Talk:1993 ethnic violence in Burundi

International Commission of Inquiry for Burundi presented to the United Nations Security Council in 2002
The report for the footnote number 2 has been made by the United States Institute of Peace and not the United Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.61.254 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 February 2008

The document is on the website of an organisation http://www.usip.org but it says the source is:
 * United Nations Security Council, S/1996/682; received from Ambassador Thomas Ndikumana, Burundi Ambassador to the United States

And as a footnote on the first page it says " Note: This title is derived from information found at Part I:1:2 of the report. No title actually appears at the top of the report." So what makes you think it is not a UN report?

I did some further checking including a search under [UNICIB Security council] and came up with this URL: http://www.grandslacs.net/doc/0401.pdf ("Final report of the United Nations Commission of inquiry for Burundi") which seems to be the same report in PDF format on another site and the first page makes it clear that it us a UN report. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

split proposal
I propose splitting the current article into separate articles for the 1972 and 1993 events, with relevant links and content added to History of Burundi. The event articles would have enough background to introduce the topic. - BanyanTree 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think that there is no need to split the article it is nowhere near the size where that is necessary and the two events are related. If you wish to create two links to this article you can always create two new redirects which redirect to the appropriate section eg an article called Burundi genocide (1972) with a redirect to [[Burundi genocide ]] --PBS (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I'm proposing it is because I want to expand the 1972 section based on a few chapters in the book I'm reading, and would rather restructure it now rather than waiting until I add a bunch of content and then be expected to restructure that content once it receives the "too large" nod.
 * Also, if the article had all the "related" violence, it would include the 1988 and 1991 civil conflicts, not to mention the 1965 outbreak of violence, and at that point might as well be the "Independence" section of History of Burundi. Seems to me that the current structure under Burundi genocide would be either artificially constrained by ignoring those other intermediate conflicts or include those conflicts and be largely duplicative of the general article. - BanyanTree 08:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have to add a lot to the article before a split was justified on content grounds alone. If someone searches on Burundi genocide I think it better that the two episodes that are called genocides appear in the same article. But my major concern is that while it is one article it is relatively easy to keep the article in a NPOV form. If it is split I suspect that the articles will become much more susceptible to bias editing. --PBS (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're seriously arguing "overwhelmed quality control processes" on an article on which the last fifty edits goes back all the way to September 2008, while History of Burundi goes to September 2007? I'm pretty sure that's an argument to merge the entire article into History of Burundi.  - BanyanTree 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, you have prevailed and I have removed the merge tag. - BanyanTree 14:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Burundi genocide or Burundi Genocide?
Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Burindi genocide a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Burundi Genocide? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):
 * "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide?  I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre?  Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus.  I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"
 * The response was:


 * "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."
 * to which I queried further:


 * "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions to no avail.  Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one?  Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder?  (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??)  What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"
 * and got this answer:


 * "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."
 * Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Burundi Genocide, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.
 * Sorry so long-winded. =)  Duff (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am against changing the name of this article. The name is a descriptive one. There have been two incidents which have been labelled as genocide and this article describes both of them. I think the article is better off with a descriptive name and not a proper name, which is not commonly used. -- PBS (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested title : Burundi killings in 1950-2000
The title of the article and its content dont fit with what I know of uptodate specialists in these matters, See for instance Lemarchand 2008. I have not found any consensus among historians to label as a unique event what happened in Burundi within a period of more than 20 years. There is no consensus in the specialized academic circles to qualify as genocide what happened in Burundi in 1972 and and what happened in 1993. As a result it seems that Burundi killings would be more appropriate as a title. The UN international commission on inquiry on Burundi (1996 and not 2002) does not say that a genocide took place in 1972 but talks about `acts of genocide``and advocates to investigate more on 1993 killings with a perspective that includes what happened in 1972. Reneza (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Burundian genocides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307221531/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/1996/682 to http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/1996/682
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222162709/http://www.burundi-agnews.org:80/agnews_selectgenobur.htm to http://www.burundi-agnews.org/agnews_selectgenobur.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222162046/http://www.burundi-agnews.org:80/agnews_burundisincegeno1972.htm to http://www.burundi-agnews.org/agnews_burundisincegeno1972.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160307221531/http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/1996/682


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20101222162709/http://www.burundi-agnews.org:80/agnews_selectgenobur.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222162046/http://www.burundi-agnews.org:80/agnews_burundisincegeno1972.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Splitting proposal May 05 2019
I propose this article be split into two article, because the current article is literally two seperate events 20 years apart from each other only united by the fact they're both genocides in Burundi between Hutus and Tutsis and considering we have individual articles for individual massacres of individual genocides: Ntarama Genocide Memorial Centre, Murambi Genocide Memorial Centre I don't see how that's a strong enough reason not to split them :

