Talk:Yoweri Museveni/Archive 1

Archive 1

Passes the google test. I fixed more obvious errors, changed "concentration camp" to "refugee camp" and added a bit about AIDS. Vicki Rosenzweig

There are sources what tells that He was born in 1944? What year is correct? --218.145.25.15 20:59, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Birthplace

There appears to be some discrepancy on birthplace. According to what I'm finding, he was born in Kikoni village in present-day Ntungamo district and then went to Mbarara High School. The problem is that Ntungamo didn't exist at that time, as it was part of the Ankole region. See this. Given how many times new Ugandan districts split from old, it is quite possible that Museveni's birthplace was in Ankole, which was split into Mbarara, which was split into Ntungamo. Does anyone have an official source that clarifies the matter? - BanyanTree 01:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

A certain encyclopedia which I won't mention hære gave his birthplace as Mbarra district, which I took to be a typo for Mbarara. But his website [1] says: "Yoweri Kaguta Museveni was born into a family of cattle keepers in Ankole, Western Uganda." That probably settles it. What do you reckon? TreveX^talk 01:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Just found this [2] "And as if that is not enough, Mbarara also happens to be President Museveni's home district." TreveX^talk 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Reverted my change. - BanyanTree 02:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The following sources give his birthplace as Ntungamo:

• Encyclopedia.com
• Encarta
• Norwegian Council for Africa
• Columbia Encyclopedia

The following as Mbarara:

• Britannica
• BBC

Ankole:

• Museveni website

And Kyamate (listed as located in various districts)

• Conciliation resources
• NNDB

This is very frustrating. Kyamate seems to have been in both Mbarara and Ankole at one point or another. I can find no source stating Rwanda as a birthplace. TreveX^talk 23:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't think of going to Statoids before, which I previously used to figure out the maze of Sudanese districts. According to this, in 1944 (Museveni's birthyear and pre-independence) there were four provinces one of which was Western, which one can assume encompasses the region of Uganda we're talking about. By 1966 (through some unexplained post-Independence process) there were 19 administrative divisions, including the Ankole kingdom. In 1976, the districts became provinces. Southern province encompassed both Ankole and Kigezi and had Mbarara as a capital. In 1989 (post NRA victory), the 10 provinces were reorganized into 33 districts, one of which was Mbarara, and in 1994 the district of Ntungamo was formed from parts of Mbarara and Bushenyi. It's possible that Britannica and BBC simply have not updated their basic bio since 1994. Given the information we have, I am willing to say that Museveni's birthplace has fallen, at various times, in administrative regions known as Western, Ankole, Southern, Mbarara and Ntungamo, without any contradiction. The article is correct in reflecting the most recent region (Ntungamo) and I see no real need to change it. - BanyanTree 02:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hooray! Well done for finally putting that one to rest! TreveX^talk 02:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Too fringe?

Someone re-wrote the Museveni article, saying that certain parts that were added a few hours ago were "too fringe". How is this person to know that they are too fringe? Considering a region in central Africa where up to one million people were killed in a gruesome genocide and the endless wars and intrigue coming out of there, is anything beyond plausibility? Much of the history of Uganda has been distorted by Museveni and as a result, the western world is just beginning to wake up to the truth about him. Do not consider the additions we made as fringe or extreme. We live in the region, have access to insider information. To dismiss them as fringe is to reveal the same ignorance that the West showed in being led to believe that Saddam Hussein was a counterweight to Iran --- until it was too late.

I am the "someone". Very little is beyond plausibility, and the well-cited and implausible are certainly welcome. The issue with the edits I removed was that they were both implausible and thoroughly unreferenced. Generally speaking, articles adhere to the general description of events given by large news organizations such as the BBC or New York Times. If one wishes to add something decidingly non-stream along the lines of "Museveni killed Habyarimana, and then the UPDF and Tutsi RPF killed a bunch of Tutsis during the Rwandan Genocide to make the Hutus look bad" supporting references to a credible source would be expected in an External links sections, and probably in-line references to points of particular contention. Referencing "insider information" is generally not considered to be adequate support.

I notice that you said "the additions we made". Are there a crowd of you gathered around the computer then, or are you a member of a political organization? In any case, I spent two years in Uganda where I had a lot of exposure to political structures and organizations, so I am hardly uncritical of M7. But unsupported accusations simply reduce the credibility of both the article and Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources for more. - BanyanTree 13:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Very well BanyanTree. You made your case well and I see your point in this. It might help put things into perspective to remember that the BBC and New York Times have had their fair share of bungled stories and the BBC of great repute had to apologize to Tony Blair's government over its report on the Iraq mass destructions weapons dossier being "sexed up". You of course know by now that Newsweek has had to apologize over its story about a Qur'an being flushed down a toilet.

The reason Wikipedia appeals to some of us is because we always thought it would go into finer detail than the generic Reuters, BBC, Washington Post cliches about Africa. I have not quoted my sources, but knowing what I know, I can only smile with amusement when I see you so knowingly dismiss things that I know to be true. So much for the western world as the citadel of knowledge!

