Talk:Axum massacre

One-source tag
Martin Plaut gives the impression that his info is mostly, if not all, from EEPA; and David Alton refers to Martin Plaut (mistyping "Plant" instead of "Plaut"). Clearly Alton is taking the info seriously enough to raise the question officially, but that still only tells us that international pressure might be raised from the UK to allow journalists and human rights investigators into the Tigray Region. It's not a real source of info. So I think that keeping the one-source-only tag makes sense for the moment. Boud (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jan Nyssen has existed for a year (the article, not the person) without editing controversy and he's an academic source. His article has certainly existed for a lot longer than Europe External Programme with Africa. We obviously still need more sources, but I don't see the one-source tag as being justified any longer, so I removed it. Boud (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"International pressure" is invariably a bad thing in history (and a euphemism for something else) and I hope you realize it is not wikipedia's purview to play any role in accommodating this behavior while so scrupulously pretending yourself to be "neutral"... KZebegna (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was only commenting on pressure, without stating any constraints on their nationalities. Neither the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission nor the Ethiopian Human Rights Council can investigate properly if they're blocked by soldiers or too afraid for their personal security. The same applies to Ethiopian journalists. Wikipedia does not do investigations itself, but it is definitely not neutral in its aim of promoting encyclopedic knowledge. Wikipedia strongly advocates open distribution of knowledge that has been obtained by independent sources. Wikipedia has many specific guidelines, and is not neutral about those. Boud (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the number of sources, the third source is Le Monde. The original text is which is . "Le Monde Afrique" means the Africa section of Le Monde. So Le Monde claims to have an independent witness, but didn't choose to give any new information. Boud (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Alleged
I do not know why the "alleged" tag is being re-added, because I do not see in the sources where doubt has been cast on the veracity of reports. All news sources are reporting this as the truth. A citation is needed for the "alleged" nature of the incident. Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody in Ethiopia can believe these reports given the reverence most Ethiopians have for this place.  They are all reporting this is false.   There are other points of view here and you must take the blinders off your eyes and see that YOUR point of view does NOT enjoy a monopoly here. KZebegna (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , [citation needed] Elizium23 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Otherwise you are saying typically that Ethiopians' own opinion of their internal affairs doesn't count, and only foreigners based on hearsay are qualified to know what is going on, and allowed an opinion on it. Deep down, I think you know better than that, but if you don't rest assured others here do understand this. KZebegna (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , [citation needed] Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are plum crazy if you think a citation is required thatthis has been alleged and there is no proof whatsoever but hearsay. I don't want to work with editors like you. KZebegna (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I advised you to educate yourself with a dictionary on the meaning of "alleged". The purpose of "alleged" is not even to mean that doubt has or has not been cast. It means these are allegations, which they undeniably are. Unconfirmed hearsay allegations. Your whole crusade here is flawed because you don't seem to understand the meaning of "alleged". KZebegna (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's not enough sources at this point to say if this massacre 100% did happen or not. Unless we get more reliable sources reporting on this like the Mai Kadra massacre I say we keep it as alleged for now. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , are there credible sources disputing it? If there is no source to dispute it then we are not allowed to call it alleged! Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Says who? The word "alleged" as I pointed out does not mean it is or is not disputed (though I assure you it is and your POV does not enjoy the monopoly you are clearly trying to pov-push and pretend here). But since alleged doesn't mean that, there is no need to prove now that it is even disputed. The word alleged simply refers to the hearsay and unconfirmed nature of these allegations in the report. I concur with Wowzers122. KZebegna (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]
 * The Polish Government has no problem believing and substantiating the reports. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "which was supposed to take place at the end of last year in front of the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Aksum in the Ethiopian province of Tigray.", so even the POles hedge their bets.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" is not a synonym for "disputed".  You are simply wrong.  If I had added the word "disputed", a citation might be in order, then I would need to back it up with a source disputing this account.  "Alleged" is perfectly neutral, it is a word specifically used to ADD neutrality, which is why newspapers have always added "alleged" even when there is no doubt, simply because the alleged perp has not been convicted by due process - so as not to be seen as jumping the gun on due process, as you are doing. And guess what, the Polish government also doesnt have a monopoly of opinion on Ethiopian affairs, the Ethiopian government's opinion counts too. KZebegna (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" is not a synonym for "disputed".  You are simply wrong.  If I had added the word "disputed", a citation might be in order, then I would need to back it up with a source disputing this account.  "Alleged" is perfectly neutral, it is a word specifically used to ADD neutrality, which is why newspapers have always added "alleged" even when there is no doubt, simply because the alleged perp has not been convicted by due process - so as not to be seen as jumping the gun on due process, as you are doing. And guess what, the Polish government also doesnt have a monopoly of opinion on Ethiopian affairs, the Ethiopian government's opinion counts too. KZebegna (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia attitude to the word "alleged" differs from that of newspapers. See MOS:ALLEGED: It's better to NPOV information that unfairly represents the sources rather than tell the reader "this is probably inaccurate", which doesn't give the reader any useful information. The exception is when individuals are on trial for a crime.


