Talk:Tigray War/Archive 1

Requested move 7 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Procedural close. Page moved by Ehoah88880 (talk) at 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC). Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Tigray military intervention → Tigray conflict – Most coverage of this incident treats it as far more than just a military intervention", for example see Tigray region alleges bombings in Ethiopia’s ‘unexpected war’, Ethiopia on the edge as conflict breaks out in Tigray, Ethiopia conflict escalates as army sends more troops to Tigray region etc. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Support and comment In my opinion, it was odd to see "military intervention" in the title while I also saw a lot of media using "conflict" or "offensive" in their articles. Conflict is the most named in the articles but offensive is also widely used. However, I think the name "Tigray conflict" is just temporary since some media tell us experts say it's possible the conflict would become a civil war in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of examples of media who use the word "conflict" are: DW, International Busines Times, Reuters, France 24, Indian Express, The Guld Times, BBC News. Few of these are major English-speaking media in the world.
 * A couple of examples of media who use the word "offensive" are: Yahoo News, Arise, The New Times, The Stars, The African Report, Radio Pakistan. Since these aren't major media we can add these as "also known as".


 * Support.--Fontaine347 (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Ethiopian and Tigrian governments are both referring to this as a war.XavierGreen (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Conflict is the most fitting and neutral term. Leviavery (talk)
 * Support – I think "Tigray conflict" would be best since most of the most prominent news sources listed above used it (the New York Times being a notable exception). Despite the involved governments referring to it as a war (assuming that is correct), we would need to wait for reliable third-party sources to describe it that way to name the article "Tigray war". That may happen but hasn't happened yet. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I believe changing the name to something more fitting per se Tigray Conflict, Tigray Military Conflict or even Tigray Insurgency would be most fitting, as it is a neutral term and gives a clear understanding of the conflict to the reader at first glance. If things escalate, then Tigray War would be more fitting. BudgieGuy16 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)BudgieGuy16BudgieGuy16 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altenative title - I originally made an article titled 2020 Tigray conflict. There have been several conflicts in this region over the centuries, there is a clear reason to be precise. --Varavour (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because Neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.53.205 (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a neutral title following the usual conventions. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - 2020 Tigray conflict would be a better name, since this is more than just an intervention. Soon this may even become what many are calling a new Ethiopian civil war. |1 |2 |3 SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn’t have been a proposal. Moved Ehoah88880 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. !votes are split between the current title, the proposed one, and potentially other options especially "Tigray Crisis". There are reasonable arguments on both sides. I suggest waiting a few months for the dust to settle and trying again to find out what name sources are using. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tigray conflict → 2020 Tigray conflict – There have been several conflicts in Tigray in the past century alone: the Ethiopian Civil War in Tigray, the Woyane rebellion, the rebellion of Ras Mengesha Yohannes, to just name some. This is a part of the world whose history stretches back thousands of years, and as such there have been numerous conflicts throughout that history. To suppose that this is the Tigray conflict violates our need to avoid presentism and to be precise. Hence, the article should be moved to 2020 Tigray conflict. --Varavour (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - or “Tigray conflict 2020”? Either way, I agree. User:Jeffreydavidspeck 17:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Yes I strongly support. This conflict in Tigray Region is not the only conflict throughout the Ethiopian history, the Woyane rebellion for an example was took place in Tigray Region in 1940s. The Supermind (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposed title implies that the conflict will be over by December 31. That does not sound realistic.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, seems more accurate than the current title, with regard to the problem raised by Calmecac5, perhaps we could rename it to Tigray conflict (2020-present) if the conflict is still ongoing as of January 1. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait This conflict would probably be called a war in the coming days or weeks; it's pointless to change it to "2020 Tigray conflict" if after a couple of days or weeks the media call it a war then it has to be changed over again that looks pointless and unnecessary work. If within a couple of weeks no major English sources call it a war then we may change it to the "2020 Tigray conflict". Currently, it can be described as a war at any moment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait There is already a shift towards the term war, see here, and here (at the bottom of the second one). Other sources seem to be holding off from the term for now but they may switch soon. Would support including "2020" in the name, though, as per . Gazelle55 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As per nominator, this article is specifically about the conflict in 2020 and whilst Wikipedia doesn't have any articles about Tigray conflicts in any other years, there is potential for people to confuse the article for other conflicts (particularly the Tigray-led Ethiopian Civil War). As to whether we should wait and see whether "conflict" should be changed to "war", there's no reason why adding the year into the title needs to wait for that decision - we can do both in parallel. I see no issue with changing the title now, even if that means it could change again in a couple of days time to 2020 Tigray war. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the only conflict involving the Tigray people that has been called the Tigray conflict. The others mentioned above use different names, and thus there is no need for a redirect. RBolton123 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 80.221.244.5 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is a strong possibility this will continue into next year then the name 2020 Tigray conflict will be wrong and we'll have to change it back. So wait until the conflict is finished before we put a year in front of it.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't know when this conflict will be ended. Most of all, we don't call other conflicts which occurred in the same region by "Tigray conflict". Like "Woyane rebellion", it has own name, so we don't have to think about context of history right now. -- Wendylove (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only war with the name Tigray in it. Wowzers122 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the only conflict that has been named as such and would not confuse one with any other conflict as none are named the same. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Weak support per Mikrobølgeovn. Flalf Talk  19:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until the 72 hour surrender ultimatum has passed. Hate having to use that as a reason. In any case,  Oppose since Tigray Conflict appears to be the only one of its name. Idunno271828 (Talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it seems like there is another 'Tigray conflict' which never exist. 