I am surprised you did not dismiss my entire contribution as "too fringe", since that's what it seems to you. If you believe Museveni was born in Uganda or anywhere in Ankole, ask him to show you the graves of his grandfather and grandmother! I am quite sure you believe that Milton Obote killed 300,000 people in Luwero between 1980 and 1985 (even though the entire population of Luwero at that time was only 150,000). Oh yes, and you probably also believe Idi Amin killed 500,000 Ugandans. Yes, we have been down that road of generic western notions of Uganda's history.

If Wikipedia is, after all, so bound by conventional BBC/Times of London reporting and research Orthodoxy, then what's the point of it? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be that source that gives us the unbiased, informed insider view. It might as well be sold off to Encyclopedia Britannica, the world-famous reference work that lists Uganda's independence as Ocotber 10, 1962, rather than October 9!

Okay, here are sources that will shed more light on the true nature of the Museveni we are discussing, just to open your eyes:

http://www.upcparty.net. Go to "President's Corner" of this website, then to the paper "Notes on concealment of genocide in Uganda"

As for the 1994 Rwandan genocide, see this website: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20654

Also: http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg17288.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/msg17289.html

To: BanyanTreee. I found it interesting to discover that you did your M.A thesis on the Lord's Resistance Army. I am very curious to know what you discovered about it.I am almost sure it is the usual cliche --- of the band of wandering thugs who chop off ears and noses of the Acholi people.

Would you be interested in the reports, widely known by those who care to know beyond BBC news cliches, that much of this horrid work was done by Museveni's troops, dressed up in rags, in order to discredit the LRA (even though, yes, the LRA is definitely an unsavoury rebel group.)?

Dear Banyantree, when you have read up on those referenced websites on Museveni, read up on the indisputable evidence that he was the mastermind of the genocide in Uganda in Luwero in the 1980s, as well as that going on in northern Uganda today, when you have come to see what diabolical a man he is, I request that you kindly restore the material that I submitted to the website which you found too "exaggerated" and fuzzy. Most of you western citizens are like young children: you are very intelligent and well-meaning, but you can easily be deceived!

I am not surprised that America and Britain, for all their intelligence gathering might and political power, were --- like kindergarten children --- fooled into believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That is how we Africans fool your embassies every day, when we come claiming all sorts of political persecution, you believe us, and we enter your countries for jobs.

You are easily deceived! I am not, therefore, surprised that in all sincerity you truly believed that the things about Museveni were way too far-fetched. That is the typical mind of the sheltered, White person.

I am going to restore the material on Museveni that you, Banyantree, so ignorantly edited out, revealing the limitations of your mind and knowledge of what Wkilpedia stands for. Your editing revealed how little you know about the subject matter. I will keep placing it and no matter how much you edit the truth out, I will keep putting it there. I also invite you to read thoroughly through the websites I offered you, just to open your mind to grizzly things happening in Central Africa that, in your sheltered world, have no idea about!

I have now taken on the user name "Bamboo." Banyantree, you insist on editing out the "non-mainstream" material that is being contributed on Museveni. One can assume that the new material that I have thus far contributed and which you accepted, is "mainstream" and authentic. You are doing yourself and many others a great disservice!

If you feel that the material that does not flatter Museveni is unacceptable, why do you accept the other material and yet, presumably, it is coming from the same source? How can you prove or disprove my submission of Museveni's date of birth as April 1944? Supposing I have given you a false date? How come you have not engaged me with a few questions to confirm how I come to submit this material? Surely, your two year stay in Uganda did not give you such an insider's view of things in Uganda! Did it?

To: BanyanTree, From: Bamboo. Did you read up on the websites I sent you to check up on Museveni? I hope you do for then you will see that my submissions are sourced in the Ugandan reality. However, I am so disappointed that Wikipedia is being held hostage by one person who is determined that his/her view of Museveni and limited two-year understanding of Ugandan history, will be the official view of the president.

I find it hypocritical of you to accept some parts of my submission and yet you delete the other parts that seem "far flung" and "non-mainstream". When does knowledge become mainstream? Will that be when a western historian or journalist comes up with an article on Museveni. And how will you verify the authenticity of that material? What a disappointment Wikipedia is, if it is limited to generic and unquestioned generalisations.

Hi Bamboo,

Thanks for creating a username. Remembering you as a sequence of numbers is quite odd. Just a a note, you can sign your contributions with four tildes ~~~~.

I noticed that you did not respond to my message on your anonymous talk page. Since you seem to have gotten the account soon afterwards, I assume that you just didn't see it.

I did go through most of the links you posted. The essay by Obote on the UPC website has chapters called "Profile of a Demented Mind" and "Gigantic Fraud", so you can hardly call it unbiased. The last two are in mail archives, which hardly gives them an aura of credibility. The Catholic World News article is the most interesting, but I had fortunately read through it before when contributing to the Rwandan Genocide article to cross-check information. I found it to make a number of accusations that were directly contradicted by other highly credible sources, though the point about pre-genocide violence is a point worth making. By my count, that makes one semi-credible source that addresses the periphery of this article

If M7 was indirectly responsible for the Entebbe killing, why wouldn't the Israelis, who have extensively researched the event, has sourced it? Independent newspapers such as the Monitor and the Nation have not touched your accusations. Prominent and credible critics such as Joe Oloka-Onyango have not even hinted at many of the events you list as undisputed fact.

