Talk:List of Hutus

Lack of sources

This is an unsourced list. After proposing the article for deletion, the template was removed. I then removed all unsourced items from the list (i.e. all of them) as an alternative. This was reverted and I was pointed to WP:LIST with the message "you can remove them if they lack refs and articles". I followed the link and WP:LIST states: "The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material". I therefore don't see how my removal can be reverted without sources being added. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Impact of inconsistent application of the rules. I've worked for the past few weeks on most national lists. The vast majority of them lack refs. The same holds true for lists I have reviewed of people from cities, from religions, from ethnicities, from colleges, from high schools, etc. It is a tiny percentage of those lists, from what I have seen, that have refs for every entry (though a few that I have worked on do).

Also, certain editors seem to focus (for their own personal reasons) on seeking to delete certain lists. For example, they may seek to delete lists of certain races, religions, ethnicities, and the like. But not perhaps the lists of people from their own university or city. These editors are often not approaching this is an across-the-board manner, addressing every single list of persons. The undue focus by them on certain ethnicities or groups strikes me as inappropriate.

It is the same to my mind as a police officer letting all White people drive over the speed limit. But giving a ticket to any Black person who drives even one mile over the speed limit. In the US, at least, that would be illegal. For reasons that I think are obvious.

I think this effort to delete in its entirety this list of Hutus raises an important question for the community to consider, so I would like to raise the issue in the correct places to invite ample community input. Would you think it better to do it at the lists page or the ethnicity page or some other page?