 * Once EHRC, the Inquiry Board and EHRCO visit Aksum, interview residents and publish their reports, we should have information from these Ethiopian sources and the article will become more NPOVed.


 * Proposal: instead of we could put " The Maryam Ts'iyon massacre was, according to Europe External Programme with Africa (EEPA), Jan Nyssen and Le Monde a mass murder event that took place ... "


 * That way, we immediately tell the reader that it's a claim made by three sources. The reader will judge how seriously s/he wishes to take the sources. Any objections? Boud (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Elizium23 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough, but as an aside, it's curiously notorious how the "wikipedia attitude" to so many things, particularly with regard to how English words ought to be understood and defined, differs from all conventional usage in the rest of the world on so many points... Giving words their own in-house meaning is precisely how jargon arises. KZebegna (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regarding the aside: the Wikipedia attitude is mostly just a formalisation of academic culture (for reviews of knowledge), but much more open to the world than typical specialist elite academic communities. As for this particular case, it's rather about avoiding WP:JARGON rather than encouraging it. Boud (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Regina Lynch is not a fourth source
Regina Lynch is not a fourth source; and in Sit Rep 68, EEPA made two significant sourcing errors.

In Sit Rep 68 - 27 Jan 2021, EEPA states, This is a nearly correct quote of this Vatican report "Aid to the ...". However, there are two significant errors: This ACN article "Standing with ..." says that Regina Lynch is an ACN project manager, and uses quotation marks very differently from EEPA's reconstruction: is unquoted. Lynch only states
 * EEPA inserted quotation marks that were absent in the source;
 * EEPA did not make the effort to search for ACN's article - a better quality source for what Regina Lynch stated.

So, according to ACN, Lynch does not confirm 750 killed or the place or date; she only confirms the general pattern of killings and terror. The Vatican misleadingly dropped the quotes and gave the impression that Lynch confirms the scale, place and date ("November", which disagrees with EEPA 53: 15 Dec, and Nyssen: 17-20 Dec). EEPA 68 misleadingly inserted quotes, and misleadingly (whether by error or deliberately is irrelevant to us) dropped "we have not been able to verify the exact details of what would be a real massacre", which is, according to ACN itself, the only thing that Lynch stated specifically about the massacre.

The practical conclusion is that if someone wishes to include a quote by Lynch in this article (or related ones), then it should be, it seems to me, from the ACN article, not from the Vatican or from EEPA 68 or from other sites that misquote Lynch. It's clear that Lynch (unfortunate name) does not confirm the key details. She does not count as a fourth source. At best, she counts as a "source seeking information who hasn't found confirmation for the scale, place or date". (Lynch seems like a well-identified, possibly Wikipedia-notable person, e.g. profile, Syria involvement.) Boud (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It just goes to show you never know when these sources acting as secondary or tertiary are misrepresenting a quote for some other purpose, as they have been known to do before. KZebegna (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources overview
This is trying to get an overview of the sources in :
 * Getu Mak (Adigrat University lecturer) - 28 November, later 720 bodies collected at church; unclear if the "hundreds" of house-to-house victims are included in that or not
 * Woinishet (direct interview) - undated, but sometime after 4 November and a lot before 20 January
 * EEPA 53 - gives the most detailed "happened in the church" account; date = 15 Dec; N = 750
 * Nyssen - similar account to EEPA 53, but 17-20 Dec; N = 750
 * Le Monde (half a sentence saying that the EEPA version is confirmed by an independent witness)
 * Ethiopia Insight witness says that 243 bodies were buried in the church on a single unspecified date