I selectively edited your contributions because it included a number of items that I knew to be true from my study of Uganda's human rights record and related conflicts in the region. Not having an infinite amount of time, I hadn't had time to add them myself. You certainly could be lying about M7's birthdate, but that can be easily crosschecked. I am not unfamiliar with the events you are describing, and know some of your sentences to be outright contradictions of the established record, and am therefore challenging you on them.

You in turn have attacked me personally, referenced special knowledge that nobody else knows, and refrained to cite your work. I'm not asking how you know this material because only the article content matters in the this case. You could be Besigye himself and I would still insist that you provide proper references for content. - BanyanTree 20:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm really pleased to see that native Ugandans are editing this article. In the long term, this will hopefully lead to a narrowing quality gap between Western and African coverage on Wikipedia. However, I have to support some of BanyanTree's concerns as to the approach taken in this article. Some of this material really needs to be cited from unbiased sources or to be qualified properly. It is for this reason that I am placing a POV flag on this page. TreveX^talk 22:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Bamboo replies TreveX and BanyanTree:

The caveat placed on the Museveni article by TreveX is, for me, the most welcome news possible. It recognises that there is still a jury out on this.

At the very least, that for some of us is sufficient. Hopefully, as TreveX noted, more and more Ugandans will come in, some of them whom for all sorts of reasons, will not quote "sources", since these sources are, by the nature of some of them, classified or at least the kind which, to reveal them would endanger the sources.

We shall live with this. What is most important to me is that we were able to add the fact that the once over-glorified image of Museveni is now coming under revision and a more realistic critique from no less a figure than a former Ugandan ambassador to Uganda, Johnnie Carson.

A mere five years ago, had anyone contributed an article to Wikipedia or any western encyclopedia and even hinted at the Museveni family being grossly corrupt, would have led Wikipedia's editors to dismiss it outright as (in the words of BanyanTree) "too far flung".

Today the same western nations and news agencies and media companies that could find no fault in Museveni, have been giving him a steady stream of negative reporting since March, as the facts show.

Soon, a time will come when no western news service or history book will distinguish Museveni from Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, including the BBC, New York Times, and CNN that BanyanTree regards as biblical in their authority.

At that time, we shall send back the material we compiled on Museveni and Wikipedia will feel silly not to have accepted it when it first came.

We have been through western fickleness before --- Saddam Hussein a hero in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88; Ahmed Chalabi of Iraq a hero as an exile until his "evidence" of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction came under scrutiny; Michael Jackson making the covers of Time and Newsweek magazines until he was re-defined as today's caricature.

I am sure that if an Iraqi dissident in the early 1980s had contributed material to the Wikipedia of that day, his horror stories of torture and mass murder attributed to Saddam would have been dismissed as "too fuzzy".

If that is the trend of Wikipedia, then it is already a let down and is in no way different from the rest. You might as well appoint an editorial board and dictate to us the viewpoint of the editors, to which we shall attribute the highest scholarship.

Wikipedia, as I understand it, was intended to be that source of information and knowledge which is more open than conventional wisdom.

Let us see what becomes of Museveni's place in history.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoweri_Museveni"

Bamboo, I noticed you removed the POV plate but there are numerous issues related to neutrality and citation of sources in this article. Until we resolve these issus, the POV plate must remain. For more information on POV disputes and how best to resolve them, please see this page. TreveX^talk 14:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Use of Children in Museveni's army?

why isn't there anything said about China Keitesi's claim in her book that Museveni used Children in his rebellion army? Maybe people with connections on this issue could discuss to make an article on Keitesi and the validity of what is said in her book. Keitetsi's site --Asylum4Violin 22:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add information on this topic to this article and the National Resistance Army article. If you wish, you can also start an article on China Keitesi. Cheers, BanyanTree 02:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Take it slow!

I am trying to learn about Museveni, and help someone write a report on Uganda. All these sweeping changes and reverts are disruptive and confusing. Can we slow things down, and discuss section by section? Sam Spade 14:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam, Sorry for the mess. I think you might be better off choosing a version from the page history at this point. We can't even agree on which country Museveni is from, despite the fact that TreveX has several links in the section above. I won't even go into the stuff about bipolar disorder and the Tutsi RPF killing Tutsis in order to make the Hutus look bad. If anyone would care to talk some sense into Bamboo and I, it would be appreciated. - BanyanTree 15:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It is good that BanyanTree finally brought up the matter of the former child soldier, China Kaiteesi, and her campaign against the use of child soldiers in combat. If I as Bamboo had brought that unsavory side to Museveni into this Wikipedia article, I would have been censored by BanyanTree and fellow gullible westerners for being too "far flung." This is why I keep re-loading the material we have been sending on Museveni. The more informed people inside and outside Uganda see it, the more they will add even more shocking things that have been concealed for so long with the help of naive westerners like BanyanTree. If a man can use child soldiers in his war against a government, is it too implausible to believe it when we say that the parents of these child soldiers were killed in order for them to develop unquestining loyalty to Museveni as the only parent figure they have ever really known? The dabate rages on. We shall keep sending the material as it is. User:Bamboo (sig added by Sam Spade 15:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

