Talk:Hutu

message: The article says 900,000 hutus were killed in 1972, but that's a lie. Only 100,000 hutus were killed. And the citations are fake! Just look at this cite: 
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm. Just about every source I know says 100-150,000 hutus were killed in 1972......not 500,000! 
In addition, starting the sentence with "Despite the [Hutu]genocide of 1972" is sheer disregard of the fact that a more significant number of Tutsis (about 800,000) were killed by Hutu militia groups in 1994 G.dw.n (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burundi Genocide? 

message: The Hutus tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide. Historically there is only one difference which exists between the three tribes, which are Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. All three tribes speak the same language and have the same traditions. They even follow the same religion. It is their physical appearances and looks which divide them. Hutu’s are believed to have big noses and ears and aren’t as good looking as the Tutsi’s. The Tutsi’s supposedly have long, sharp noses, they are tall and European features. In my research I have found that, in Rwanda not all, possibly most, Hutu's and Tutsi's do not fit this description.
"The Hutu tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide." 
Actually it's the other way round. The fact that Tutsis are a minority made it easier for the Tutsi-led RPF to get away with the genocide against the Hutus, which it started in October 1990 and is still carrying out today.
Are you serious! What do you mean the RPF is causing a genocide! They aren't causing a genocide, they are getting rid of the so-called Hutu extremists who literally macheted 800,000 in 100 days. The RPF indeed have caused some massacres, but their massacres are for a logical reason. The hutu extremists on the other hand were simply trying to wipe out the tutsi. Its not like the RPF were trying to wipe out all the hutus. Besides you really can't judge the RPF at all, because they were the "only" single force that eliminated the barbaric hutu genocidal government. Furthermore they did this with absolutely no so-called international support. The only International "presence" was of the ignorant French who knowingly and willingly trained and armed the ignorant Hutu barbarian government. I think blaming the RPF for anything is just an excuse by the international community for not stopping the inhumane killings. If you really want to know who is getting away with the genocide, it is the Hutus who, even before 1990 were massacering Tutsis and still are massacering Tutsis in the Demorcratic Republic of Congo. In addition, the French are also getting away with it, becaused they armed the genocidal Hutu government responsible for the massacres. So whatever the case may be, next time you want to jump to conclusions, make sure you know the full story of things.-Bcr
Excuse me, but the Tutsi government of Burundi never killed 500,000 Hutus in 1972. It was about 100,000. And by the way, there might of been retaliation by the Rwandan Government in Zaire against Hutu refugees, but their main purpose was to get rid of the hutu extremists who fled into the Congo after the Rwandan Genocide. Some of these same so-called Hutu "refugees" were responsible for many of the massacres in the Rwandan Genocide. -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.-Bcr
This article seems to be solely concerned with similarities, relationship and the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi instead of focusing on Hutu people and what is known about them as a people of the whole African Great Lakes region (and not just Rwanda). The article needs to be sanitized off of historical narratives that have been pushed out by rival ethnic group-dominated governments. This is why a big portion of the article focuses on recent history and ignores the ancient history of Hutu people, their kingdoms, kings, tradition, culture, etc...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bak0ne (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: hutus

message: The POV needs taken out.  Keep the article to what is know about the Hutu.  This is an encyclopedic article.  Brittanica should be a guide.  This is not an opinion page or a page of theories.  Also, no external links within the body of the page.  Imperial78
:External links are used within the body of the text as references, the only problem was that in this case they were not formated in the proper manner. I agree with your deletion of the last paragraph as it was an opinion piece. However, there are some controversies regarding classifications made by colonial ethnologists that need to be described.--Ezeu 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs fixed

message: I haven't clicked on it, because it seems very odd, but there is a link in the See Also section that says "Adams dirty crotch infection". What's that all about?
:That's good old-fashioned vandalism.  I've reverted it; it would be great if you could simply do a revert the next time you see something like that.  --Rschmertz 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also link 

message: Back around June, User:Imperial78 deleted a large paragraph discussing the notion of ethnicity.  While it is true that that paragraph was getting out of hand toward the end, it seems like something worth discussing, either here or in an article devoted to the combined history of Hutus and Tutsis (and Twa, if appropriate).  Does everyone else support that deletion? --Rschmertz 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea of Ethnic group 

message: I've done a good amount of cleanup and expansion. However, I've come to two issues. 
#The first is finding an accurate date for the arrival of the Hutus and Tutsis; potentional sources that I reviewed differed by several hundred years in the arrival of the Tutsi, and I changed the arrival date of the Hutus by 1000 years based on what I found. 
#The second is the fact that the article seems a bit Rwanda-centric. Granted, Rwanda is more dominant and populous, but I really think Hutu issues of Burundi are under-represented.
Anyone who'd like to try to help me solve these is more than welcome. Picaroon9288 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My cleanup and expansion 