196.189.89.245 (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait We have no idea when this conflict will finish. It could go on until 3000, for all we know. We should wait for the conflict to end, then see if it's in 2020. If it is, wonderful! Use 2020, otherwise just leave it as is.--PremierePrush (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support a gd fan (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no need for a redirect. Colin dm (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait We don't know if this will overflow into 2021. Besides, the official name is still Tigray conflict. A change on Wikipedia will mean a lot of change elsewhere as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MotorizedVehicle (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If the conflict does hypothetically extend beyond 2020 it will be a simple matter to update the name. There are no "official" names for such conflicts, so it makes sense to have a title which best describes the topic. I don't see a pressing reason not to add the year, as opposed to the usage of "conflict" vs "war," which has significant repercussions. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Although there are as yet no other articles about "Tigray Conflicts", the background on this article clearly states this is only the current flare-up in a long standing "tribal" conflict. The article is totally about the current event. Agreed it could upgrade into a war, and will spill into 2021, but that can easily be upgraded. These ongoing episodes of violence need dates to define them. 2605:8D80:4C0:509A:3140:7B09:E9A4:14F1 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The clarification using the year in question seems obvious to me. To all those arguing that the term "conflict" may change to "war" imminently, I remind you that en.wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. There is no reason why we should rush to the new term immediately once the general media starts describing it as such. Only once it has been established to be commonplace amoung our reliable sources. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Other wikipedia articles do the same.   Comfr (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The Woyane rebellion was a rebellion in the Tigray Province of the Ethiopian Empire in 1943, and is very similar to the present conflict we see in the Tigray Region today: because they see the Ethiopian government as illegitimate, a militia fights against the Ethiopian government and its Tigray and Amhara loyalists for Tigrayan self-rule. Moreover, aside from specific rebellions, the Ethiopian government has been at constant odds with the TPLF during the course of the Ethiopian Civil War. So a "Tigray conflict" is nothing new. What is new is the current rebellion taking place this year. Yes, it is true that the conflict could extend into 2021 or even 2022, but it's not like the page can't be renamed the "2020-21 Tigray conflict" later on. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I get 330,000 hits on Google News for "Tigray Crisis". I think that would be a better option, as it provides us with a proper name (as opposed to a descriptive name like the current title). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, but considering that "Tigray conflict" is also a widespread term on Google to describe the current conflict, and that most mentions to the topic on Wikipedia either refer to it as the "Tigray conflict" or the "2020 Tigray conflict," while the page title itself already uses the word "conflict," it would not be necessary to make that redirect. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Today I'm getting 55,800 search results for "Tigray conflict" on Google News, while "Tigray crisis" has quadrupled to 1,260,000. I think it's high time to consider Tigray Crisis as an alternative to the generic "X conflict" that so many nameless wars get stuck with. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment with the capture of Mekele, the conventional stage of the conflict has come to an end. We cannot rule out an insurgency, but that is really a topic for another article. I would note that, therefore, the point that this might spill into 2021 is now moot. --Varavour (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't fully agree. The Libyan Civil War (2011) and Libyan Civil War (2014-2020) are both considered to be part of the Libyan conflict (2011-2020). So if anything, insurgencies should be included in this article as well, as this article focuses on conflict in the Tigray Region from 2020 and onwards. Once given a distinction in Ethiopian history, I think the specific events beginning from the seizure of the Northern Command barracks in Dansha to ending at the Ethiopian victory in the Mekelle offensive will become a separate article from this one, perhaps titled the "TPLF rebellion". Moreover, regardless if the conflict lasts until 2025 for all I care, I don't think that should be a conflict to renaming the page "2020 Tigray conflict" because we could easily update the title to "2020-2021 Tigray conflict" if it did end up extending past 2020. That's not a problem hard to solve. --HyettsTheGamer2 (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Other conflicts in the Tigray region has different names so I don't see a necessity to disambiguate. --B1mbo (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only such conflict commonly known by this name, doesn't need additional clarification. -- Jayron 32 12:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Other conflicts in the future in the tigray area might also be named Tigray Conflict. So it should be changed to include 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran207 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support There is a possibility that future conflicts may arise in the very region stemming from the start of this conflict, the year 2021 is near and if the conflict doesn't end by 2020 and the majority of the fighting occurs in 2021, would it be still appropriate to use "2020 Tigray conflict"? Its like "World War 1", it wasn't called that until the time when World War 2 started, wherein "World War 1" is just called "The Great War". In my opinion we should wait until the conflict subsides. Nerozxd28 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Seems like this may blow up into a larger conflict with the majority of fighting perhaps in 2021; currently this is a unique name for this event so it does not need to be urgently changed like the recent Armenian conflict was. Once it's likely we know the outcome of this conflict (e.g. a month-long skirmish or a large international conflict) we can better determine the naming scheme. If we know it's just going to be a small month-long conflict, 2020 Tigray conflict is apt but if it's a larger war, I oppose this name. DannyDouble (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wendylove. Ytpks896 (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait: There is a possibility that this conflict could escalate into a war, as what many here have said. Now is too early to discuss this in my opinion. But I would say Oppose since "Tigray conflict" seems to only refer to this one. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:3929:E7F0:26E8:DC77 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: per Mikrobølgeovn. A "2020-2021 Tigray Crisis" would work as well, should this spill over. Kingphantom9 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current title works fine, Note the Ethiopian view calls this a law enforcement operation that ended last week, and they say the junta causing the conflict have been arrested. KZebegna (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The conflict is not the first of its kind but the name isn’t used before. Ridax2020 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Request Name Change 15 November 2020
Should the name be changed to the 2020 Ethiopian Civil War, considering nearly a 1000 have already died on both sides and it is getting such a huge international coverage?
 * We can't make that judgement as Wikipedia editors. We would have to wait for reliable sources to start referring to it as a civil war and then reflect their coverage. Gazelle55 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/14/ethiopias-civil-war-becomes-regional-missiles-strike-eritreas/


