Talk:Rwandan Patriotic Front

early discussion

What's with this name? "Rwandese Patriotic Front" gets 1,980 Google hits. "Rwandan Patriotic Front" gets 7,410 hits. The word "Rwandan" be itself gets 246,000 hits while "Rwandese" (a term I had never heard until now) gets 35,900. RickK 05:01, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

I was suprised as well. My guess is that much of these hits are from Wikipedia and their mirrors since that's what most of the "Rwandan Patriotic Front" are linked to, but I can guarantee with a good deal of certainty that the proper name is "Rwandese" and not "Rwandan". I am in the middle of reading the biography of Romeo Dallaire, the UN General in charge during the genocide, and I also peeked at a few papers from some International studies schools. Just to make sure I went to the official Rwandan website http://www.gov.rw/government/president/index.html. The Paul Kagame profile confirms it as well. I'd put my money on the first hand accounts over google any day. Dostal 05:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having since read a good deal more about Rwanda I am suprised by the number of incidents of seeing "Rwandan Patriotic Front". This is at least enough to make me second guess the name, but I still don't think it's worth changing at this point. Both the Rwandan website and Romeo Dallaire are pretty credible sources for "rwandese". So if anyone can find decisively one way or another which name it is please let us know! Dostal 22:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the accepted English adjectival form seems to be Rwandan: of course, for the name of an institution/organization, we should use the formal name.

Is it possible this is an issue of translation from French? I know the RPF is largely English-speaking, but "Front" is a odd name to use in English for a political group, and "Rwandese" sounds a lot like "rwandais". Idle speculation. --Saforrest 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Philip Gourevitch, author of We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We WIll be Killed With Our Families, the definitive account of the genocide, also uses Rwandese. I imagine that people using Rwandan, just assume it is correct because it sounds right. --TuesdayMush 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As examples among many current sources of "Rwandan Patriotric Front" as the phrase in current English usage, please see Human Rights Watch and Global Security Rwandan War pages on the "Rwandan Patriotic Front." Review the first comment in this section which was questioning the use of the word Rwandese not Rwandan (it was changed after that comment). Given the adjective Rwandan for Rwanda (of Rwanda) and the people of Rwanda (Rwandans--used throughout the article on Rwanda and Rwandan Genocide) and Rwandese as a more old-fashioned adjective for the people of Rwanda (including some important organizations), news reports currently tend to use "Rwandan" for "RPF" not "Rwandese." As the Google statistics suggest, Rwandan Patriotic Front is current usage in news accounts and general (not specialized) literature about the group. The current usage Rwandan Patriotic Front does seem to be an issue of current translation of the word Rwandais, which does have one or the other translation "Rwandan" and "Rwandese" throughout much of the literature. The earlier change was simply a matter of consistency within Wikipedia, where the word Rwandan seems to be more commonly used in descriptions of subjects relating to Rwanda, and thus it is more likely that a person using Wikipedia, who is searching for RFP would choose the words Rwandan Patriotic Front (or RFP) as search terms. (This is not a matter of "popularity" but rather of actual prominence of current usage; e.g. Human Rights Watch. The tribunals are a different matter and they tend to refer to "Rwandese" rather than "Rwandans" (e.g., UN).) Google does not have a problem finding Rwandan Patriotic Front for those who use those search terms; over 7,000 hits mentioned above is still a lot of hits. This is the English-language version of Wikipedia and the translation is most current English usage. (I have Dallaire's book too; that's not the current usage among most people who discuss the RPF.) --NYScholar 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone able to shed light on the central themes or beliefs of this political party? Are they center, right, left on various issues? When the article mentions radicalism, just what does this entail? CMac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.155.55 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

The role of French troops after the events of Feb 8th were limited to the evacuation of 67 europeans and americans, trapped in the town of Ruhengeri, in combat zone. In addition, some troops were present for instruction role to FAR and were never involved in any combat with the FPR, but they were there for a very long time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.97.248 (talk • contribs) on 30 March 2006

---

Although the French forces in Rwanda were not invovled in actual combat operations against the RPF, they did intend to stop it's advance by putting their forces in the way of the RPF. If you read Romeo Dallaire's book about the the genocide then you will see that there were at least two occasions on which the French forces and soldiers from the RPF came very close to engaging one another due to the French atempt to advance further towards Butare than they were meant to. The french had also provided weapons to the FAR throughout the genocide and trained members of the interahamwe prior to the 6th of April. They also engaged the RPF in their 1993 offensive in order to stop the rebels from taking the capital. [who wrote this? and when? Signature?]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.134.93 (talk • contribs) 10 April 2006