Missing so far:
 * Ethiopian Human Rights Commission - govt agency, legally independent, but in practice has to worry about how far it can criticise the authorities without endangering itself
 * Ethiopian Human Rights Council - NGO, no formal power to require ENDF or transitional government or other authorities to cooperate in any way at all
 * independent international human rights orgs - not authorised to enter the area, want high-quality direct interviews, other lines of evidence
 * journalists - unable to enter the area and report safely

My rewrite is based on the conservative assumption that there was only one massacre in Axum on the scale of about 750 or so victims in one day. It remains possible that there were two separate massacres: the 28 November one and the mid December one. Boud (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, this seems like two different massacres and the possibility of that should at least be mentioned in the introduction. Wowzers122 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How about ? The possibility is delayed to the final sentence of the lead (introduction), since by then it's reasonably obvious that either some sources have some major details wrong, or there were two major massacres. Boud (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: I constantly complain about people violating WP:RELTIME, but in this case, it's extremely unlikely that the lead will remain unedited on a 1-year or longer time scale, so a reference to "now" seems acceptable for the moment. Boud (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Source list - we have another source: Whatever details finally emerge, it looks unlikely that the final execution count will be less than many hundreds. High time for an independent investigation and visit by journalists. Boud (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the Libération witness agrees with Getu Mak on the date of the 28 November main street massacre and of the house-to-house looting+executions; he carried 300 to 400 corpses.

Now we also have:
 * Associated Press 18 Feb 2021 - interviewed:
 * a deacon of the church - witness - 800 on the weekend of 28 Nov, "thousands" in total from the daily executions
 * Getu Mak - witness (already above)
 * a witness who escaped to Mekelle and stated "How can I tell you? So many dead"
 * a witness Mhretab who escaped to the US

Boud (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

And we have: giving details mostly compatible, with some minor differences, to the EDF on 28 November as main massacre + continued daily executions versions. An interesting comment by Plaut, with decades of experience as a war reporter, "Civilians are frequently killed during wars, but a massacre of this scale is relatively rare." Boud (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * a new witness who escaped to the US with his family and somehow got into contact Martin Plaut,

The: This confirms most of the earlier reports, but it seems safe to downgrade the "mid-December" dates from EEPA/Nyssen's early reports to a brief note on the slow emergence of the reports getting out to the world, which I've done. Boud (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International report of 26 February is based on 41 witnesses/survivors, 20 people with relevant knowledge and satellite image analysis.