 * Oppose Right now the conflict is almost entirely within Tigray province and entirely about Tigray province. I don't think it's appropriate to change the title from "Tigray" to "Ethiopian". AndrewRT(Talk) 13:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * see Nigerian Civil War --93.137.133.38 (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree other countries sher interest in the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.34.10.249 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait we cant make that judgement as wikipedia editors like what Gazelle55 had said, we should wait until we see most sources calling it a civil war. There are a few, but most are simply calling it the “Tigray conflict” or “Tigray war”. Also if we are changing it to civil war then the name must be “Second Ethiopian Civil War” or “Ethiopian Civil War (2020)” not “2020 Ethiopian Civil War” Ehoah88880 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Reliable sources are calling this a war. Reuters: AP:  80.221.244.5 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is not a nation-wide conflict. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I get 149,000 hits on Tigray Crisis. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Ethiopian Civil War" makes it sound like all of Ethiopia, a large country... whereas the fighting is now mainly just around the city of Mekelle, and refugees have gone to nearby Sudan. KZebegna (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support There are ample reliable sources that are calling this a civil war for Ethiopia. Please see https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/11/16/ethiopias-civil-war-is-spreading-outside-its-borders, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/19/ethiopia-conflict-civil-war-president and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-conflict-explained.html For these reasons, I strongly support the suggested change. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Short Description
I think there is a need to monitor closely the Short Description. You don't see it if you are working on a computer but it appears that it can be abused. Presently it reads: "Armed conflict between Tigray People's Liberation Front and non-state military units of Ethiopia and Eritrea in November 2020". Roundtheworld (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks for flagging. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, you can see it on computer if you enable 'Shortdesc helper: easily add and edit page short descriptions' in the gadgets options. Madbrad200 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