---

I have removed the POV-check template. A year is a bit excessive, and the tag is not meant to be used for content disputes in the first place. - BanyanTree 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Even nothing about USA supporting RPF as written in the german article. --91.66.31.16 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Genocide (1994)

The section with the title "Genocide (1994)" discusses the invasion by the RPF. Describing the invasion under a section with this title gives the impression that the RDF were responsible for (or, at least, the cause of) the genocide. However, as I understand it the RDF were mainly Tutsi and Tutsis (and moderate Hutus) were the victims of the genocide. This section should probably be changed (rewritten or at perhaps re-titled) to avoid confusion.

Also, the dates (or order of events, at least) seems important here. Was the genocide a 'response' to the invasion, or in any way triggered by it? Or was the genocide already in progress when the invasion began? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.90.78 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Funding for the RPF.

The Wikipedia article on the Rwanda civil war states the following :

- At first, Belgium also supported the government but cut all lethal aid shortly after 

hostilities began, citing a domestic law prohibiting their military from taking part in a civil war.

France, in contrast, saved the regime and gave significant military and financial support, 

thus replacing Belgium as Rwanda's major foreign sponsor.

What I want to know is who was/were the RPF's 'sponsor/s' I mean who funded the RPF throughout the civil war and after - the first and second Congo wars which Rwanda participated in. This article does not mention that Paul Kagame received military training at the he Command and General Staff College (C&GSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I assume the RPF had/has ties with the American government while the government armies had ties to France.

Suggestions on the section on the Genocide

Upon reading it it was extremely clear to me that the paragraph is nothing more than a propaganda filled rant about how the RPF were the 'villians' behind the genocide. As far as I'm aware this is contrary to the known facts, and further more it is completely unsourced. I'm no expert on this subject, but I think that that paragraph needs some serious revision to better fit the facts with adequate sourcing. Hitthat (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We probably need to go through all articles on these sort of topics and identify which have POV lines in, one way or the other, and remove them. Better to have nothing at all than POV unreferenced material.

In this case I have replaced the section with material from the Rwanda article (which I have been very busy on lately), which is not yet quite perfect but at least is intended to be NPOV and is fully sourced. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's looking a lot better anyway. Hitthat (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This article contains a wide range of information. There was an adequate amount of background information that allowed me to understand the history of Rwanda. This article also has valuable information regarding the refugees that fled to camps during political strife. This article is easy to read and therefore it is easy to understand and retain the information. This article has a good base of information that can be expanded upon. When reading this article, there is some bias that is evident. For example a line for the article states, “Uganda has perhaps the harshest refugee laws in the region”. This statement seems to be biased. There is no reference or citation to indicate that this is fact. Therefore, it would appear that this statement is a matter of opinion. Throughout the rest of the article a bias can be sensed as well. Perhaps when editing the article, one could alter the way statements are made. If there is ever a source that can be cited it would be advantageous to use it, therefore it is more of a fact than opinion. When writing a Wikipedia article, a certain writing style must be used, and that style requires one to remain unbiased and write an encyclopaedia style article in a neutral voice. This article could easily be edited to make it more neutral. This article has many valid points, however not everything is referenced or cited. For example a sentence from the article is as follows; “as the refugee numbers grew the population overflowed the boundaries of the camps set up during the initial refugee crisis”. This statement should perhaps require a reference. References are a way to prove what is written to be true. Especially if the references are peer reviewed journal articles. In general, this article is lacking references and would be much stronger if there was more proof. As was mentioned prior, this article has a good base of knowledgeable information throughout it. However, the article does not go into depth about the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which is in fact the title of the article. Therefore, this article does not stick to the topic. This article seems like a small summary regarding some things involved in the “RPF” but not a comprehensive encyclopaedia article. Each subheading of the article could go into much more detail regarding the RPF and the role it played in each circumstance. Although the entire article is related to the subject, more content could be dedicated to explaining the “RPF” more conclusively. In conclusion, this article could improve by increasing neutrality, finding more references and citing them accurately, and expanding more on what the main subject of the article is meant to be. Again, this article is a good bad of information that is easy to read and understand. This article could easily be made into well written Wikipedia article.