 * There were plenty of people travelling in and out of Axum for all this time, such as the camera crew from Addis Ababa that came to cover the religious festival on 30 November 2020, no less.
 * Here it is:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIaBCMPuQ4U
 * And with translation into English:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXyhikpFmJU
 * And there were working mobile phone connections, as even the Amnesty report confirms, and also Cara Anna's infamous fake article says she just called up people in Axum.
 * https://apnews.com/article/witnesses-recall-massacre-axum-ethiopia-fa1b531fea069aed6768409bd1d20bfa
 * What all these early reports testify to is not that it is somehow possible to cut off a city of 60,000 people from the world, but that the Axum Massacre began as a disinformation operation aimed at inciting religious fervour. 102.218.51.85 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Informal title change proposal
Proposed new title: Aksum massacre or Aksum massacres. Justification: With the deluge of new, mainstream media and more detailed witness reports, there seems to be a convergence on 28-29 Nov as the main massacre, with small daily executions before (one witness) and daily afterwards (several), and more importantly for the title, a part of the main massacre was in the church, but much of it was in the streets, in revenge for the Tigray militia killing some of the smallish EDF group prior to reinforcements arriving. A side advantage of the name change is that it would bypass the issue of various spellings of Maryam Ts'iyon/Mary of Zion. I suggest comments starting with an asterisk and then an overall opinion Support (singular) or Support (plural) or Support (both) or Oppose or Wait, and then the reasons. I'd like to see reactions before I add my opinion on this !vote. Boud (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ to Axum massacre; a technical request to switch to Aksum massacre is now queued. Boud (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Boud (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin Plaut is not a credible source
Martin has been repeating from website called Eritreahub which rumored to be operated by himself. On Twitter he has been questioned by readers who make the observation that Plauts news post end becoming discredited. He has a following amongst Diaspora TPLF posters and Tplf paid Eritrean opposition. Plaut is not a reliable sourceClownshking (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof this guy is pro-TPLF besides the words of a bunch of people on Twitter and having a large TPLF following? Wowzers122 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See Martin Plaut and the sources there. Plaut is a well-established journalist with decades of experience, and he is a member of Chatham House, and is currently a senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies. Boud (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Circumstantial evidence: Regarding the unsourced claim that Plaut might wish to support a single political party, see the section of the article (and the source) pointing out the situation during Apartheid, during which Plaut opposed the attempts of the African National Congress to gain a monopoly of support from the British Labour Party. His track record is to oppose political monopolies. Boud (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * His Twitter posts themselves are evidence of his bias. Essentially he is blogging Twitter user who gets into arguments with Ethiopians and Eritreans. He literally has made things up on his Twitter posts and does not correct when the facts are presented to him. He stopped being a journalist along time ago. Also he is alleged to be taking monetary compensation from TPLF.Clownshking (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Without reliable sources, that only counts as gossip. Boud (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * His Twitter posts themselves are evidence of his bias. Essentially he is blogging Twitter user who gets into arguments with Ethiopians and Eritreans. He literally has made things up on his Twitter posts and does not correct when the facts are presented to him. He stopped being a journalist along time ago. Also he is alleged to be taking monetary compensation from TPLF.Clownshking (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Example of his bias, Plaut does not like Abiy and he repeats Digital Woyane Twitter users, tplf agents in the Diaspora who have been on a disinformation campaign since the TPLF terrorist attack ENDF soldiers ethnically massmurdering 100s of Sidamo Oromo Amhara nontigrayan soldiers in their sleep.Clownshking (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please preview your indenting before clicking on 'Publish changes'. That will make it easier for others to follow the conversation. Bias and unreliability are two different things. Almost all sources used in Wikipedia are biased. The better we know the source, the better we know what its/his/her likely biases are. A Twitter post of Plaut claiming (by showing/forwarding a cartoon) that Abiy is controlled by Isaias is not usable in a Wikipedia article. However, it should not be difficult to find text written by Plaut where he makes that sort of claim. If you have a reliable source that Plaut is a TPLF agent or paid by the TPLF, then please provide that source, keeping in mind WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boud (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Plaut has consistently criticised PM Abiy since 2018 peace deal with Eritrea but has been completely apologetic for TPLF in all this TPLF led crisis. So by his own words on his blog and Twitter he is completely biased and an unreliable source. Anything he states should be attributed to him alone otherwise his rumor mill at EritreaHub will be presented as factual when his rumors have been debunked. Fact-checking so-called activist paid for press reporters is quite necessary. Also why is BLP violations allowed against Eritreans and Ethiopians but not other groups? PM Abiy can have his name attacked while Plaut can not?Clownshking (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:BLP if you think there are BLP violations against Eritreans or Ethiopians, such as Abiy Ahmed, but first try to carefully correct them yourself, clearly explaining in the edit summary, and if you have difficulty reaching consensus based on sources with other editors and using the talk page, then post your worry at the BLP talk page. I recommend that you avoid hypothesising about the motivations of editors if you post your worry to the BLP talk page. Boud (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Move this article's title to Axum massacre
Ayone that has actually visited Axum in the last 20 years (whether they flew into Axum Airport or travelled overland - I've done both) will know that it is overwhelmingly "AXUM" (with that exact shortened and intuitive spelling that is used - as derived from both the Greek and Roman names that is seen locally as the name of the town in Latin script. That's the spelling that appears on (very rare) roadside direction signs in Latin script and (very common) tourist oriented signage (such as on the the Axum Ghion hotel with 76 beds - before it was pillaged by the Eritrean Army).