Actually, you wouldn't have been censored, because the use of child soldiers by the NRA is well-documented, as was your contribution about plundering of natural resources from the DRC, which I also did not remove. You could write a damning article about Museveni and the Movement using internationally-credible sources, but you insist on adding inflammatory items that directly contradict not only the official version, but the accounts of human rights organizations and other critics. (Just the information in official UN reports would raise eyebrows.) Also, your question is conjecture and has no place in an encyclopedia. I find this entire disagreement regrettable as you are obviously knowledgeable and passionate about areas where Wikipedia is thin on editors. However, unreferenced additions that contradict reputable sources have no place here. I'm going back to my trench now... - BanyanTree 15:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I second the above, Bamboo has the potential to be a much needed bulk content contributer here, and meerly needs to lower the level of intensity a notch or 2. Have a look @ NPOV or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your work is appreciated, and will be even more so when you conform to our process. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

comment

The hypocrisy of the Wikipedia editorial team is starting to come to the surface. Wikipedia claims that it stands for the publication of articles written from a "neutral point of view." That would be okay if it were consistent. In its article on the late Ugandan president Idi Amin, the contributors departed from this policy. Amin is described in the most unflattering terms. He is called a buffoon, childish, he is accused of killing 500,000 Ugandans and yet no single document has ever been published that listed even 5,000 names of people Amin supposedly killed. This is a complete violation of Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" philosophy.

In the past few days, an article on the current President, Yoweri Museveni, has been presented by Bamboo and associates. It has, however, been criticized by Wikipedia contributors for not being "neutral" in its viewpoint. No attempt has been made to explain why the one-sided article on Idi Amin has not been revised. This is the basis upon which Bamboo and associates will continue uploading the same article on Museveni and will ignore the attempts to censure our contribution on Museveni. (comment by User:Bamboo)

Three other users, myself, User:BanyanTree and User:Sam Spade have tried to reason with you in regards your contributions as User:Bamboo and anonymously as User:81.199.23.86.

• You flooded this article with new information, the majority of which had extreme bias against Museveni.
• You refused to cite sources for this POV material, despite repeated requests from other users.
• Have engaged in an edit war with other users, and have made a statement of intent (see above) to continiue this behaviour.
• You have refusing to resolve problems on talk pages.

I am not a Museveni fan. Quite frankly, I believe he has lost the plot recently. However, the current version of the article is simply not fair and balanced. Of course this article should include criticisms, but these should be backed up with references. You are in violation of the three-revert rule and may now be banned for a period of time. TreveX^talk 19:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A fresh start

Hope we can now put this whole sorry edit war behind us. I have cleaned up the formatting and tightened the prose in places. Most of the uncited POV stuff is gone or qualified, although I have tagged the claim that Habyarimana plotted to assasinate M7 as {{dubious}}. I am removing the POV check tag as the article, on the whole, seems pretty balanced.

Some of this new material is really general history of Uganda, which would probably be better placed in Uganda since 1979. Comments? TreveX^talk 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree, and support merger of content. I would like to see as little deleted as possible. Sam Spade 23:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The many limitations of Wikipedia

From Bamboo to the censors at Wikipedia. Since my submissions on Museveni have been widely dismissed by the learned contributors to Wikipedia, I will no longer bother to contribute material to the main article. I will contribute it through the discussion page and it is up to the well-informed Wikipedia contributors to dismiss them. As for the idea that material for the articles must be sourced, it comes down to the ignorance that the West has about Africa and why even such a novel idea as Wikipedia will never, alas!, fill in the information void in Africa.

As anyone who knows a thing or two about Africa knows, much of Africa's history is not documented and therefore scanty. It is in the western world where all manner of information, both open source and top secret is either in the public domain or eventually comes through. In Africa, much information remains buried and usually never sees the light of day. How am I as Bamboo to reveal my "sources" on Museveni, when it comes to me from people still working for Museveni's government and who would be endangered if their revelations came to the light? Does Wikipedia's group of contributor-censors bear these anomalies in mind?

We who know much about Museveni, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Joseph Kabila of Congo, and other leaders in Central Africa find it amusing to see the facts about these people dismissed as too far flung. No wonder the United Nations will keep going in circles over who actually assassinated Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda, blaming it variously on Kagame or the French or Habyarimana's own guards. I even know the man who fired the missiles. But then, can I be believed by Wikipedia's army of censors who are so fed on the basic story of Museveni? So, we shall go on with our half-hearted attempts at providing information to the public, in the name of "innovations" like Wikipedia.

But, I got an idea: seeing what I now see and knowing what I know, I might go ahead and start another encyclopedia along the lines of Wikipedia, but one which entertains ALL angles, conspiracy theories, far flung twists to history. This is because I have seen how sincere but uninformed contributor-censors to even Wikipedia can frustrate the truth from coming to light. That is the lesson I have learned from the limitations to Wikipedia. It is a great idea, but if it is going to follow the narrow parameters of other well-known encyclopedias, I don’t see the point of it. Bamboo signature added by TreveX^talk 16:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I really appreciate Bamboo's work, which has enabled this article to come on leaps and bounds (just take a look at it at the beginning of the month). Thank you very much for your contributions, Bamboo. I would appreciate your help in ironing out a few things:

