Talk:Gacaca court

message: 'gender based crimes' - does this mean rape? Or is it a euphenism?
sorry - forgot to sign Ophelia105 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find mention of it in any of the linked articles.  I assume it refers to sexual violence, but that seems to be an odd thing to go through gacaca if it's not Genocide related.  Maybe it should be removed?  - BanyanTree 19:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gender based crimes

message: Merging Inyangamugayo would avoid forks. It will probably remain a stub forever else. If it grows too big, we can always split it up again. Any objections? Lapaz 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged.  NYScholar 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: needs {cleanup} {references} (before and after merger) NYScholar 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: There's a pair of pointless scare quotes around the word "mission". Suggest these be replaced with "stated mission", without the quotes. As it stands, the article could be read as mocking the stated formal objectives of the system. (This is without commenting on the section's appearance of having been yanked from a descriptive leaflet or some such.) 88.112.3.21 14:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless scare quotes 

message: Is there a good reason Gacaca is capitalized? Through most of the article it is. "Court" is capitalized through much of the article. Some of the links capitalized Gacaca, but some don't. My instinct is that it shouldn't be capitalized, but I defer to any experts in gacaca and English usage. ConDissenter (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Thanks for this article Moravice (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: How are the General Assemblies, Co-ordination Committees, and judges at each level selected?  What is the nature of interaction between each of the three levels of Gacaca courts?  IMHO (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Important missing information

message: WP:NPOV Neutrality of the article in particular the "criticisms" section is doubtful in my mind, especially the length of the section, with arguments being restated to make it longer. Sources need to be checked re all the "no" points (no right to lawyer, innocence etc.) MarkiPoli (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gacaca court. 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://archive.is/20120804031909/http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnIntroduction.htm to http://www.inkiko-gacaca.gov.rw/En/EnIntroduction.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) 00:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have restored the previous version of this article from prior to November 2020, as the later version seems to have serious WP:NPOV issues. In particular, it launched straight into criticisms from the start of the lead, with loaded words such as "claimed" etc. This is not to say that the previous version was particularly good - far from it, it needs serious updating with latest scholarship, in particular to highlight the very different views that are held with respect to Gacaca and the very real criticisms (some of which are already detailed). But that doesn't mean presenting the debate as one-sided, giving only the views of critics and in Wikipedia's voice, and it seems better to start from the status quo ante in building up a coherent picture, per WP:BRD. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And reverted once again.  please discuss changes before reinstating them, per the WP:BRD cycle. This article was stable for many years, and when your changes are contested we go back to the stable version. I'm sure there are useful additions there, but they need to be neutrally worded and the article needs to start with a neutral definition of what Gacaca is. Saying the Rwandan government "claims" something is not neutral wording. Plenty of sources do say Gacaca was an ancient court system, while no doubt others say it wasn't, so we highlight that neutrally.  I would also appreciate any views you have on this, as you were involved in discussions on this last year. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and loaded language in recent edits