Talk:Rwandan Patriotic Front

message: What's with this name?  "Rwandese Patriotic Front" gets 1,980 Google hits.  "Rwandan Patriotic Front" gets 7,410 hits.  The word "Rwandan" be itself gets 246,000 hits while "Rwandese" (a term I had never heard until now) gets 35,900.  RickK 05:01, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
I was suprised as well. My guess is that much of these hits are from Wikipedia and their mirrors since that's what most of the "Rwandan Patriotic Front" are linked to, but I can guarantee with a good deal of certainty that the proper name is "Rwandese" and not "Rwandan". I am in the middle of reading the biography of Romeo Dallaire, the UN General in charge during the genocide, and I also peeked at a few papers from some International studies schools. Just to make sure I went to the official Rwandan website http://www.gov.rw/government/president/index.html. The Paul Kagame profile confirms it as well. I'd put my money on the first hand accounts over google any day. Dostal 05:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the accepted English adjectival form seems to be Rwandan: of course, for the name of an institution/organization, we should use the formal name.
Is it possible this is an issue of translation from French?  I know the RPF is largely English-speaking, but "Front" is a odd name to use in English for a political group, and "Rwandese" sounds a lot like "rwandais".  Idle speculation.  --Saforrest 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  early discussion 

message: The role of French troops after the events of Feb 8th were limited to the evacuation of 67 europeans and americans, trapped in the town of Ruhengeri, in combat zone. In addition, some troops were present for instruction role to FAR and were never involved in any combat with the FPR, but they were there for a very long time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.97.248 (talk • contribs) on 30 March 2006
----
Although the French forces in Rwanda were not invovled in actual combat operations  against the RPF, they did intend to stop it's advance by putting their forces in the way of the RPF. If you read Romeo Dallaire's book about the the genocide then you will see that there were at least two occasions on which the French forces and soldiers from the RPF came very close to engaging one another due to the French atempt to advance further towards Butare than they were meant to. The french had also provided weapons to the FAR throughout the genocide and trained members of the interahamwe prior to the 6th of April. They also engaged the RPF in their 1993 offensive in order to stop the rebels from taking the capital.  
[who wrote this? and when? Signature?]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.134.93 (talk • contribs) 10 April 2006
----
:I have removed the POV-check template. A year is a bit excessive, and the tag is not meant to be used for content disputes in the first place. - BanyanTree 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The section with the title "Genocide (1994)" discusses the invasion by the RPF.  Describing the invasion under a section with this title gives the impression that the RDF were responsible for (or, at least, the cause of) the genocide.  However, as I understand it the RDF were mainly Tutsi and Tutsis (and moderate Hutus) were the victims of the genocide.  This section should probably be changed (rewritten or at perhaps re-titled) to avoid confusion.
Also, the dates (or order of events, at least) seems important here.  Was the genocide a 'response' to the invasion, or in any way triggered by it?  Or was the genocide already in progress when the invasion  began?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.90.78 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide (1994)

message: The article currently states that the RPF's "ideology promotes socialism and left-wing nationalism". This is highly dubious at best, and not a description of the RPF that I've heard before, so I've tagged it as disputed. The RPF certainly promotes nationalism, but its political-economic stance since 1994 has generally been pretty well in line with the World Bank and IMF credo (i.e. neoliberalism, giving way to a slightly softened version over the past few years but still strongly emphasizing deregulated markets, foreign direct investment, incentives for business and investment, etc.; a thoroughgoing liberalism, at any rate). In recent years, in keeping with trends in mainstream development, Rwanda has begun to roll out a more cohesive social protection system, but one that is targeted rather than universal, and still relatively minimalist rather than strongly redistributionist; its a far cry from anything one would call 'socialism'.
Unless anyone can provide a strong basis for this classification of the RPF's ideology I suggest that it is pretty misleading and ought to be changed. Arch Mute Brave (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're pretty much correct. Any idea what reliable sources say?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reliable sources" say that Rwanda is one of the most buisness-friendly countries in Africa. Just look at world bank rankings. http://rdb.rw/~new/?id=468 217.8.182.66 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political orientation of the RPF 

message: They say "genocide against tutsi" and not "rwandan genocide". In that case we can understand that all rwandan were killed while it was the tutsi and moderate hutu who disagreed to kill tutsi 196.44.252.121 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who to name the genocide mentioned here