![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ruanda-Urundi was not a German colony. When the area was in German hands it was simply a part of German East Africa. It was only after that colony was split between Britain and Belgium that the separate colony of Ruanda-Urundi came into being. - SimonP 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
99.4.106.235 ( talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Vera Ferguson
can anyone point out examples of bias in the article? Ottawakismet ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Belgian administrators believed in the racial theories of the time and convinced themselves that the Tutsi were racially superior", "convinced themselves" could be rewritten into something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.3.49 ( talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The link that leads to article "cleptocracy" is not a neutral point of view, but the one of Britain regarding Belgian Congo. The Belgian, of course, have a far different point of view (I was thaught the history in Belgium). The use of a German word in this english text to lead to "cleptocracy" is unfair.
-- Lucyin ( talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia article on WW II casualties /info/en/?search=World_War_II_casualties has a table showing 7.89% of the population of Ruanda-Urundi died due to famine and disease during the war. If that is correct, was this event directly related to the war?
Tashiro~enwiki ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ruanda-Urundi was not a German colony. When the area was in German hands it was simply a part of German East Africa. It was only after that colony was split between Britain and Belgium that the separate colony of Ruanda-Urundi came into being. - SimonP 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
99.4.106.235 ( talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Vera Ferguson
can anyone point out examples of bias in the article? Ottawakismet ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Belgian administrators believed in the racial theories of the time and convinced themselves that the Tutsi were racially superior", "convinced themselves" could be rewritten into something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.3.49 ( talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The link that leads to article "cleptocracy" is not a neutral point of view, but the one of Britain regarding Belgian Congo. The Belgian, of course, have a far different point of view (I was thaught the history in Belgium). The use of a German word in this english text to lead to "cleptocracy" is unfair.
-- Lucyin ( talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia article on WW II casualties /info/en/?search=World_War_II_casualties has a table showing 7.89% of the population of Ruanda-Urundi died due to famine and disease during the war. If that is correct, was this event directly related to the war?
Tashiro~enwiki ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)