I should also point out that a non-across-the-board approach involving -- as was done here -- gutting of entire lists of one ethnic group invite POV editors to engage in a horrific gaming of the system. Under cover of "the rules allow it". One can easily imagine parties on opposite sides of conflict areas ... say, the I/P area, for example ... destroying the lists of the "other side", but not their own. And one can see that approach spreading to rival ethnicities, schools, etc. Even members of groups/parties that have been outlawed for their ethnic violence in real life in the past, could focus on only deleting lists of those religious and/or ethnic groups that their group has in the past killed. It could easily get out of hand. This would not benefit the project, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I seem to remember hearing your speeding ticket story from Talk:List of Jews in sports. I also seem to remember being able to convince you that I wasn't a racist for objecting to unsourced entries in lists back then, so what is your evidence that I am targeting people lists of people because they are black now? If you take a look at this discussion, you'll see that I've been even handed in giving out speeding tickets to lists regardless of the ethnicity of the subjects. My reason for concentrating on this article and on List of Tutsis now is that I find it highly offensive that Wikipedia has unsourced lists of these groups given the role of such classifications in the Rwandan genocide, as I stated when proposing deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Let me clarify. 1) I've not said that you are a racist. 2) From our conversations, my impression is that you are not a racist. 3) A non-racist who gives out tickets only to Blacks would have the same effect as a racist doing it. He could even be a Black officer, trying to improve the image of his people -- it would still be inappropriate unequal application of the law. 4) The unequal application of equal rules--even by people doing it for a "good cause" --opens the door to all sorts of people who would like to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, etc., to do harm to the Project in the manner described above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying and I'm happy that I'm not being called a racist. I still don't understand how I'm being uneven in my application of the rules though - I've taken action against a whole range of unsourced ethnicity articles. See, for example, here, here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just deleted the lot. This list is not only a violation of WP:BLP policy, it is downright dangerous given the political context. For anyone to suggest that somehow Wikipedia 'games' are more important than the lives of real individuals is utterly appalling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Anyone who doesn't know what we're referring to here might want to take a look at this article. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The above discussion strikes me as somewhat besides the point: the way to solve the problem with this list, and all similar lists, is to source it. Everyone here was notable, in the sense of having Wikipedia articles. All or almost all will have references; in most cases, they are in the articles, and only need to be copied over. This particular list is sufficiently controversial that there can be no question good sources are needed, even for those who are no longer living. Myself, I think that indirect sourcing is sufficient--if an unmistakable reliable source is present in the linked Wikipedia article, this is good enough in all cases, unless that source is challenged--this is not using Wikipedia to source itself--it's using the facilities of hypertext to use sources located elsewhere in Wikipedia. But rather than argue the point right here, for it is a general question and belongs elsewhere; and even if the general answer is that sourcing indirectly is sufficient, I can conceive some lists where it might be necessary to be specific in the list itself, not just by linking--and this might even be one of them. Therefore, I started off by adding back two names which are unquestionably notable and where I immediately found an excellent source. I suggest everyone else here do a few also. It's the best way to prove one is actually devoted to the principle of WP:V. Larry, as you started this discussion, I hope you'll be the first one to follow me. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, DGG, though I hope you'll excuse me if I don't participate in finding sources and reinstating subjects to the list on this occasion. As I've intimated above, I find the list rather creepy in the light of historical events. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean, Cordless Larry, when you write My reason for concentrating on this article and on List of Tutsis now is that I find it highly offensive that Wikipedia has unsourced lists of these groups… ?? I can understand *being concerned* about unsourced lists. But what, exactly, is “highly offensive” to you? Greg L (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps concerning or disturbing is a better word, yes, though what I mean is that it's rather insensitive to go about categorising people as Hutu or Tutsi without reliable sources, given the way in which colonialists classified Rwandans as either Hutu or Tutsi, which proved to be a facilitating factor in a genocide. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why should wikipedians be concerned about—and encumbered by—what colonialists somewhere did? This is Wikipedia and what I do, or you do, or what Epeefleche does to build the project with factual information is not—at least in my mind—influenced by whatever colonialists with 600 Nitro Express elephant rifles may have done in the past in Africa. Isn’t there one standard, or litmus test, to use here(?): “information on Wikipedia should properly cited to an RS”. Is there some element of moral indignation we should know about that should rightfully factor into the equation? Greg L (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but we should be mindful of the consequences of doing the same as them - i.e. classifying people into ethnicity groups, especially if we don't use reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Quoting you: …consequences of doing the same as them. This is an encyclopedia. Those who commit genocide don’t root around in the English-language version of Wikipedia to see what group of people should be “ethnically cleansed” next Tuesday. I think you need to dial down your “Moral Indignation-O-Meter” here. I see no need for anyone to be mindful of the issues you raise; they are extraneous. We don’t delete our “Negro” or “Caucasian race” articles just because they pertain to matters of ethnicity and that is somehow dirty and evil to even discuss. And if I was to edit one of those, I need only be concerned about accuracy. Period. There is no reason to have highly animated behavior based on some notion that uncited material somehow equates to genocide. I think your freudian slip, whereby you find this to be highly offensive is telling as to the emotions here. I encourage you to get some perspective on the subject. No, uncited material is not the moral equivalent of genocide; it means something needs to be cited. Greg L (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, I did not state that uncited material was the moral equivalent of genocide. I am simply calling for editors to be mindful of the past consequences of these ethnic classifications. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. There is no need for wikipedians to concern themselves with “past consequences” of any such sort. Your above posts about “colonialists” and “genocide” make it clear that “past consequences” refers to matters wholly unassociated with a proper encyclopedic treatment of the subject at hand. Your preaching here smacks of trying to lay guilt trips and no one needs that sort of “the sky is falling” stuff here. The only issue of any relevance is whether there are verifiable citations to an RS. Period. I’m quite done with you for the day because your attempts to ride in here atop your stallion of righteous moral indignation is just ridiculous. Now I see why Epeefleche is so frustrated with you. This is a collaborative writing environment by volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. That’s all. Please preach about genocide and colonialists somewhere else. And please spare us about what you find to be “highly offensive”; it is irrelevant to whether something is properly cited. Goodbye; I’m heading back to the real world now… Greg L (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If Epeefleche is frustrated with me, I'm sure he/she can inform me of that him/herself. I am not showing "righteous moral indignation" (I haven't even voted to delete the article). I'm just trying to introduce some consideration of ethics alongside consideration of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Anyway, that's what I get for being a consequentialist I suppose. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh… well, just pardon me all over the place for not recognizing that you are The One®™© who can teach we wikipedians about ethics. Perhaps the community should come to you to see what subject mater you find permissible that we may write about. You can lecture us about colonialists and genocide, like you did above. Greg L (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

They should absolutely not come to me for advice about ethics. This is a discussion about the pros and cons of classifying people on Wikipedia according to ethnicity. I've stated my position, and others can state theirs. I'm not trying to impose my view and am happy to abide by the consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing note

