The content of Ange Kagame was merged into Paul Kagame on 21 July 2023. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Ange KagameAnge Kagame was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 18 July 2023 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Kagame article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Paul Kagame is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
User @Mut.Greg: has recently altered the article in a way which seems to violate NPOV, changing "Rwandan genocide" to the redlinked "genocide against the Tutsi", changing the genocide numbers to unsourced, higher ones, removing criticism of Kagame from the article, and describing researchers critical of Kagame as "Propaganda scholars". They also keep restoring these changes. As my interactions with them approach an edit war, I instead ask other editors for their opinion - specifically, @Amakuru: who is responsible for writing most of the article. Applodion (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: thanks for noting this, and I have also reverted the above mentioned edits. These clearly did not conform to the sourcing, either on the common name for the genocide or on the other text. And the image should remain the portrait one like other articles, at least until there's a consensus otherwise. The same editor rotated this image by 180 degrees on Commons, disruptively turning it upside down, so I suspect some action should be taken to stop them disrupting the project further. — Amakuru (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations officially adopted the term '"Genocide Against the Tutsi" in 2018 through Resolution A/RES/72/550, passed by the UN General Assembly. This resolution declared April 7 as the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda.
It has been officially adopted as "the 1994 genocide against the Tusti in Rwanda" in 2-18 by the UN. The Tusti population were the main targeted group as well as anyother person who suppoprted or hiddened them was killed without mercy.
This was discussed at the recent move request for the Rwandan genocide article. The sourcing evidence presented shows that the name "Rwandan genocide" is much more used in independent reliable sources than "Genocide against the Tutsi". WP:NPOV and the WP:COMMONNAME article title policy require us to represent the prevailing balance from such sources, which might not necessarily be the same as the "official" names. (See WP:OFFICIALNAMES). So the UN using this name doesn't automatically mean that we should use it. Until there's a consensus to rename the Rwandan genocide article, we shouldn't change the nomenclature in this article either. — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As i told you this is not about whats popular. On the issue of reliability it should be urgued to check on facts, many people hove been manipulating on the history of this tragic event, this include journalites, politicians and judges who have hidden evidences but have invested in creating narative of either downplaying or denying the facts of the genocide. Mut.Greg (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the entire intro to this article there are no sources cited at all. I tried to flag that with the Unreferenced Section tag, but this was reverted without comment. Regardless, the lack of sources is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palehose5 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Resolved, thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)