19 November
Not so sure about including the para on Tedros of the WHO. The timeline should concentrate on facts, not allegations. If an international warrant had been issued for his arrest that would be another matter, but an "allegation"?Roundtheworld (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Roundtheworld, it appears that the allegation is sourced properly and though it is an allegation, because of the proper sourcing, I believe it should be allowed as it allows for an explanation of the actions being taken. There have been many who made allegations (even that were proven untrue) that is part of history and it is well documented. I agree, allegations should not be the majority of the article, but believe it has a limited place. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

the wikipedia page is broken?
apologies if this isn't the right place to mention it, but the formatting of the page seems to be broken. I compared it to some revisions from earlier today and yesterday and those pages looked fine to me, but this current revision has broken something. I don't know how to fix it myself which is why i'm whining instead of fixing it ahah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneAndOnlyMuffinCat (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Flalf Talk 19:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here. Impractical666 (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline
Should we move the timeline to a new page? It's a bit convoluted and long and I think it would be better fitted to have it's own page. (as done in similar cases) <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 18:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Wowzers122 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully supportRoundtheworld (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please leave timeline here, this is very helpful for people getting in touch with the topic for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:A47A:B700:B117:77DD:9A28:9F8F (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a simplified course of the conflict with a link to the timeline. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 07:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Online hate speech
This section does not mention Tigray and seems unrelated to the topic of the article. While I have no doubt that what is stated is true I believe that it does not fit here and should be deleted. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The person who added it did not make clear what possible intended connection he had in mind, beyond pure "guilt by association", a shabby way of thinking that should have perished in 1945, but has again returned to plague the world recently. KZebegna (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's context. I don't see any aspects of "guilt" in the paragraph. This is not just a conflict only about Tigray, it's a conflict between a government that has merged ethnically-identified parties - Oromo, Amhara and other ethnic identity based parties in Ethiopia - into the Prosperity Party, which the TPLF, which dominated the country until just two years ago, refused to join. Ethiopia is going through a debate about centralisation versus federalisation and ethnic-based political parties versus attempts to create politics/economics/social-goals based political parties. The relation between purely verbal/digital ethnic conflicts and physical, violent (lethal) ethnic conflicts in Ethiopia is at the core of the topic of this article.
 * Oromo ethnic nationalism is partly an anti-domination-by-Tigray movement, from the history prior to 2018.
 * A major worry that Abiy has had for over a year, as stated in most serious sources, including those prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, is that a federal election and the existing constitution risked leading to strengthening of ethnic "nationalism". Abiy also got into power to a fair degree according to Oromo online (and offline) ethnic nationalism.
 * Abiy's government has cut off internet connections to the Tigray region. Without knowing that the internet was was a key factor in ethnic massacres, readers have one of the elements of context missing if they wish to speculate why the decision to cut off the internet was made.
 * Online ethnic tensions are part of the context here. Boud (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So if you have no source specifically tying this in with the article topic, it seems like Wikipedia then is the now first source ever to make these new connections or suggestions of a connection. KZebegna (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives the context here. Claims of causal connections should not be excluded, but an article is not intended to present a thesis. Researchers will study the connections between context and events in the long term. We cannot exclude context because we think that online ethnic-based hate speech suddenly vanished from Ethiopia. "Connections" make sense if you are trying to establish a thesis and wish to bias your thesis by ignoring context that doesn't match your hypothesis. "Context" makes sense if you are just collecting reliably sourced information that gives the general background. Boud (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are assuming (1) that internet hate speech is in some way connected with the TPLF decision to hold elections and (allegedly) attack the Northern Command and (2) that the Government's closure of the internet was connected to this, when it is more likely to have been an effort to disrupt TPLF communications. It seems to me that the hate speech issue can be incorporated as one sentence. We do not need an entire para on the topic, particularly one that seems primarily designed to attack Facebook. And I note that you have now added another para based on speculations of a Washington Post journalist. It seems that you have material for an article on "Social media in Ethiopia" but I do not believe your insertions in this article are particularly helpful. Roundtheworld (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The idea of Wikipedia "suggesting" a "context" that no one else out there has ever "suggested" or published before, makes this idea a "Wikipedia original". We used to have policies against just that and hopefully still have those policies. KZebegna (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I am not making an assumption about a "connection"; the issue is context, not connections. (1) There are many aspects to the conflict: the TPLF decision to hold an election; the alleged attack on the Northern command; the federal decision to attack Tigray region; the cutting off of communication; at least one ethnic-based massacre and possibly another massacre claimed to be by Amharas against Tigrayans at Humera. (2) The following is original research: . Only time and investigation will (or might) reveal what the deciding factors were. There is indeed a policy against censorship in Wikipedia: . The information about Facebook's role is not mine. Facebook's role in the Rohingya genocide is well-known and has nothing to do with an attack against Facebook; it's a documentation of Facebook's role, so let's drop the "designed to attack" claim. Ethnic tensions and killings and the role of Facebook are not the only context to the Tigrayan conflict, but I'm not going to keep repeating common sense ad infinitum. Boud (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Northern Command
The alleged defection of the Northern Command was denied by the Federal Government, so it should be mentioned on the combatant template that this event is disputed and claimed only by TPLF. This will affect the neutrality of this article. OKMG-1200 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As of the 29th I don't see this. Do you mean the regional government in combatants? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 07:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Update needed
So? What happened? The deadline is in the past. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After the ultimatum the government launched 'the final phase' of the attack on Mekelle. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 07:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Location of Northern Command Post(s)?
I have read in some news accounts that it was an ENDF base in Dansha, Western Tigray that the TPLF attacked on November 4, and I have also seen some stories that said on November 4 the TPLF attacked bases in both Dansha AND Mekelle, thus triggering the conflict. Can anyone ascertain whether it was in fact two bases the TPLF attacked at the start, or only one? KZebegna (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen from more reliable sources it was just one in Mekelle which triggered the conflict, although that probably led to the seizure of other bases in the region by the TPLF. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 06:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the sources I saw are far more reliable, and it is your sources that are false information. KZebegna (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @KZebegna, why are you asking the question if you know the answer already? Then give your sources Rastakwere (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked the question on Nov 26, but by Nov. 29, another editor had already added RSS to the timeline clarifying that the Dansha barracks was also targeted at the outset... KZebegna (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Flight to Sudan
On Nov. 30 Spiegel reported that in Tigray "tens of thousands of people are fleeing massacres, looting and rape to Sudan" (in German). See also AlJazeera on Nov. 30 saying "more than 43,000 have fled to neighbouring Sudan" (in English). – Sca (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Rename to "Tigray rebellion"
The situation in Ethiopia's Tigray Region resembles a lot like a civil war. I think it would be better if it was called a "rebellion." The conflict is Ethiopia's domestic affairs, there aren't any foreign entities intervening. I found this article from CGTN who also labeled it as a rebellion: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-12-02/Senior-leader-linked-to-Tigray-region-rebellion-surrenders-VTHsQt7nBm/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyTankie1929 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Eritrea is involved and conflict is better per WPCOMMONNAME. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 14:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "rebellion" risks gets into the "who started it?" game. Like in most conflicts, this seems to be the usual case of step-by-step escalation in a system lacking sufficient peace mechanisms or other conflict resolution procedures in place. "Tigray rebellion" or "Ethiopian response to terrorism" or "Eritrean humanitarian intervention" would be extremely unlikely to obtain consensus as a title. Boud (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bias within intro of article?
There's a decent amount of the intro to this article that seems unfounded/lacking citations and uses language that isn't impartial. Specifically the text