message: The article says, that, according to "colonial" set of ideas, Tutsis are Hamitic. I am not going to discuss here a little bit old fashioned post-colonial tone of the article, though phrases such as ""colonialists" came", ""colonialists" divided" sound slightly idiotic for an Encyclopedia. There is another point here. I have always believed that Tutsis  were traditionally thought to be Nilotic (related to Luo or Nuer, while Hamitic peoples, such as Hausa, live rather far from this area). Does anybody know if there is some new research on this, or is it simply a mistake? To what branch of Hamitic family do they supposedly belong? Kushitic? Should Nilotic theory be mentioned anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.167.112.21 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 11 November 2006  (UTC)
:When it comes to the tone of the article, I did my best to make it as neutral as possible, in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (In my opinion, its better now than it was several weeks ago.) Personal opinions - mine, yours, and all other Wikipedia editors' - shouldn't be inserted into the article or used as an excuse to remove the bit about the "alternate theory." To tell the truth, I take it with a grain of salt too, but it is a reasonably widely held view, and is sourced and verified as so with the footnotes. If you'd like me to add even more citations to that bit, or would like to do so yourself, you're more than welcome request it or be bold and click the edit button.
:When it comes to the bit about Hamitic vs. Nilotic, all sources I found said that the traditional German-Belgian view is that the Tutsi were a Hamitic people. I don't recall seeing the words Kushitic or Nilotic at all during my search for sources, but if you could show some independent works that do, again, you're more than welcome. To sum it up, neither of the two views seem to have much science on their side, but that's my own original research, and can't go in the article. And unless you can cite some sources, the so-called Nilotic theory can't go in either. Picaroon9288 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the traditional German-Belgian view, because back then "Nilotic" wasn't a category and "Hamitic" was.  The current consensus view seems to be that the Tutsi probably were originally a Nilotic tribe who came into  contact with, and were linguistically assimilated by, the Bantu Hutus. john k 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamitic vs. Nilotic 

message: You see nothing like it in europe,we don't refer to europeans from the british isles as "isleotic" even though they bare no physical or cultural resemblance to the sardinians or other italians.The differences between europeans is far more enormous than the difference between africans from the baltic sea down to spain and yet there are no BSE - black sea europeans as there are SSA - sub-saharan africans,their cultural unity is never fractured.
I suppose we can thank colonialism for that.58.178.63.16 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concept of Hamitic,Nilotic is insane 

message: The Hutus tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide. Historically there is only one difference which exists between the three tribes, which are Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. All three tribes speak the same language and have the same traditions. They even follow the same religion. It is their physical appearances and looks which divide them. Hutu’s are believed to have big noses and ears and aren’t as good looking as the Tutsi’s. The Tutsi’s supposedly have long, sharp noses, they are tall and European features. In my research I have found that, in Rwanda not all, possibly most, Hutu's and Tutsi's do not fit this description.
"The Hutu tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide." 
Actually it's the other way round. The fact that Tutsis are a minority made it easier for the Tutsi-led RPF to get away with the genocide against the Hutus, which it started in October 1990 and is still carrying out today.
Are you serious! What do you mean the RPF is causing a genocide! They aren't causing a genocide, they are getting rid of the so-called Hutu extremists who literally macheted 800,000 in 100 days. The RPF indeed have caused some massacres, but their massacres are for a logical reason. The hutu extremists on the other hand were simply trying to wipe out the tutsi. Its not like the RPF were trying to wipe out all the hutus. Besides you really can't judge the RPF at all, because they were the "only" single force that eliminated the barbaric hutu genocidal government. Furthermore they did this with absolutely no so-called international support. The only International "presence" was of the ignorant French who knowingly and willingly trained and armed the ignorant Hutu barbarian government. I think blaming the RPF for anything is just an excuse by the international community for not stopping the inhumane killings. If you really want to know who is getting away with the genocide, it is the Hutus who, even before 1990 were massacering Tutsis and still are massacering Tutsis in the Demorcratic Republic of Congo. In addition, the French are also getting away with it, becaused they armed the genocidal Hutu government responsible for the massacres. So whatever the case may be, next time you want to jump to conclusions, make sure you know the full story of things.-Bcr
Excuse me, but the Tutsi government of Burundi never killed 500,000 Hutus in 1972. It was about 100,000. And by the way, there might of been retaliation by the Rwandan Government in Zaire against Hutu refugees, but their main purpose was to get rid of the hutu extremists who fled into the Congo after the Rwandan Genocide. Some of these same so-called Hutu "refugees" were responsible for many of the massacres in the Rwandan Genocide. -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.-Bcr
:Please cite your sources and avoid original research. Picaroon 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hutus

message: The Twa have just been readded to the infobox. Is this related parameter strictly ethnic one, in which case they aren't related, or a cultural-geographic one, in which case they are? Picaroon 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what one means by related. They are considered to be a different ethnic group, but they live in the same geographical area and speak Kinyarwanda like the Hutu. --Ezeu 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the question then becomes what does  mean by "related ethnic groups?" I'll go check if the documentation or talk page sheds any light. Picaroon 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was discussed a bit on the template's talk page, but there wasn't any consensus. ("List of other ethnic groups related to the group" is the parameter's descriptor on the documentation page.) I'm going to go by the "ethnicity" factor for now and remove the Twa. Picaroon 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twa should not be listed as a related ethnic group as Hutu. They do not even belong to the same category, Twa being pygmies and Hutu Bantu. --Ezeu 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the Twa considered "related"? 