• Sources such as Encarta state that Museveni's father was a wealthy landowner, but recent changes indicate that his father was an itinerant Rwandan peasant and his stepfather a poor peasant.
• The article claims Museveni fathered several children with women other than his wife.
• The article claims Habyarimana secretly approached the Ugandan director of internal intelligence, Brig. Jim Muhwezi, with a plot to assassinate Rwigyema.
• It is claimed that members of the Museveni family have been accused since then of personally profiting from the looting of natural resources in the eastern part of Zaire, now called the Democratic Republic of Congo.
• It is claimed that The World Bank later issued a report severely criticizing the Museveni government and the embezzlement of government money by the Museveni family. Could someone please provide a link to this report? The World Bank publishes all its reports on its website

In order to create a really useful and accurate encyclopedia, Wikipedia has official policies. These can be viewed in the official policy category and include verifiability and citing your sources:

Those who write articles likely to be deemed in need of fact checking, for whatever reason, should expect to assist by providing references, ideally when the article is first written. Because of this, it's important to make it easy to verify the accuracy and neutrality of your content. Citing your sources is an important part of this. [3]

It would be great if Bamboo could find references to the above content which he/she has added. I understand your claims that "much of Africa's history is not documented and therefore scanty". If the above bulleted claims are accurate, then it is reasonable to assume that sources exist for at least some of them.

I would like to emphasise that we are all aiming for the same goal here: a really informative and encyclopedic article on Museveni. I look forward to working with other contributers on this article in a constructive fashion. TreveX^talk 17:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources for facts on Museveni's life story

I will give a few sources for the material I am providing on the life of Yoweri Museveni. I will repeat this point: if the contributors to Wikipedia are of the general opinion that published "sources" are the only basis for facts entering an encyclopedia, then Wikipedia will never go far.

As I said recently, much of our history in Africa is not even documented. In addition, because of our history as a continent in which democracy and open societies have been the very rare exception, a lot of contemporary African history is in doubt simply because it is in the interest of the main actors to keep it that way.

There are still questions about who the mother of current DR Congo president Joseph Kabila is. Those who "know" (and there are many such) maintain that his mother is a Tutsi. But because of the taboo and sensitivity of the Tutsi question in Central Africa, nobody, not even Kabilia's mother, is likely to come out and confirm his maternal blood line. This is what I have been trying to stress all along, as Wikipedia contributors have dismissed my contributions as way too fringe.

Everyone who is even averagely informed in Uganda knows well that Museveni has fathered a number of children outside and even before his marriage to Janet Kataha Museveni. One of them is with the sister of the Crown Prince of Ankole, John Patrick Barigye, another is with his former aide and house manager during his 1981-85 guerrilla struggle, Mrs Gertrude Njuba, another was fathered while Museveni was still in Tanzania in the 1970s. What are my sources for these claims? None, if the "sources" Wikipedia expects are published, ISBN-serial numbered, public documents.

Wikipedia, therefore, will have to weigh the options: either to embargo such material as "disputed" or recognize that the very anonimity of Wikipedia's contributors and the key fact that anyone can be a contributor to Wikipedia, is Wikipedia's greatest innovation. It strikes me as ironical that Wikipedia only accepts articles that are sourced from elsewhere, when --- for all we know --- Wikipedia is actually the very FIRST source of certain material that has been buried and would quite likely have never seen the light of day. In my mind, the opposite should be happening.

Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Book Encyclopedia, the Catholic Encyclopedia should be using Wikipedia as the most important source of information that is almost impossible to to find anywhere else. Yet here is Wikipedia, not even aware of its great potential, still expecting other reference works to be its main source!

Example: nearly all encyclopedias date the birth of the late Ugandan president Idi Amin as "either 1925 or 1928." I contributed an exact date of Amin's birth as May 17, 1928 in Wikipedia's article on Amin, which was the Islamic holy day of Idd and that is where he got his name "Idi" from. What source do I have? I spoke to a man in Uganda who was in contact with Amin a month before his death.

Can I quote that "source" in bibliographical, published form? No, not because my source is dubious but because much of the knowledge in Africa is not published. This is my whole point. What I have been sending you on Museveni is the facts as they are, but Wikipedia's other contributors like BanyanTree and Sam Spade cannot even see that they are starring very interesting facts in their faces! They still look to "reputable sources" like Encarta and the BBC for authority.

I told BayanTree last week that the great and authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica mentions Uganda's independence as October 10, 1962 rather than that fact that it was October 9, 1962. When I catch such an embarassing error on one of the world's most respected reference sources, how can I remain in awe of that encyclopedia? BayanTree failed to see the irony in that.

If Wikipedia still needs to cite other sources, what is the point of it? What was the point of making it a website to which anyone could contribute? If I am a defector from the Museveni government, I am related to him and I know his family inside out, but I dare not reveal my identity, how would you know that?

Anyway, the story of the World Bank criticizing Museveni's government and family can be seen on the website of the government-owned newspaper the New Vision (http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/12/435022)

The question of Museveni fathering several children, if you don't want to accept it because there is no best-selling book that displays their photographs, well, enjoy your ignorance if it makes you happy!

You can wait for ten years from now for a White, western journalist to publish a book on Uganda, mention Museveni's children outside wedlock, then maybe that fact I gave you in 2005 will become Wikipedia canon! That goes for the other claims I made about who shot down Habyarimana's plane, assassinated Fred Rwigyema, and other secret and covert activity that have made Central Africa so volatile.