"Thus TPLF officials started defying the orders from the federal government and have been making overt and covert actions to undermine and delegitimize the Ethiopian parliament, defense forces and the federal government.

Of all these egregious actions, TPLF's brazen attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Force's Northern command on Nov 4, 2020 compelled the federal government to respond with force and bring the TPLF perpetrators to Justice. In his last speech to the parliament on Nov 30, 2020 to announce the completion of the military action on TPLF forces, prime minister of Ethiopia compared this attack to the 1861 attack of Fort Sumter by the southern cessationist forces on the federal government of the US."

Not to mention some grammatical errors. I don't typically edit wikipedia since I'm less aware of the protocol, but wanted to bring it to attention since this article is becoming more and more popular as new headlines are popping up and directing people to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaboom326 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed those paragraphs, they weren't properly sourced anyway. There's probably quite a few less egregious examples as well, but getting rid of those clearly loaded paragraphs is a good start. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop hiding the Humanitarian Crises
''' I added the below very adequately verified/referenced paragraph, on the very latest humanitarian crises (which state around 2.4 million children Tigray region are cut off from humanitarian aid). It is from UNICEF, and many media outlasts like BBC, CNN and Yahoo! News are reporting it (which I added as a reference). There are even more references if needed ( https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/16/africa/ethiopia-tigray-un-children-humanitarian-aid-intl/index.html ). However, some want to hide the 2.4 million children's crises, so they are deleting my well referenced without a real reason. Please Admins help, as I don't want to get into an edit war.'''