message: The first section of this article states that Hutus have no physical differences from Tutsis.  What?  The Belgians seperated the two based exclusively on nose mesurements, head size, and eye characteristics.  If there had been no physical differences, the two would never have been seperated. 137.186.222.166
This is part of the problem with race in general. Race is largely based on perceptions of phenotype that are largely untenable or insignificant from a genetic point of view. But perception, not genotype, counts a great deal in terms of how we identify the Self group and various Other groups. There is a sizeable Tutsi population in Philadelphia and there is absolutely no mistaking them for other Bantu-speaking groups. They look different! More in the vein of Ethiopic, but without the characteristic eyes (if ye will excuse the gross generalization). I aim not to pigeonhole anyone, but a few posters inquiring about physical differences might be able to better visualize or imagine part of the racial problem that led to the loss of so much human life.Sandschie (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hutu-Tutsi physique?

message: Who are the two people pictured?   Gillean666 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pierre Nkurunziza and Alice Nzomukunda. Picaroon 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Please see my suggestion for a breakout article at Talk:History of Rwanda#Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article?  Thanks, BanyanTree 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Origins of Tutsi and Hutu]] 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: I've restored (belatedly) the numbers I put in earlier. According to the source, the authors believe that "250,000–500,000 Tutsi and 50,000–500,000 Hutu" died. I know there are other sources out there, and I'm not saying we shouldn't represent those numbers, but please don't give data that isn't backed up by the source cited. Octane [improve me]  20.11.07 1012 (UTC)
Your narrative on post-colonial burundi is not accurate.  First in 1972 the genocide was committed against the Hutu population. "http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm".  Conservative estimates are that 100,000 to to 150,000 hutus were killed.  However local Burundian estimate that 500,000 hutus were killed.  Secondly, there is no reference to the claim that "250,000 to 500,000 tutsis were killed in 1972".  The Genocide acknowleged by the United Nations is the 1994, rwandan genocide which is very different from the Burundi genocide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSibomana (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Substituted at 18:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "genetics" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics for ethnic groups RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hutu. 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/20080612161238/http://www.newint.org/issue260/keynote.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue260/keynote.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311024548/http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks22.html to http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks22.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201053605/http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/pygmy/52529.asp to http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/pygmy/52529.asp
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) 05:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hutu. 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/20081201132151/http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/burundi_coi/burundi_coi1996pt3.html to http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/burundi_coi/burundi_coi1996pt3.html
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) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: How can you "criticize" something as "historical revisionism"? Historical revisionism is the act of looking at something from a different perspective. And this doesn't seem to refer to historical denialism, because the context seems to be a sort of Conflict rationalization of events. If the perspective were caused by denialism, it would deny the events of the genocide, not correctly place blame upon the perpetrators of racial dogma (Germans and Belgians). Also, there is no reference to revisionism in the two sources given. I'll temporarily remove the sentence until someone figures out what's being said here... --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "The latter view has received support among proponents of Rwandan national unity, but has been criticized as an attempt at historical revisionism"

message: Two points. 
1) "An alternate theory is that the Hutu and Tutsi originally belonged to the same Bantu population, but were artificially divided by German and then Belgian colonists so that the Tutsi minority could serve as local overseers for Berlin and Brussels"
One source cited is not a RS. Footnote 8 is a polemic against Europeans that has no supporting evidence, and is clearly wrong on several counts (DNA evidence, linguistic evidence) and is self published. It has no place in this article and I have removed it.
The other (7) does not make the claim it is being used to support. It states - "When the German and the Belgian colonizers came, Rwanda had one nation – one people sharing the same language, the same political system and the same religion." That does not mean "the people" were from the same ethnic group or had the same history, it means they were living in the same space at the same time under the same system. Many different ethnic groups do so in many parts of the world. 
I am removing that sentence pending sources. The cattle division is not a source as it can be shown the they were distinct ethnic groups before Europeans arrived. While the Belgian action should be mentioned as affecting future events, it is irrelevant to the discussion on pre-European ethnicity.
In short, this entire article is a mess of NPOV and RS violations. If you were involved in its creation, please engage here and cite reasons for the inclusion of the tagged section, its contents and its sources.  Tanila001 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (and indeed OR) violations 

message: This article seems to be solely concerned with similarities, relationship and the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi instead of focusing on Hutu people and what is known about them as a people of the whole African Great Lakes region (and not just Rwanda). The article MUST be sanitized off of political narratives and a one-sided version of recent history that has been pushed out by a rival ethnic group-dominated government of Rwanda. This is why a big portion of the article focuses on recent history compared to the ancient history of Hutu people, their kingdoms, kings, tradition, culture, their native language, etc...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bak0ne (talk • contribs) 01:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic and biaised