If you expect intelligence reports, leaks from government insiders, and facts that people in Uganda and Rwanda know but dare not talk about publicly and for those reasons you dismiss this material, then I will repeat what I said about Wikipedia --- good publishing idea but unfortunately, so glaringly limited. Bamboo sig and reformat by TreveX^talk 18:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and for the link to the World Bank report story. I understand your arguments that the exclusion of unsourced material limits Wikipedia. It must be remembered, however, that what we are working on is an encyclopedia. Please allow me to draw your attention to the following section from Wikipedia's policy on verefiability:

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources. [4]

As BanyanTree has pointed out, it is possible to write a very critical article on Museveni using internationally credible sources. I find your argument of history and current affairs in Africa being poorly documented as strange. You seem to be saying that Africa is backwards, so we should accept at face value what any African has to say on the subject of Yoweri Museveni. You have accused other users of waiting for some white journalist to report something before we will consider it for inclusion in an article. The reality is that we would trust any Ugandan journalist - but that you have failed to present any such sources, even from partisan websites. The idea that African affairs are inscrutable to Westerners is utter mince.

If you want to write your own website on Museveni then that is up to you. But claims made in this encyclopedia must be backed up with credible sources. This is official policy in Wikipedia and isn't really up for debate (if you insist then try here). Could you please try and find some sources for the remainder of the bulleted material, otherwise you may find contributers will remove it.

To put this in perspective a little, your edits have been really useful and have vastly improved the quality of this article. It's only a few things that need to be ironed out. Thanks again for the link to the NV article. I currently trying to track down an electronic copy of that World Bank report. TreveX^talk 20:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources, official and partisan on Yoweri Museveni

Replying TreveX:

Thanks TreveX for your helpful comments. I might have misunderstood the goals of Wikipedia, then. I thought the reason it was open for editing by the public was to welcome the minute details that other encyclopedias gloss over or simply can't find.

It seems to me that the editorial policy statement that TreveX quoted to me contradicts the open editing philosophy of the encyclopedia.

I will conform to this policy and pick up from what you said below:

"The reality is that we would trust any Ugandan journalist - but that you have failed to present any such sources, even from partisan websites."

I am encouraged that you would consider even "partisan" websites. The last time I forwarded some to BanyanTree, he/she dismissed them.

Very well, here we go.

1) The main source of Milton Obote's explanation of the events in Uganda dating back to 1972 can be found on the website of his party, the Uganda People's Congress. It is at www.upcparty.net You go to the "President's Corner" and the papers, "Notes on Concealment of Genocide in Uganda."

In it, he attempts explain Uganda's political history over the past 30 years and in much of his story, Museveni comes up for mention.

Much of the first part of his presentation rumbles a lot and he is clearly partisan.

However, the further one goes down the article, the more he separates his emotions and disgust with Museveni from historical fact.

His arguments are compeling and most of them later in the article rhyme with known history. Try to get past Obote's distaste for Museveni and you will read things about Museveni that most people were not prepared to believe until very recently.

Obote also has an interesting explanation of what really happened in Kanungu in western Uganda in March 2000 when a doomsday cult allegedly burnt 1,000 of its followers in what became the worst religious cult mass murder episode in history.

2)You can also find the original text of Obote's story and his explanation of what really happened in Luwero on the Monitor website, at http://www.monitor.co.ug/specialincludes/ugprsd/obote/ob04079.php

It was published on April 15, 2005 and in it he quotes Museveni's own guerrilla commanders as admiting, even boasting, about what they did in order to discredit Obote's government.

3) This website and story gives some background to the 1994 Rwandan genocide: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20654

4) Former Ugandan president Godfrey Binaisa, like Obote, accuses Museveni of being the hand behind the Rwandan tragedy of 1994, in this June 1994 letter to Uganda.

Ignore his emotions and look into the facts that are consistent with what Obote alleges on the UPC website.

http://www.udayton.edu/~rwanda/articles/binaisa.html

5) A document from May 1994, a month after the Rwandan genocide began.

http://129.194.252.80/catfiles/0936.pdf

Note that it mentions that many of the people who were killed on the first day of the genocide were Hutu, not Tutsi as has been widely assumed. This ties in with what many people in the region know, which is that Major-General Paul Kagame's mainly Tutsi RPF guerrillas were inside Rwanda and are the ones who sparked off the genocide by killing Hutus and some Tutsi who had opposed them.

6) Below is an excerpt from material on the Internet that discusses Museveni's origins and dubious business dealings.

MUSEVENI'S ORIGIN

According to Museveni's own constitution, Chapter 7, article 102 states, "A person is not qualified for election as President unless that person is, (a) a citizen of Uganda by birth."

Museveni's foreign origin was first raised by UDC Newsletter Dec. 94 Vol 4 No.4 and followed up by many Ugandans up to now. Not a single time has he ever tried to settle that matter. When school children in Lango asked him about his Rwandese origin, he was infuriated and ordered their expulsion from school.