The Tigray conflict is an ongoing armed conflict that began in November 2020 in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia, between two sides: the Tigray Regional Government that is led by the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF); and a military alliance between the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF), special forces of Amhara, Fano (an Amhara ethnic irregular militia) and Eritrean Defence Forces. About 2.3 million children are cut off from desperately needed aid and humanitarian assistance, said the United Nations (UN). The Ethiopian federal government has made strict control of access to the Tigray region (since the start of the conflict), and the UN said it is frustrated that talks with the Ethiopian government have not yet brought humanitarian access. These include, "food, including ready-to-use therapeutic food for the treatment of child malnutrition, medicines, water, fuel and other essentials that are running low" said UNICEF.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves Woolf1882 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves Woolf1882 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to the "Ethnic profiling of Tigrayans" section
Speaking with The New Humanitarian (TNH) in a series of interviews over the past month, half a dozen Tigrayans living in the country’s capital described ethnic profiling and growing harassment. Such abuse and discrimination by neigbours, strangers, and government officials. “The war is not a surprise. But what came after the war, the way [Abiy] is doing it, is a surprise” said one witness. Tigrayans, who said they had no connections to the TPLF, told TNH they have felt targeted too. Some said they have found it harder to get jobs in recent years because of their ethnicity; others said they have fallen out with their neighbours and friends. Others sources have told the BBC that many Tigrayans, who are either current or former members of the armed forces, have been detained or have had their homes searched, and some put under house arrest. When asked for comment, Chief-of-Staff Gen Berhanu Jula told the BBC that this was "a political matter" and he was not in a position to respond. The ethnic profiling and disarming of Tigrayans in not limited to inside Ethiopia, diplomatic and security sources said that between 200 and 300 Tigrayans peacekeepers in Somalia had their weapons removed.“What do you do when you’re a force commander and you find you have 200 or 300 soldiers who can’t go into battle because of their ethnicity?” a security source told Reuters. Furthermore, this allegation of ethnic profiling is not limited to Tigrayan members of the military and the police.

Human Rights Watch said they have received reports of Tigrayans outside of Tigray region being harassed on the street, profiled at airports and cafes, and having their homes arbitrarily searched by Ethiopian security forces. A Tigrayan civilian witness BBC talked to (who asked to remain anonymous fearing for her safety) said, a group of armed people, who appeared to be members of the security forces, came to her home, searched it thoroughly, seized bank statements and took away her father, who makes his living as a driver.

The situation has worsened over the past month. Several of the Tigrayans said, police officers have harassed them on the streets of Addis Ababa after checking their identity cards, which indicate their region of birth.One woman, originally from Tigray, said members of her family who work for the government had their homes searched by armed men who took an inventory of their valuable household items – including their fridge, sofa and jewellery – shortly after the conflict broke out. Addressing the alleged discrimination she has suffered, the woman whose home was searched said: “Either [the government] are doing it without knowing the consequences, or they’re really out to get Tigrayans all over the country and create a new enemy.”

Bank accounts frozen, homes searched
The National Bank of Ethiopia has ordered the suspension of bank accounts opened in Tigray, according to reports in local media. It also ordered bank branches to close in the region. The freeze affected three of the six Tigrayans in Addis Ababa that TNH talked to. One provided a photograph of their bank teller’s computer screen, which confirmed the account was not working. Fearing arrest or physical assault if they leave their houses, some of the Tigrayans told TNH they haven’t worked for weeks and fear their savings will run out.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves Woolf1882 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves Woolf1882 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason
Dear. Sir, please stop reverting my well referenced edits, without a legitimate reason. There was has no good reason for you to undo my work, I was well referenced, backed by BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News, Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy. These all are not "inimical journalists" as you KZebegna categorizes them.

All my edits are verified on the references I gave along them. I was following Wikipedia's policies of improving articles by the addition of verifiable information. You should only remove unverified information. If you find anything that is not verifiable on the references I gave, then please point it out (but as you may have already checked, all my edits were verifiable on the given references).

With all due respect sir, please read Wikipedia Verifiability policy. It states "Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research".

It further says "Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Therefore, even if believe that all BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News, Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy are "inimical journalists", it is not what your belief that matters, but rather whether you can verify if these are "inimical journalists".

If you disagree, please point it out to a Wikipedia Administrator, instead of reverting my edits.