Since this is the English language Wikipedia we should not be using a transliteration of either the Tigrinya ኣኽሱም; Ge'ez አኵስም Ak̠ʷsəm or Amharic አክሱም Ak̠sum for our article title ! BushelCandle (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to play Devil's advocate, it was the invading Italians who opened a telegraph office at Axum on 21 April 1936 and a post office on 22 June 1936. Its cancellations read AXUM * ETIOPIA in 1936 and AXUM * ERITREA from 1937. The Ethiopian Postal Service still uses the spelling AXUM. BushelCandle (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet, there is AKSUM university. I think philosophy has changed since the 1988 Schneider article. KS fits with the spelling in Ethiopic languages. Rastakwere (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Better centralise this discussion at Talk:Aksum. In principle, the massacre could have a different spelling to the town based on common usage, but I think there are few enough editors involved that sorting it out first at the town article would make the most sense. Boud (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, BushelCandle (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Factual accuracy
Why isn't the article factual accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowzers122 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the flippant reply should be: "Because I'm too lazy and ignorant and there are not enough hours in the day" (or, more acidly: "Because I'm too timid to revert the partisan edits").
 * Seriously though, many of us do try our very best... BushelCandle (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What innacuarices are there?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that this was a misunderstanding based on stating "copy edit material changed by User:Wowzers122 without prejudice to its factual accuracy or sufficiency of sourcing...Also MOS:Time". See the lead of prejudice (legal term) for the term "without prejudice". What BushelCandle meant (feel free to correct me) is that the edit was made without judging whether or not the material was factually accurate or not. It wasn't a claim of factual inaccuracy. Boud (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Spot on, Boud  !   BushelCandle  ( talk ) 00:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the template at the top of the page that said: "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." What is there to even judge? Aren't Eritrea Hub and Amnesty reliable sources? Or am I wrong again? Wowzers122 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see a tag like that at the top of the page right now, so that seems to be solved. So getting back to current issues: there's still a POV check tag at the top of the Massacre section. This only says that there's a request to check the POV. I'm not sure who put the tag there, but I guess if anyone feels that it is still needed, then s/he should speak up and maybe propose what needs to be changed if the changes are likely to be controversial. Otherwise WP:BRD. Boud (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I made the discussion when the tag was still up there. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the tag has now been restored by an editor that has abused multiple accounts and told lies in edit summaries... BushelCandle (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Current mapping
Thanks are due to Rastakwere for sourcing this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349824181_Tigray_Atlas_of_the_humanitarian_situation BushelCandle (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reminder that ResearchGate is a self-publishing platform. Platonk (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Mapping out the massive disinfo operations
Have you forgotten the famous saying about "the first causalty of war is the truth"???

Without claiming to know the definitive answer to what happened in Axum, I have mapped out the massive disinformation effort surrounding the initial version of the Axum Massacre, which was initiated by Martin Plaut, holding that about 750-800 church-goers were gunned down in the central square and, later claimed by Cara Anna in Associated Press, their corpses were eaten by hyena.

There was a complete lack of accountability when this was revealed to be false, which tells us, at the very least, to be skeptical of more accounts based on anonymous witnesses.

Read this section if you want to know what we do know for sure:

https://rsonderriis.substack.com/p/getting-ethiopia-dead-wrong#:~:text=Do%20we%20know,in%20the%20way.

I also point out serious problems regarding the Amnesty report. Finally, if you read the entire piece, which is the product of years of research and insight into Ethiopian affairs, you will also understand that Lord Alton and especially Martin Plaut and Jan Nyssen have acted, very successfully, I must say, as dishonest atrocity propagandists with a political agenda throughout the war.

Rasmus Sonderriis 102.218.51.85 (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you might, but you are not an RS, and this is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)