Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. A bad title or POV content are reasons for renaming or cleanup, not deletion. Any moves or mergers are editorial decisions. Sandstein 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Firstly, the controversial role of the Church has already been mentioned in the main article about the Rwandan Genocide. Secondly, the article Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide suggests that Christianity as a whole or Rwanda being Christian is primarily at fault for the Rwandan Genocide, by creating a separate article for it. The article furthermore mainly contains quotes rather than a balanced background story on the role of the Church in the genocide. The way the article has been written, and the fact that it has been separated from the Rwandan Genocide article makes its contents highly evocative. Its evocative nature has been discussed on the talk page. Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide. The actual title is unacceptable, and on this we all seem to all agree, but Im uncomfortable also with the alternative proposals that BT has made, as they link a bunch of distict organizations under a term that can be quite vague, "Christianity". I feel this article must detail the relations among one specific organization, unified to Rome but with no formal ties to the other organzations, i.e. Roman Catholic Church. What the Anglican Church has done in Rwanda has nothing to do with to Ctholic Church, and in the same way the words of the Archibishop are of no importance. This is my view, and also, I think it's the only way to avoid making a soapbox, but a serious analysis of how the Catholic Church reacted to the ongoing Genocide, studying it on four levels 1) deacons and priests 2) foreign and local friars and nuns 3) higher local hierarchy 4) the center, Rome, observingRome-,s behaviour after the genocide (there have been allegations of protecting priests implicated in the Genocide--Aldux 14:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)) Move to The Roman Catholic Church and the Rwandan Genocide - per Aldux. Baka man  22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An entirely wrong headed analysis of a tragedy has no place here. Nick mallory 14:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for underlying POV and I suspect WP:POINT. The underlying assumption of the article (typified by the title) is that Christianity as a whole bears a responsibility based on the actions of a few members (e.g. the clerics in Rwanda mentioned in the article).  As the nom mentions there is a section of the main article addressing Christianity, this article would be redundant even if it weren't of extremely questionable POV. -Markeer 15:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; This is almost equivalent to an article called "Islam and the Darfur Genocide". If there is anything of value in this article, it is buried under PoV bias. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The content that needs covering is already in an appropriate article as referenced above.--Stormbay 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Taprobanus 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed two obvious sockpuppets votes. Look at my talk page for details. The nominator looks highly suspect too. Would the closing admin please check all votes carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to The Church and the Rwandan Genocide and slap a clean-up tag on it. The references clearly indicate that there is a connection between the two, however bad the lack of attention to this article in particular.  Topics to be covered include the Church as a parallel form of social advancement used by Hutus during the colonial period, which did create a strong link between the post-'social revolution' Hutu elite and the Church.  The accounts of Tutsis fleeing to churches and then being betrayed by the priests to the genocidaires are legion.  I stumbled across this deletion discussion because I was about to move in a recent anon contribution to Rwandan Genocide about the growth of Islam in Rwanda as a result of the perceived connection between violence and Christianity as a result of the genocide. (Supporting Washington Post article)  A move to Religion and the Rwandan Genocide or Religious institutions and the Rwandan Genocide is thus also possible. This article needs help, not deletion.  - BanyanTree 09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The above mentioned solution amounts to moving the problem. It does not take away the argument why I put this article up for deletion. The new article will still be as evocative as it is just a cosmetic change. The title of the new article is just as evocative, as are its contents. I do not object to the thesis that the church was involved but the main article puts it better than this one or the one you propose. The controversial role of the church in Rwandan history is also mentioned in History of Rwanda. It is more outspoken on the subject, but does not contain dubious quotes, which makes it better. The above mentioned claim that Islam has spread in Rwanda is dubious at best. The US State department says 4,6% of Rwanda's population is Muslim (based on census data from 2001), which is also shown on the Wikipedia pages concerning Rwandan demographics. That doesn't constitute a great change from 1994. I want to conclude by pointing out that Wikipedia is not a forum on religious topics.GreatWikiFan 09:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are for articles that cover non-notable topics or are otherwise unencyclopedic. You do not appear to be contesting that this is an actual topic discussed by serious commentators, but rather appear to be taking issue with its tone and emphasis and lack of well-rounded coverage.  That is the use of the templates POV, tone and unreferenced, among others, not the use of afd. The fact that you are arguing over details of content indicates that this is an issue of content, rather than notability or encyclopedic-ness.  I would have zero problem with you turning the extended quotations into one sentence summaries, but I would have a problem if this article, the most likely target for the anon contribution I note above, disappears.  If this article didn't exist, I would probably be obliged to create it. - BanyanTree 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated the article for deletion just because it evocatively links an entire church organisation to a genocide conducted by individual priests (which have been condemned). The role the Roman Catholic Church as a body played has already been described in the main article and in the article about Rwanda's history. That's why I consider this article to be redundant at best, evocative at worst. In my opinion a move is out of the question. I think separate articles for any organisation or group involved should be avoided in order to avoid framing entire groups for the deeds some of them committed, discussing their role in the main article instead, which has been done. -GreatWikiFan 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions.   —BanyanTree 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Content problems can always be solved, and I personally think that we need to expand on the issue of the behaviour, not only for bad, but also for good, of the Rwandan Roman Catholic Church. To make this expansion, the rwandan Genocide article is not enough, especially because we should analyse how the Rwandan church as a united corps behaved, and what role has it played in the aftermath of the tragedy, especially regarding national reconiliation. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church isn't composed by atomic priests who respond just to the Pope, bu instead to a complex chain of obedience, in the frame of a national church subordinated only in last instance to Rome. Regarding your fears of a mudslinging article, until the article will be made to awnser the policies, I find them immotivated: especially since you seem to take for granted that the article would be a long rant, while carefully sourcing the article and avoiding to make a simple list of what x priest did here, and xx priest did there.--Aldux 17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the article also discusses the Anglican church. DGG (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.