The introduction to the list now states: "to be included in this list, the person must have a Wikipedia article showing verifiably that they are Hutu". Should this not be a hidden comment that only people editing the article can see? I don't see why readers also have to see it. Also, we should perhaps state that a reference should be given in the list, otherwise we suggest that a reference in the linked article is sufficient. It would be better to encourage the list itself to be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Such a note, which pertains to editorial matters, should properly be directed to edtiors, and therefore, a hidden editors’ note is more appropriate. Greg L (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• User:Anythingyouwant has now modified it, as outlined here. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the note should stay hidden. Or, I think a second note with basically a variation on the language of the hidden note should be in plain view just before the list. It should say something like, "To be included on this list a decision was made by consensus of editors to include only those individuals that also have articles on Wikipedia and that in those Wikipedia articles is found affirmation of their identity as Hutu." I think the reader is perfectly capable of grasping the way we've chosen to compile this list. The reader deserves to be apprised of the criteria that we have applied in this regard. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've compromised, by summarizing the hidden note: "This is a list of famous Hutus according to their Wikipedia biographies."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The details are missing. The reader is capable of grasping the criteria that go into inclusion and exclusion decisions. It is questionable whether such language should even be hidden in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Greg L objected to a visible note, you want one, so I made a very short visible summary of the hidden note. If readers want details, can't they just look at the source code? The visible language I inserted gives the gist of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a "visible summary". Nor do they (the readers) need a summary. They need to be apprised of the two factors articulated: 1. ) all entries must have articles, 2. ) such articles must include mention of Hutu identity for the individual. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. "This is a list of famous Hutus who have Wikipedia biographies which include mention of Hutu identity."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I find that acceptable. But I think the "hidden editors’ note" should be removed, and I think the word "famous" should be changed to the word "notable" with an internal link to WP:NOTE. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association

This is going to end up being a list primarily of convicted criminals. It doesn't seem fair to the non-criminals to mix them in. Would anyone object if I split the Rwandan section into "People other than convicted criminals" and "Convicted criminals"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no "guilt by association". By what stretch of the imagination does inclusion in such a "List" imply any other "association"? Bus stop (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think it's guilt by asosciation to mix convicted criminals together with other people, what's the problem with having a subheading for people convicted of genocide?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd, even in an article relating to Rwanda, for that to be a way to organise the entries. Even though the genocide was a defining event in Rwandan history, there are cleavages that divide Hutus other than whether they are war criminals! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, List of Germans has a separate subsection for the Nazis. That seems fair. Likewise, in this article, it seems potentially harmful to mix in ordinary nice people with a bunch of convicted genocidal maniacs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though that's one of many sub-sections, whereas here we don't have so many. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—Hutus are not morally deficient people. You ask, "…what's the problem with having a subheading for people convicted of genocide?" The implication of the creating of that subheading is that genocidal Hutus are more prevalent than they really are. Such a subheading reflects badly on all Hutus. Do we have a subheading genocidal maniacal Scandinavians? Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See discussion above about Germans and Nazis. I think you'll find that most of the Rwandan Hutus who have Wikipedia articles have been convicted in connection with genocide. Of course, that doesn't mean that Hutus are morally deficient; rather, it means that most of the Rwandan Hutus who have Wikipedia articles have been convicted in connection with genocide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a function of our under-reporting of accomplished Rwandan Hutus. That is remedied by further article-creation. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is an obstacle, obviously. But it points to our systemic bias. Perhaps we can borrow, in translation, articles from non-English Wikipedias, articles on additional individuals of this identity. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• (coming late to this discussion) Just having this article proved controversial. How in the world could mere wikipedians decide whether a Hutu belongs in a segregated “infamy” section? Because there are allegations of wrong-doing by the Hague? Because the individual was found guilty by a U.N. tribunal? Because the individual was *accused* by the current leader of an affected state? Because the individual is on the U.S. State Department list of individuals who had their assets frozen? We wikipedians are going to pick & chose the criteria upon which we segregate the good and bad hutus? What a can of worms; this notion sounds utterly unworkable (because it is).