1972 Genocide of Burundian Hutus

1993 Genocide of Burundian Tutsis


 * Please sign your name above using four tildes ( ~ ), so we know who wrote what. Even if there's agreement for your split, each of the split articles deserve their own respective leads, and the lead you borrowed from this article and duplicated twice likely belongs on this article. El_C 07:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I support a split, but not with those titles. There is no reason why Burundian genocide (1972) and Burundian genocide (1993) could not suffice instead, as per their common names. Your proposed title makes it sound like there were several Burundian genocides in each of the two years which need disambiguation.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge or rename?
I'm concerned that the current title is POV, as well as not meeting COMMONNAME for these events. Many sources do not consider it a genocide, and the article itself states that many Hutu were killed, as well as Tutsi people. One option would be merging with 1993 Burundian coup d'état attempt, another renaming to something like "1993 massacres in Burundi". I favor the first because there's not enough material here to justify a separate article at the moment. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * René Lemarchand refers to this event as an invented genocide, as opposed to the 1972 events which he classifies as a genocide (p. xii)
 * Gerald Caplan describes it as "Almost a year later, Burundi’s first elected president, a Hutu, was assassinated by his own Tutsi soldiers, leading first to massacres of both sides by each other, then huge migrations of frightened Hutu to Rwanda, then quickly to a new movement in Rwanda known as “Hutu pawa”, meaning power."
 * Another article by Tom Bundervoet discusses "1993 Killings in Burundi", "October 1993 massacres in Burundi", and "October 1993 mass killings in Burundi", but he doesn't seem to agree with the genocide label
 * A fourth article states: "In the immediate aftermath of the attempted military coup of 21 October 1993, there were widespread massacres of Tutsi – sometimes qualified as genocide 14 – and of Hutu alike"


 * Unfortunately for us, both Burundian genocides (this one and the 1972 Ikiza) are not "settled" events and even now as the Burundian Truth and Reconciliation Commission tries to investigate both affairs it is marred by (not entirely unfounded) charges of bias, favoritism, and political opportunism. Domestically, I don't think there will ever be consensus that either of these events was a genocide, and even if there was there'd still be disagreement about who was the target and who was the perpetrator (hence the "double genocide" accusations). Now, I do think there is more international agreement that some sort of genocide occurred in Burundi in 1993 than in 1972, since more people were paying attention at that time. However, I understand why we might not want to make a "genocide argument" in the title of the page. This is partly why I thought "Ikiza" well-suited the 1972 events, as it simply translates to "catastrophe". I would support a renaming along the lines of "1993 massacres in Burundi" or "1993 killings in Burundi." I would oppose attempts to merge this into other articles. The coup attempt article, most of which I wrote, needs a lot more attention devoted to the international reaction, the return to civilian governance, and the investigative attempts to find out who actually holds responsibility for it. The Burundian Civil War likewise has enough on its own to deal with. In my experience combining two different topics simply because a single article article would be rather small for the time being is a bad idea and prevents proper reorganization that allows for the topic to be fleshed out in full e.g. Talk:Switzerland during the World Wars. The 1993 tragedy warrants its own article. Pinging for their thoughts. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think has summarised the problem well. I do think that the two subjects need separate articles not least the practice before the articles were separated a few years ago was for the two events to be conflated or merged into one long period. I can see the rationale for keeping Ikiza for the 1972 events and adopting a WP:NDESC for the 1993 events but I think reducing it to "massacres" or "killings" is not ideal. How would 1993 Burundian ethnic violence sound? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although it's not the common name, I wouldn't oppose 1993 ethnic violence in Burundi as a title. (No one disputes that there was indeed ethnic violence.) However, mass killings or massacres are a superset of genocide, and we also have Massacres of Hutus during the First Congo War, considered by many to be a genocide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering how the events of 1993 range from outright slaughters to warfare, I think "ethnic violence" would not be inappropriate. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth is genocide not in the title of this article despite its being classified as such in the first line? Explain please. This makes no sense. Why call it genocide, as it is, yet ban the title from stating so? A.l.burley.7 (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The introduction is a hallmark of when this article was a low-quality mashup of the 1972 Ikiza and these events. The intro was never fully fleshed out. To be clear, the UN Commission of Inquiry calls it a genocide, but that's not the same as there being academic consensus that there was a genocide. Lemarchand and Reyntjens are both somewhat skeptical of that conclusion, far as I've read. Both this and the 1972 events are highly controversial in Burundi and I think it's best we not play into that country's ethnically partisan politics and divided view of history. Thank you for adding more to the intro, but the consensus here was that portraying this thing outright as a genocide, particularly in the title, is not the best way to do that until we have evidence that scholarly consensus favors such a conclusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)