One version of Uganda's famous illegal alien says that Museveni was born in Gishenyi, Rwanda and given the name of "Nyandwi" which means the 7th child. He walked into Ankole with his mother where she mated with Mr. Kaguta, the father of General Salim Saleh. The other version was exposed by Mrs. Gertrude Byanyima (wife of the National Chairman of the Democratic Party, Boniface Byanyima) who claims to have raised him in her home where he came as a Tutsi teenager from Rwanda (momboze). Mrs. Byanyima says that his real name is "Tibahaburwa". She even displayed old exercise books he used in school bearing the name of Tibahaburwa.

Museveni's mother speaks only Kinyarwanda despite having lived in Uganda for a long time. She does not mention the father of her famous son. Museveni himself has failed to show the nation graves of his father, grand-parents or other members of the extended family as would be expected among Africans. There is nobody in Uganda that can avow to having ever attended a funeral of Museveni's family members in the past 70 years.

Who is this foreigner and where does he come from? Nyandwi or Tibahaburwa does not provide the country with proof of his birth place nor does he show the grave site of his father, grand-parents etc.. as proof of being a Ugandan by birth. When and where did he apply for Ugandan citizenship if it was by registration?

Failure to do any of the above is proof that the man was truly born outside Uganda and never filed an application for citizenship. Therefore, he is an illegal alien and unqualified to be Uganda's president. Ugandan lawyers must take this matter to court for it is a clear violation of his own constitution.

THE GOLD THIEVES (continued)

UDC Newsletter of March 1996 reported those who are robbing Uganda of her gold from Karamoja and cobalt from Kasese. Continued investigations have revealed additional sophisticated arrangements of their predaceous work.

The files of Barclays Metal LTD and Kalega Mining Co. LTD are still hidden in Museveni's briefcase. Information retrieved by UDC research on TAKE AIR LTD., an air freight company and a subsidiary of Kalega Mining, is intriguing. This company was registered on July 25, 1994 with an office on the second floor of the main terminal building at Entebbe airport. Its registered officials are:

Odendaal Sarah Joan, Managing Director. Gian Luigi Grassi, a pilot uses the company address, P.O. Box 6338 Kampala, is a Permanent Chairman of the firm. Emmanuel Winyi, an Advocate, of P.O. Box 21756 Kampala, is the company Secretary. Caleb K. Akandwanaho of P.O. Box 10508 Kampala, Theodora Komugisha and Stephen Soboul both at P.O. Box 6338 Kampala are Directors.

UDC Newsletter found out that the name "Caleb K. Akandwanaho" is an alias for General Salim Saley. Could these other names (Soboul, Odendaal, Komugisha) be aliases for Museveni and his famous foreign partners?

Recall on July 29, 1994, Reuters reported that Lynda Chalker and Museveni escaped unharmed when a Cessna aircraft they were travelling in a few days earlier from Karamoja to Entebbe got entangled in long grass. Reuters quoted Lady Chalker, "We came down with a bit of bump. The British High Commissioner and I suffered a few bruised ribs, and I had some bruises in other unmentionable places. But we walked down the steps of the aircraft." She claimed that they had gone to visit Museveni's private ranch.

Contrary to Chalker's assertion, Museveni does not own a private ranch anywhere in Karamoja. Were they coming from inspecting their private gold mine? Were all of their companies (Kalega Mining, Barclays Metal and Take Air) registered during the same time when the entire gang was in town? The fact that Museveni does not own a ranch in Karamoja and Lynda Chalker lied to the press about the purpose of their trip to that remote area is indicative of a people involved in some dubious or illegal activities.

Further investigations reveal that after the death of Peter Isherwood in a plane accident at Bayita near Entebbe in August 1995, Mr. Grassi, a Italian national and pilot, took charge of the mining operations. He is notorious for stubbornness and secrecy behaving as if he is above the law, according to sources near the gold mine. Mr. Grassi reportedly communicates with only Salim Saley through whom Museveni's cut is supposedly delivered.

putting the tag back on

Just in case anybody has gotten the impression that the free reign Bamboo and friends have had recently ruining the formatting and introducing unsourced character assassination info has gone unnoticed, I've placed a accuracy tag on the article and at some point will go through and remove all the unsourced info. I've taken the step after Bamboo removed the in-text disputed tags. Readers should probably dig through the page history to find an undisputed version. - BanyanTree 15:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After beginning to parse the recent "contributions" I realized not only was there a mass of unsourced and dubious accusations and that every sentence had been made its own paragraph, but that wikilinks had been removed from perfectly good sentences. Given that Bamboo has been talked to, reasoned with, been warned that his formatting is not acceptable, and generally been given every chance in the world to learn about the wiki, I have come to the conclusion that these edits are intentionally disruptive. They are vandalism and I will treat them as such.

P.S. Check this for the appalled reaction of an Ugandan to this article. - BanyanTree 22:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Museveni and Bayantree's edits

I have returned to the Museveni page and found, as I am now accustomed, my contribution to the Museveni story condemned by BayanTree.

Fair enough. I will accept the present edits.

But you and the other users know that none of us founded Wikipedia. I do not know why BayanTree is jealously guarding Museveni's identity and trying to control what is written about him.

Some of us are late entrants to the Wikipedia family. I must admit that I do not know in detail some of the technical working points of the encyclopedia.

If on many ocassions I appear to disregard the "rules" it is not malicious intent but rather an unfamiliarity with those rules.

