Talk:International response to the Rwandan genocide

Untitled
Curiously, the events of the Rwanda genocide are not tought, not even mentioned, in history classes in Belgium. Wouter Lievens 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph
Can someone make sense of this paragraph at the end of the US section? I can't get through the syntax, let alone the meaning:

"These elements of inaction tempered the information according to which the United States would have armed the FPR of Paul Kagame. If it is undeniable that Paul Kagame followed the military training of the United States in his capacity as an Ugandan officer, it is probable that he would have benefited from anglo-saxon aid via Uganda, this endorsement does not appear to be as large or determined as that that was received from the outside of those who he fought: the army of the regime of President Habyarimana and then the interim government which led the genocide." --Jd147703 15:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The above appears to be a translation of a French text. It would be my impression that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this is a straight copy of another text. The use of the phrase 'anglo-saxon aid' also fails NPOV. Khavakoz 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is simply totally "Franco Afrique" biased, it does not reflect the true role of the countries mentioned, and deserves no place here. Calling the RPF the FPR is a clear indication of a translation from French government documents. No one who knows anything about Rwanda, would disclaim that the French Government under Mitterand, actively supported the RGF government that committed genocide, before during and afterwards.

To that end this input needs to be removed. It's an insult to to 800,000 people the west weren't interested in, whose bodies filled the rivers, streets and banks. Left to die because of the fear from the west of another Black Hawk Down... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighthawkx15 (talk • contribs) 8 April 2007
 * Agreed. For such a contraversial topic, this article is curiously devoid of any references.  I have conacted the original translator, PZFUN, to ask if he can tell us which French text he translated from - or rather where it came from, since he actually c&p'd the French in to the article, so the French source text is the first thing in the article's history.  Chrisfow 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Britain
There's nothing in the article about Britain's reaction. It's a permanent member of the UN Security Council, so it must've had a big role. Can we get some more info on how Britain responded to the crisis? When I searched, all that I found was this http://www.ukwatch.net/article/britain_and_the_rwanda_genocide which is from a fairly extreme website. Epa101 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is quite right. 'Brittania Waived the Rules' - an academic article by Linda Melvern - deals with this topic. I will be adding a UK section and basing it around this article. Africanedits (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

France
The first half of the French section is completely incomprehensible and there are no citations to support any of the half-assed assertions anyway, so I propose that it be deleted. Not sure of the protocol here, or else I would go ahead and delete it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.86 (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing word
In the sentence "The role of the United Nations has been criticized, especially bymate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it." what does the word "bymate" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.68.104 (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This article sucks
I'd like to held edit this page, but I'm really not knowledgeable on the subject. Still, the section 'International Response' looks like it was written by a five year old who just watched Hotel Rwanda. It's not Wikipedia-level material, and I and many others would appreciate it if someone with the abilities could really clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdo-kling (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

^ agreed. This reads like a bad high-school essay. Random disconnected bursts of information and opinion, with no logical organisation, and varying, but generally poor, levels of support for its claims. Any experts want to help it out? 197.87.200.24 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The "China" section is just pathetic. 68.183.43.134 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Bias in International Response
The end of the International Response section sounds a lot like the conclusion of a persuasive essay (i.e. not at all neutral). I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix it, but somebody needs to. Wikipedian192 (talk) 05:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
This article does not seem encyclopedic to me at all; it seems very opinionated. I'm not an expert on the tragedy, but I could probably go through and change the more opinionated and emotional pieces to a more encyclopedic tone. However, does Wikipedia have different standards (i.e. more emotion is allowed) for articles on genocide? I'm looking up the Holocaust article right now, but it's hard to see how much emotion and opinion on something like this is really fact. If that makes sense. 50.203.89.70 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Universally accepted sources needed for certain sections
This article is filled with biased sources that have an obvious political agenda. For example, in the Israeli section, there are only three sources used to support extremely wild claims; the two most-referenced are the generally anti-Western Electronic Intifada, as well as the "Latin American Summary" which appears to be a Venezuelan govt-backed propaganda site. The only mildly-acceptable source is the Human Rights Watch, which is only sourced once in this section. Someone needs to either include more diverse sources or delete vast portions of this article for misleading and possibly libelous content. 72.25.43.220 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Extremely Biased sources
Israel section is filled with biased sources. The Electronic Intifada article states things like "Israel’s use of the occupied West Bank and Gaza as laboratories to test and refine weapons and methods of domination and control." and more. This site can't be, in any way, a source for facts and claim. Not to mention this media outlet is known (and even willingly declares himself) as biased towards Israel. Second source here is even crazier. This South-American site links himself to South-American Communist terror groups like the FARC and ELN. Anti-Western Terror groups is no appropriate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.189.115 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide. 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/20130827001151/http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm to http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No lead, bad grammar and tone, written like an argumentative essay
I'm not knowledgeable enough on this topic to make all of the necessary changes, but this article has several problems, many of which have been discussed here previously.

First, the lead is just a restatement of the title.

Second, I have noticed several grammar mistakes. I've corrected some of them, but every time I look, I notice more that I didn't catch before. Some of them I don't even know how to correct because I can't tell what the author was trying to say. Many sentences are awkwardly written.

Third, this article is written like a high-school student's essay arguing for the condemnation of the international community. The international community may deserve to be condemned, but many sentences in this article are written in a non-encyclopedic tone. The article describes events in an overly emotional way, and it is written as if the author was trying to build a case that the international community was criminally negligent. I tend to agree with that assessment, but the tone seems to be more of a problem than the content. 2600:1700:4B10:B3B0:E44D:8C26:5C5B:F486 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite Underway
This article is nothing short of horrendous. The writing is awful, in many sentences it is not clear what on earth the author is trying to say, it is absolutely filled with poor information, and the sources used are biased and unreliable. My personal mission over the next few weeks is to refurbish this page completely as it is a valuable page which is filled with poor and incorrect information. Any help appreciated. Africanedits (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Have finally got round to attempting to rewrite this car crash of an article. I've started by breaking it up into chronological sections - so the response before, during, and after the Genocide can be dealt with separately. There is very little in here that has much merit - most of it is unsourced, POV, poorly written, or uses fragmentary evidence with little connection to the rest of the narrative. I don't have the time to be consulting a wide array of sources, so I've focused mostly on the accounts of Alison Des Forges and of Michael Barnett, as those are the ones I have easily to hand. I've also drawn a little from other articles which deal with the same issues - many of them are quite poor as well, however. Would appreciate feedback, and for someone else to add some extra detail and different perspectives - I know Melvern has a pretty comprehensive book on this issue (particularly with regards the UN), but I don't have it to hand at the moment.

Africanedits (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)