(CallyLee (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

Political orientation of the RPF

The article currently states that the RPF's "ideology promotes socialism and left-wing nationalism". This is highly dubious at best, and not a description of the RPF that I've heard before, so I've tagged it as disputed. The RPF certainly promotes nationalism, but its political-economic stance since 1994 has generally been pretty well in line with the World Bank and IMF credo (i.e. neoliberalism, giving way to a slightly softened version over the past few years but still strongly emphasizing deregulated markets, foreign direct investment, incentives for business and investment, etc.; a thoroughgoing liberalism, at any rate). In recent years, in keeping with trends in mainstream development, Rwanda has begun to roll out a more cohesive social protection system, but one that is targeted rather than universal, and still relatively minimalist rather than strongly redistributionist; its a far cry from anything one would call 'socialism'.

Unless anyone can provide a strong basis for this classification of the RPF's ideology I suggest that it is pretty misleading and ought to be changed. Arch Mute Brave (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much correct. Any idea what reliable sources say?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" say that Rwanda is one of the most buisness-friendly countries in Africa. Just look at world bank rankings. http://rdb.rw/~new/?id=468 217.8.182.66 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Who to name the genocide mentioned here

They say "genocide against tutsi" and not "rwandan genocide". In that case we can understand that all rwandan were killed while it was the tutsi and moderate hutu who disagreed to kill tutsi 196.44.252.121 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

How can we improve the narrative?

In the lede section, an editor said "Since 1994, the party has ruled Rwanda using tactics which have been characterized as authoritarian. Elections are manipulated in various ways, which include banning opposition parties, arresting or assassinating critics, and electoral fraud".

But generally, it is referenced that,

Rwanda is normally a democratic country but abides by the operation of the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, established in 1999, the new constitution was adopted following a national referendum of 2003, replacing the transitional constitution that had been in place since 1994. The constitution mandates a multi-party system of government, with politics based on democracy and elections. However, the constitution places conditions on how political parties may operate. Article 54 states that "political organizations are prohibited from basing themselves on race, ethnic group, tribe, clan, region, sex, religion or any other division which may give rise to discrimination", the article incriminated some parties which led to being banned in Rwanda. The RPF-Inkotanyi started as a Tutsi-dominated party but its ideologies are supported by most Rwandans. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen any independent RS that Rwanda is functionally, not just nominally, a democracy (no free & fair elections have been held). Sure, the propaganda is that rpf is not sectarian at all, but all the independent sources I've seen dispute this. (t · c) buidhe 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The narrative used by an editor sounds too critical and somehow biased. It blames all to one party while there is national constitution adopted by a whole national. As far as I read, there are reliable sources that each Rwandan election involved multiple political organizations. We can have a balanced narrative. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, if you know of any scholarly sources that contradict what is stated in the article, feel free to quote them here. (t · c) buidhe 07:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, some of helpful sources I found are the following;

1. As We Forgive: Stories of Reconciliation from Rwanda

2.Post-genocide Rwanda and discursive construction of legitimacy: contesting seemingly dichtomous political narratives

3. Rwanda's Constitution of 2003 with Amendments through 2015 . 6eeWikiUser (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

#1 is a christian themed book, not a serious scholarly work. #3 is a primary source—interpretation of such a document needs to be done by an independent source (WP:NOR). #2 looks promising, but I'm not sure what point you are getting from it. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about Rwanda after the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, a tragedy left estimated more than 10% of population killed within 100 days. All these 3 sources are from different categories, but they have some opposite information to what stated in article, and they illustrate the history and political changes transformed Rwanda into a reconciled people and developing nation. My concern is, why can't we improve the Lede section, either explain more for what stated or remove some more confusing statements? 6eeWikiUser (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right that the RPF rule includes aspects that can be evaluated as "good" (economic growth, relative peace in Rwanda itself) as well as "bad" (autocracy, political repression, war crimes and economic exploitation in the drc etc.) Indeed, the argument that the positive aspects are only possible because of autocratic repression is commonly found. Arguably the lack of freedom of expression is the key factor why the RPF can claim success in ethnic reconciliation. I would agree that the lead should ideally be expanded to cover other aspects of RPF rule such as social and economic policies, but we need to do that by looking at reliable sources and not just repeating pro-regime talking points. (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, let me take some time and prepare an ideal expanding. Later, you will comment/improve to how good I tried. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)