  If the entry is properly cited, then let the reader come to the proper conclusion as to the relative saintliness of the individual by reading the linked article. Unless there is, perhaps, a U.N. web site that has a list of *good* Hutus and *Bad* Hutus so we have one single criteria as the foundation-level rationale for a classification of *good & bad*, wikipedians have no business whatsoever heading down this path—no matter how well intentioned the motives. It would amount to WP:OR. Greg L (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I plan to continue to say in this list if a person has been convicted in connection with genocide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Doing so adds value to the article (assuming the executive summary is accurate and that a common-sense reading of the linked article makes it obvious what is the most notable aspect of the individual). I don’t think it is too much of a challenge for any half-way experienced wikipedian to make a proper executive summary; it should merely follow the lede of the linked articles. Greg L (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A summary of the individuals reason for notability is almost a necessity. The best is no redlinks without a citation and all entries a small comment about them and a citation supporting that comment. As there are apparently going to be a percentage of war criminals imo they should be separated out and in their own section. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—why should they be "…separated out and in their own section"? Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seems in the circumstances where there is going to be a large specific section that they be defined as I have seen that is quite normal practice in lists. Do you disagree or object to this? Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Human beings are complex entities. I am opposed to simplistically dividing human beings into the moral human beings and the immoral people. It assumes editors at Wikipedia have unerring judgement. I'd rather not trust editor's judgement to this degree. It smacks of original research. Do sources compile lists in just this way? If not, then what is our precedent for assuming to categorize people? This smacks of a violation of WP:BLP too. And even if the person is deceased—it smacks of editorial hubris. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If a group of people are all notable genocide convictions they make a good group. Half of your comment has gone over my head, please keep it simple, are there any jewish issues involved, what is the jewish connection here? Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you have "singer-songwriters", "politicians", and "journalists", listed under "Rwandans convicted in connection with genocide". Why not list them under singer-songwriters, politicians, and journalists? (here, and here) What did I say about "Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Human beings are complex entities. I am opposed to simplistically dividing human beings into the moral human beings and the immoral people." Yes, absolutely. And likewise, dividing people into Hutus and non-Hutus also relies on judgement, whether here or in the 'reliable sources' that we are so fond of using to make judgements for us. Given that whether somebody is 'Hutu' or not is a judgement call (as with any ethnicity, this is never clear-cut), and given the potential risks that such labelling entails in this case, one must conclude that logic says we would do better not to compile the list at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—we adhere to what sources say as much as possible. That is standard operating procedure. If good quality reliable sources say that an individual is of Hutu identity, that is a pretty good indication of the validity of that, and we are probably on safe ground if we identify that individual that way. But—if other sources contradict the first set of sources—then we have a more complex issue needing resolution.

(edit conflict) I see no reason not to compile this list—as long as we are relying on sources that are available to anyone else—that is—avoiding original research. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User Bus stop, I realize you didn't mention Jews but you are a single issue account so please answer the question - what has this got to do with Jewish people? Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—I am just a person. What do you mean I am a "single issue account"? Yes, I am an editor who has addressed subjects related to Jews, Judaism, etc. What's the big deal? Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A single issue account that is so obsessed and opinionated in favor of that group that their edits have no possibility of coming from a WP:NPOV position - I think you have already been restricted from editing due to such issues? Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—yes, I was "restricted from editing". If there is a present problem please bring it to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Bus Stop: how about a reliable source that states that any ethnic classification is subjective, situational, and liable to be contested - a source that states that 'ethnicity' isn't something you can meaningfully use the word 'is' about. I'm sure I can find one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—this is an article related to Hutus. If that identity is "contested" as you suggest could be the case, then yes, we have an issue to resolve, and I would even concede that such an issue could prove unresolvable. But all instances are not like that, are they? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to learn more about the contestedness of Hutu ethnicity, you could do worse than start with the Wikipedia article, which summarises the more well-documented theories. I'd say that the point is more general though - can you name a ethnic group where membership is consistently well-defined and uncontested? If there are any, they are very much a minority. With regards to ethnicity in general, I'd also recommend our article on ethnogenesis, though I think that needs a little work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm sorry to be repeating myself (from this and other discussions) but if reliable sources uncontestedly support an identity for a person in common with a group identity, that becomes something that we can repeat on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia in the final analysis, at least in my opinion, is a compiler of sourced (well-sourced) material. Thus if a group of people are said to be of a certain identity, and sources establish that identity as having validity, and if an individual is established by reliable sources to be of that identity—then we are probably on safe ground passing along to the reader that so-and-so is of such-and-such identity. You are asserting that questions exist about that identity. You might be right. I will remain agnostic on that. But for the purposes of Wikipedia I think identities of people are the consequence of the existence of sources. The alternative would be that identities, or the absence of identities, are established by original research. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

- Don't worry I will google it myself. - Rwanda: "Abyssnian Jews" http://bombasticelements.blogspot.com/2010/02/rwanda-abyssnian-jews.html - The Tutsis claim a genetic link to ethopiia and through that to the hebrews. Since the genocide there has been Tutsi attempts to play up this claim. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