The material on the Museveni page is not maliciously put there, otherwise even his well-known achievements in the field of AIDS would have been deleted by me.

I asked a question several weeks ago but I have received no reply yet.

If it is true that Wikipedia stands to protect the featured people's character from "assassination", how come no Wikipedia contributor has come out to defend the reputation of the late Ugandan leader, Idi Amin, who is roundly condemned as a blood-thirsty dictator and one who was "childish"?

How come the contributors do not ammend the Amin page to give us a more neutral version of that history?

BayanTree quoted a "disgusted Ugandan" who was reacting to the profile of Museveni as given by Bamboo and associates. How come, then, that BayanTree was eager to quote this "disgusted Ugandan" as "proof" that Bamboo's contribution on Museveni is dubious, when another Ugandan who copied that same feature to the disgusted Ugandan, seems to agree with and even gives us the fact that Museveni's real father is now living in Tanzania?

It is nice to see BayanTree quote the unser page, UgNet. At least this is an acknowledgement that this page is not a "fringe" source.

I hope when I quote it soon, it will not be dismissed by BayanTree when it suits her, but regarded as fringe and dibious when Bamboo quotes it.

The jury, I am afraid, is still out on Museveni.

Why are you so afraid of letting this other side to Museveni come out? It seems to me that the best thing BayanTree can do is to let it stay there for a week and invite Ugandans to come and view it.

You will be shocked how many agree with it.

My edits will continue coming.

I see that the first thing you did was make each sentence a separate paragraph. Like I said, you've been told about that here, on your talk page, in edit summaries and you just keep doing it. Since your accusations are still unsourced, I refer other readers to the above archives for details on that. Your version was already seen by Ugandans in my external link above, and they hardly agreed with it. And I won't let any such vandalism last for a week. - BanyanTree 14:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And again. Bamboo, do you really think that just removing the birthplace, as opposed to writing your normal unsourced essay on how Museveni is a half-breed foreigner, is acceptable? Especially given the well-sourced discussion above between me and TreveX on birthplace?

Note to other users: I am treating Bamboo (and his/her anon) edits involving unsourced allegations as vandalism at this point, and am posting the "test" sequence of messages on his talk page after each reversion. If test4 is reached, I will start blocking after edits that follow his/her normal pattern. I briefly thought about creating an RfC on this article, but then realized that I have no qualms about this course of action. If any other user feels an RfC is needed, please feel welcome to start one. Regards, BanyanTree 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bamboo's reply to critics

I have been receiving messages from BayanTree which, frankly, no longer warrant my response. BayanTree is not my supervisor or editor, so I am not under any moral obligation to listen to those lectures.

At first when I was being questioned by Wikipedia contributors, I pressumed myself to be in error and since I was new to the encyclopedia, I felt I should listen to what those who had been there before. However, I have now discovered the same prejudices in BayanTree as I am accused of carrying and therefore, I am under no obligation to listen to the voices on this website.

I will place the material as I feel I should. BayanTree in a message said he/she would not allow my edits to last for a week. Well, that's exactly what I have in mind about the BayanTree edits. In my case, it will be everyday.

We shall battle over the truth about Museveni and much happening in Central Africa, if need be, indefinitely. You are going to have to get used to the frustration of your shallow version of Museveni's history being removed everyday. EVERYDAY!

If you block me, I will wait until the block is lifted. If it becomes permanent, I will take on another identity. You will have to be the ones to tire of this battle. Should the worst come to the worst, we shall open a debate in Ugandan newspapers on Wikipedia and which is the true story of Museveni.

I have no more to discuss as far as Museveni is concerned except to make it a point of removing your pedestrian edits at every opportunity I get. However, I will heed the technical Wikipedia guidelines on editing, the size and format of sentences, and so on.

Bamboo, as I said on your talk page, try submitting some single paragraph, focussed edits. We strive for consensus here, there are no battles to be fought. Wikipedia is far too big for a single editor to impose their opinion. Wizzy…☎ 10:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Double standards in Idi Amin article on Wikipedia

Some of the contributors to Wikipedia's article on Museveni have, clearly, been jealous for his reputation, making sure that such mavericks as Bamboo do not contaminate Museveni's history with all sorts of fringe and defamatory material.

That is gallant and in the spirit of Wikipedia, which we all admire.

The problem arises naturally in another part of Ugandan history. This same Wikipedia that has contributors so careful not to see Museveni "maligned" feel nothing about breaking Wikipedia's own technical and editorial rules and branding Amin a "dictator".

Who defines a dictator and whose authority names Amin a "dictator"? Amin is described as "childish" and in other generally ugly terms. It is claimed that he killed over half a million Ugandans. Nobody has ever come out to produce those half a million names.

Amin is subjected to this unfair and one-sided view. Let the same one-sided view be used on Museveni and all contributors on Museveni jump in to lynch Bamboo.

What hypocrites you are!

Prominence in Google!

This page is now the number one result for 'museveni' and 'yoweri museveni' in Google![5][6] For some reason, his official page museveni.com, which was number one, seems to have gone offline. It is also number one and numer two in Yahoo for 'yoweri museveni'[7] and 'museveni'[8], respectively. TreveX^talk 12:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)