so please revert anything that isn't helpful. This review will be conducted in sections as the article is long and I am busy in real life. Please ping when the previous comments have been addressed and I will review the next section.

  • "the second day of the 1990 invasion." Does this invasion have an article? If so, please wikilink.
    There's no specific article for the invasion itself. The detail of this is covered at Rwandan Civil War#1990 invasion and death of Rwigyema. If you can think of a better way to make this clear, then please let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fine. I'll check in my second readthrough later. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controlled the national army and maintained law and order," One person's maintaining of law and order is another person's tyranny, so this might not be NPOV. Can law and order be rephrased?
    I have rephrased to "Kagame controlled the national army and was responsible for maintaining the government's power, while other officials began rebuilding the country". That gives his role as the RPF saw it, hopefully without casting judgement on its legitimacy, one way or the other.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A small number of these soldiers were later put on trial." I don't know if this is necessary in the lede as I do not think Kagame was involved in putting them on trial. If he is, that should be specified.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of the lede has lots of explanations of events. While important, especially for a topic as controversial as the Rwandan genocide, I think this information is more necessary for the body of the article, not the lede. Perhaps Hutu refugee camps formed in Zaire and other countries. These camps were given food and medical aid by several western governments and aid agencies. The RPF attacked the camps in 1996, forcing many refugees to return home, but insurgents continued to attack Rwanda. The attack on the refugee camps killed an estimated 200,000 people. As part of the invasion, Kagame sponsored two rebel wars in Zaire." Can be shortened to, "Hutu refugee camps formed in Zaire and other countries and the RPF attacked the camps in 1996, but insurgents continued to attack Rwanda. As part of the invasion, Kagame sponsored two rebel wars in Zaire." The information that was removed can be specified in the body.
    Sounds good. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prunier wrote in 1995 that the RPF were surprised that Hutu peasants "showed no enthusiasm for being 'liberated' by them"." This needs a citation.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with "Following Habyarimana's death" can be trimmed and merged with the subsequent paragraph, especially since this section is long. The Rwandan genocide is important, but information about how it began belongs in the Rwandan genocide article. Instead, this article should focus on Kagame's actions, as it is his article, while keeping enough explanatory information that the reader can understand the background of his actions. Perhaps, "Following Habyarimana's death, a military committee led by Colonel Théoneste Bagosora took immediate control of the country.[66] Under the committee's direction, the Hutu militia Interahamwe and the Presidential Guard killed Hutu and Tutsi opposition politicians and other prominent Tutsi figures.[67] The killers then targeted the entire Tutsi population, as well as moderate Hutu,[70] beginning the Rwandan genocide.[71]"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The RPF allowed Tutsi refugees from Uganda to settle behind the front line in the RPF-controlled areas.[79]" I don't know if this is necessary for Kagame's bio, and perhaps could be deleted or Kagame's link to this decision is made more explicit.
    Fair enough. It's relevant in a very general sense, in that these refugees later formed the backbone of his support-base, but that doesn't justify having it here, so I've removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The death toll from these killings is in the tens or even hundreds of thousands." Are there more concrete estimates? A specific number range?
    @Z1720: unfortunately I don't think there is really enough consensus to even think about giving a range at this point, other than the broad brush that's there now, that it is in the tens or hundreds... that much at least seems certain! See Talk:Rwandan_genocide#Lower_bound_for_Death_Toll_is_Incorrect_&_Misleading for a bit of a conversation on this sort of thing. With unknowns including (a) total deaths in the genocide, (b) Tutsi deaths, (c) the ratio between Hutu/Tutsi deaths, (d) whether Hutu deaths were by other Hutu, due to them being "moderate" or refusing to take part in the genocide, or else by the RPF. I'm happy to include any figures that exist in scholarship on this matter, but I haven't seen it if it exists. Other than that, I've looked at all your points here so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If scholars have not narrowed down the range, then we can't narrow it down either. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her book Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda, written for Human Rights Watch" Can we verify and source these quotations to the original source, instead of to Caplan?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to Marriage and children. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru I am sorry that my response has been delayed: I had stuff in real life that was taking up all of my time. However, that event is complete so and I can devote more time to this. Comments below:

  • but the international community did not provide significant assistance to the new regime," This feels like editorialising. Should this be reworded, something like "the international community focused their resources on the refugee camps that formed in Zaire". I can't propose exact wording because I haven't accessed the source yet.
    Looking at the source, it seems I was definitely editorialising this at the time I wrote it, as it doesn't mention the camps in Zaire at all. I've replaced that line with a quote from Prunier instead, highlighting his belief that the NGOs were spending on "self-serving" humanitarian aid while not committing funds to getting the economy going again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Domestic situation" section is not in chronological order: the first two paragraphs seem to describe the total destruction, indicating the end of the genocide, while the third paragraph talks about the time during the genocide. I think this section needs to be reformatted.
    Yes, it's a bit hard to know how to structure this, given that it covers a period both during and after the genocide. I also see that, since the original FA version, new detail has been added on RPF killings in the genocide section, which effectively duplicates this. I've therefore removed the whole third pargaraph and inserted the two bits not really covered above - namely Kagame's denial in an interview with Kinzer and the Kibeho massacre - into the paragraph within the genocide. The Kibeho thing was in 1995, so technically after the genocide, but I think it might be best to keep it all together? Let me know if you have another idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after taking power, the Rwandan government" While this is great information, I fail to see the connection between the information in this paragraph and Kagame. Was he instrumental in organising this legal system and getting these cases prosecuted? It is weird that a biography article would have a whole paragraph that doesn't mention Kagame.
    OK, I've removed that paragraph. The ICTR stuff, as you say, is only tangentially linked to Kagame. As for Gacaca, I would say most likely he was heavily involved in its construction, and has certainly been a strong proponent. Most sources attribute that just to the "Rwandan government" though, so I'll leave it out.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This brings me to "Presidency", which I will start once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: thanks for the update. I'm currently on vacation for two weeks, and my internet is intermittent, but I will certainly get on to this full time from next weekend if I'm unable to do so sooner. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a note at FAR asking that this stays open. Real-world events are more important. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: OK, I'm up to date with responses again now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing comments below:

  • "Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated." Was Kagame involved in the ban and the arrest? If so, it should be explicitly stated.
    As head of government, I would say he was automatically involved, but I have edited it to say "Kagame's governemnt" did the ban, and to highlight a "warning" he gave to Bizimungu before the latter's arrest.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Presidential election, 2010" section seems to mostly be about Kagame's political opponents. I think most of this information should be summarized or removed, and instead this section should focus on Kagame's reelection campaign.
    Edited accordingly.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are similar concerns for the "Presidential election, 2017" section, where the first paragraph mainly deals with Kagame's opponent. Since this is an article about Kagame, I think there should be more information about Kagame's campaign.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The economy section needs a major update, with most figures citing 2010-2012 numbers and talking about Vision 2020 as a goal that is several years away. Were the goals of Vision 2020 achieved?

Agreed with this. I've removed dated references to Vision 2020, replaced with the loftier ambitions of Vision 2050. Africanedits (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The economy section also focuses a lot on how Rwanda's economy improved and changed during Kagawe's presidency, which is good, but I think it should also include more information about what economic policies Kagame promoted and enacted.

More needs to be done to update the latest economic policies and initiatives for development. One bit I'm not sure about is the reference to illegal exploitation of mines in Congo - there isn't any well-founded research to this end - other than something from 1999. Will need to review the literature on this and make a judgement. Think it has been a feature in the past but is not something that should be front and centre of this article. Will keep working on this. Africanedits (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading the Economy and Education and health sections, I get the feeling that these are written in a pro-Kagame POV. While the successes of Kagame should be highlighted, I do not think there has been enough attention paid to criticisms of Rwanda's changes. Some of this can be fixed by trimming information that does not directly relate to Kagame and policies he promoted, but instead describes general improvements to Rwanda society. I also wish that this sentence was expanded: "Rwanda's response has not been without its criticisms, in particular the curbing of civil liberties and individual freedoms."

This brings me to "Foreign policy" Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

User @Mut.Greg: has recently altered the article in a way which seems to violate NPOV, changing "Rwandan genocide" to the redlinked "genocide against the Tutsi", changing the genocide numbers to unsourced, higher ones, removing criticism of Kagame from the article, and describing researchers critical of Kagame as "Propaganda scholars". They also keep restoring these changes. As my interactions with them approach an edit war, I instead ask other editors for their opinion - specifically, @Amakuru: who is responsible for writing most of the article. Applodion (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion: thanks for noting this, and I have also reverted the above mentioned edits. These clearly did not conform to the sourcing, either on the common name for the genocide or on the other text. And the image should remain the portrait one like other articles, at least until there's a consensus otherwise. The same editor rotated this image by 180 degrees on Commons, disruptively turning it upside down, so I suspect some action should be taken to stop them disrupting the project further.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations officially adopted the term '"Genocide Against the Tutsi" in 2018 through Resolution A/RES/72/550, passed by the UN General Assembly. This resolution declared April 7 as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda.
Kindly check below
https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12000.doc.htm Mut.Greg (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been officially adopted as "the 1994 genocide against the Tusti in Rwanda" in 2-18 by the UN. The Tusti population were the main targeted group as well as anyother person who suppoprted or hiddened them was killed without mercy.
https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12000.doc.htm Mut.Greg (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at the recent move request for the Rwandan genocide article. The sourcing evidence presented shows that the name "Rwandan genocide" is much more used in independent reliable sources than "Genocide against the Tutsi". WP:NPOV and the WP:COMMONNAME article title policy require us to represent the prevailing balance from such sources, which might not necessarily be the same as the "official" names. (See WP:OFFICIALNAMES). So the UN using this name doesn't automatically mean that we should use it. Until there's a consensus to rename the Rwandan genocide article, we shouldn't change the nomenclature in this article either.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As i told you this is not about whats popular. On the issue of reliability it should be urgued to check on facts, many people hove been manipulating on the history of this tragic event, this include journalites, politicians and judges who have hidden evidences but have invested in creating narative of either downplaying or denying the facts of the genocide. Mut.Greg (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Mut.Greg might be back in form of an anon, judging by a new wave of single-issue edits. Applodion (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly looks like it. @ToBeFree: please could you take a look.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.  Resolved, thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Kagame&oldid=1259794189"