People convicted in connection with genocide

I'm baffled by the existence of a section entitled People convicted in connection with genocide. Why are we setting aside a group of people on the basis of their being "…convicted in connection with genocide"? Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yours is a valid concern and I support you view. See #Guilt by association, above. The original concern was This is going to end up being a list primarily of convicted criminals. It doesn't seem fair to the non-criminals to mix them in. Separating out those who weren’t guilty of these very bad crimes against humanity seems to have made some wikipedians feel they have done a very good thing indeed. The remedy, IMO, seems arbitrary and contrived because it was merely due to the observation that too many notable Hutus did very bad things (as—I suppose—distinct from just *ordinary* bad things that are routinely ignored in other lists of people).

  If we keep heading down this road, we’re gonna need to separate out Charlie Sheen on our List of recipients of a Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Television Series Musical or Comedy for he seems naughty indeed nowadays and now is the time to for a big Wikipedia-style “For shame – for shame – for shame” where we will put him down at the bottom of the list all by himself. And why the heck is O. J. Simpson not separated out in List of Heisman Trophy winners? Or (depending on your point of view) why the heck isn’t the Los Angeles Police Department not separated out in List of law enforcement agencies in California for planting O.J.’s blood at the crime scene and for planting the victim’s blood all over O.J. and his SUV?? Either way, the needle on my Righteous-Indignation-O-Meter is pegging as I endeavor to be holy. ^(Disclaimer) Greg L (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with both of you. It's an especially weird distinction considering that some of the people in the article, while not convicted of anything, were still just as involved or implicit, and separating them almost seems to be assigning blame or guilt or innocence.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed at the AfD discussion. No one at this discussion or that one objects to including in each entry of this list that the person has been convicted in connection with genocide, if that's the case. Since this is a common feature of many of the individual people's entries on this list, I don't see the harm in making a subsection for it, just like the Nazi subsection in the list of Germans. If there were several entries that say the person set foot on the Moon, then I would support a subsection for that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes… well… Your intentions are in the right place. But I’m still not convinced that mere wikipedians should be in the business of acting like Santa Claus making up our own criteria for who’s naughty and who’s nice. We’ll let this one play out for a while, but if a consensus develops against this sort of segregation, we’re gonna need to mix ‘em up. I would propose simply listing them alphabetically by last name. Greg L (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A court of law has found these people guilty of playing a part in genocide. It follows that we can note that in their biography if it is reliably sourced. But when we set aside 4 out of 14 individuals in a section labeled "convicted in connection with genocide" we are emphasizing that. We don't even know that that is true. We only know it is reliably sourced. WP:VERIFY works in both directions when it says that, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If we don't know that the information (concerning their guilt in genocide) is true, then why are we emphasizing it by setting up a section for those …convicted in connection with genocide. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I've argued that this list in its entirety should be deleted, I'll not comment on the issue of whether there should be a subsection for those convicted of genocide. I will however point out that a statement that someone has been convicted of something may be stated as both factual and verifiable, without accepting that are were necessarily actually guilty of the offence they were convicted of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Hutus. In essence, the article, List of Hutus, has nothing to do with genocide except as genocide arises incidentally in individual biographies of Hutus as might appear within the list. Hutus are not predisposed towards genocide, as the existence of a section called "People convicted in connection with genocide" tends to suggest. To avoid that unintended implication, the four names in that section should be added back into the rest of the names. It reflects negatively on all Hutus to create a special section for those "…convicted in connection with genocide". I don't believe we have seen a source indicating that Hutus have an inclination to engage in genocide. We should not be arranging our article in a way that suggests that the trait of genocide is found more prevalently among Hutus than among other groups of people. Bus stop (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria expressed in the article

Currently it reads "This is a list of famous Hutus who have Wikipedia biographies which include mention of Hutu identity." Even if we continue using it as the standard, the way the criteria are expressed in the article looks bad, as though we consider WP articles to be the sole measure of whether a person is "famous" or not. I suggest it be removed or reworded. Preferably in the direction of simplicity, such as "The following is a list of notable person identified as Hutu." I can also create an WP:EDITNOTICE with the criteria that anyone who attempts to edit the page will see. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes to both of your ideas.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice  Done, see Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Hutus. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Hutus. 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/20110629172313/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_by.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/countrytemplate_by.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable for Wikipedia criteria

this article can lead enmity between people, by revising people who are divided into tribes Pfomma (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)