Kind regard, Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you have packed in every "Yellow Journalism" article disparaging Ethiopia, even the one accusing Abiy of having an "Amhara Imperialist agenda" which could not possibly be more distorted from the truth. This is pure "Yellow Journalism" comparable to the "Yellow Journalism" that maligned Spain in 1898, for example. It doesn't matter how "prestigious" you think are the foreign propaganda outlets you found, Yellow Journalism is still Yellow Journalism.  Whatever your personal political concerns, wikipedia must stay neutral and not endorse anyone's political views,the consequence is Wikipedia has the appearance of endorsing Yellow Journalism. KZebegna (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, sir, I did not pick any "Yellow Journalism", "inimical journalists" and so on. BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News , Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy are one of the most credible media outlets and/or organizations in the world. Of the more than 20 articles I used as reference from these media outlets, only one of them is an "author’s own view" of a senior University lecturer published on Al Jazeera, as clearly put on the bottom of the article (the article that you said mention the "Amhara Imperialist agenda"). And I did not use it as fact either, here is how I added it; I will copy past the whole paragraph below. I said "According to an Ethiopian born senior lecturer at Keele University....". None of the other articles are "author’s own view", but standard daily news which everyone reads.


 * According to an Ethiopian born senior lecturer at Keele University, "the war in Tigray is a continuation of the violent and widespread repression Abiy began in Oromia, Walaita and Sidama against those who resisted his vision of the future. After silencing dissent and opposition elsewhere in the country, Abiy and his camp are turning to Tigray, the last frontier in the battle over the character of the Ethiopian state."        Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, sir, for your information, the Keele University senior lecturer you are referring as a detractor, actually nominated Abiy Ahmed for the Nobel peace prize, before starting to criticize him now. Perhaps you should read this article too :- https://news.yahoo.com/ethiopia-wants-arrest-uk-academic-181950236.html Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that info, but despite once nominating Abiy for the Nobel, it's fair to say he has gone on to be a detractor, and that article certainly shows there is now some rancour between them, he was saying that before this conflict erupted, if that is on topic. At any rate we have tried to neutralize your edits that initially presented his soapbox views of Abiy's agenda as being fact, and that was my main concern. I am content now to wait to see if other editors have any thoughts on it. KZebegna (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Before getting into the specifics, here is a reminder on some elementary guidelines in order that the discussion on what text to include in the article can have a chance to converge on consensus: Boud (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edits on the talk should almost always be signed using ~ - see WP:SIGN (rare exceptions include adding unsigned for someone who forgot to sign);
 * The WP:LEAD is not normally the place to introduce new material. It is a summary of key points of the article. If there is any likelihood of changes being controversial, better first add them as a section, and give a chance for other editors to respond and reach a consensus. Any updates to the lead should be in reasonable proportion to what is in the body of the article;
 * Please read WP:RELTIME. We cannot write text about what "is" happening or what the situation "is now". We should edit as if our edit will be the last one and that for five or ten years nobody will make further corrections. There are still too many examples of articles in en.Wikipedia talking about what is "currently" the case, now in 2005 or 2010, for example, which is ridiculous. We can write about recent events covered in reliable sources, but we still write about them in the past.

The lead+Abiy's agenda and the Ethnic profiling section are two different issues. A broad request such as makes it hard to focus on specific issues. I'll start off two separate subsections to see if this can shift to a more focussed discussion. Boud (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and suggestion, and for trying to solve/mediate the issues. I take all of them to heart to heart. I agree with most of what you said, especially about WP:LEAD. (I always sign after editing the talk though, if there isn't a rare occasion where I forgot to do so). Anyhow, here is what I will do based on your comment.
 * I will first create a new subsection called the war's "Humanitarian Crises" first. It is however a very important, as Ethiopian governments has history of wiping out Tigrayan population to counter insurgency in Tigray. One example was the 1985 famine, where the Ethiopian government used policies, specifically a set of so-called counter-insurgency strategies (against Tigray People's Liberation Front guerrilla-soldiers) and for what the government called "social transformation" in non-insurgent areas.
 * I will keep in mind your WP:RELTIME comment also.
 * However, I do not agree that the ethnic profiling should be a whole new Wikipedia page. It is happening at an unprecedented level after the star of the war, as all the references point out. And it is related to the war.

Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Demonstration of Tigrayan and Eritrean community in Brussels 20201201 against war launched by Abiy Ahmed on Tigray (1).jpg
 * Demonstration of Tigrayan and Eritrean community in Brussels 20201201 against war launched by Abiy Ahmed on Tigray (7).jpg

Lead and Abiy's agenda
Proposal for handling the issue of Abiy's agenda in the lead: My own feeling is that opinions on Abiy's agenda (is he a Gandhi-like peacemaker as seen by the Nobel committee in 2019? or is he a ruthless bloodthirsty dictator? or somewhere in between?) only make sense in the background section, even if the dates of the commentary/analysis were made after 4 November. They also make more sense in the Abiy Ahmed article, not here. Interpreting why he gave orders, or to what degree he is really in control of everything that happens, is a matter for political scientists to study based on the available evidence. Boud (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) First start a subsection in a place in the article that makes sense to see if there is consensus to keep that here, either in the background, or in the post-4-November-2020 context.
 * 2) Try to negotiate editing of that subsection (or paragraph or sentence) using edit summaries in ways that are likely to achieve consensus in editing. Once edit summaries become insufficient for proper discussion, bring that discussion back to this subsection.
 * 3) Do not expand the Abiy-agenda part of the lead until/if there is reasonable consensus on the matching content in the body of the article. Once there is consensus on the body part, consider proposing text for the lead on the talk page and giving a reasonable delay before adding it into the lead.

Ethnic profiling in Ethiopia
The ethnic profiling content seems to have much too much content for a appropriately long section in this article. A summary essentially like a lead would make sense here, with a separate article created with an appropriate name.

Currently Ethnic profiling redirects to Racial profiling. The more specific articles I see include:
 * Racial profiling in Israel
 * Airport racial profiling in the United States
 * New York City Police Department Intelligence Bureau (subsection)
 * Stop-and-frisk in New York City

So I would suggest that most of the current section Tigray conflict be WP:SPLIT off to an article with a name such as Ethnic profiling in Ethiopia or Ethnic profiling of Tigrayans in Ethiopia. The stub template can be used to show that it's an incomplete stub and that it's starting off with content specific to the November/December 2020 Tigray conflict.

Wikipedia has a huge number of articles on Category:racism, of which ethnic profiling is a particular component. There is no point trying to cram all of this into a small subsection of the Tigray conflict. A brief summary and a main crosslink to the new article would be more encyclopedic and make it easier to solve editing conflicts. Issues of racism tend to be one of the most controversial in terms of handling editing conflicts in Wikipedia: all involved in editing on issues of racism in Ethiopia will very likely have to be patient and constructive and be willing to learn. Boud (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the process. There seem to be frequent edits of very vocal tigreans POV. I had to revert several times the delete of most, if not all, of the lead.--Aréat (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on : It's not as Manichean as Tigrayans vs Abiy/ENDF: Awol Allo is Oromo in origin, and switched from strongly pro-Abiy in 2019 (nominated him successfully for the Nobel Peace Prize) to strongly anti-Abiy in Nov 2020. I think the closest thing to a dichotomous debate is "federalism versus centralism", although of course, in reality, that's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. Anyway, editing should follow the aims of building a good encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here, your suggestions both here and in the above section on Abiy in the lead, seem quite sensible. KZebegna (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment and suggestion, and for trying to solve/mediate the issues. I take all of them to heart to heart. I agree with most of what you said, especially about WP:LEAD. (I always sign after editing the talk though, if there isn't a rare occasion where I forgot to do so). Anyhow, here is what I will do based on your comment.


 * I will first create a new subsection called the war's "Humanitarian Crises" first. It is however a very important, as Ethiopian governments has history of wiping out Tigrayan population to counter insurgency in Tigray. One example was the 1985 famine, where the Ethiopian government used policies, specifically a set of so-called counter-insurgency strategies (against Tigray People's Liberation Front guerrilla-soldiers) and for what the government called "social transformation" in non-insurgent areas.
 * I will keep in mind your WP:RELTIME comment also.
 * However, I do not agree that the ethnic profiling should be a whole new Wikipedia page. It is happening at an unprecedented level after the star of the war, as all the references point out. And it is related to the war. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Added talk-reflist. Boud (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead NPOV highly problematic
The lead of this article is, to put it bluntly, not remotely acceptable or fit for Wikipedia’s standards. It is rather obviously describing the conflict in the terms of one side (the TPLF), with little to no consideration given to different points of view. Among other problems: - Overuse and overemphasis on Awol to describe the conflict - Mentioning TPLF casualty claims of ENDF losses in the info box, without mentioning lower, more plausible claims - Not briefly describing the physical events leading up to the conflict (TPLF Attacks on army bases) - Mentioning Abiy Government harassing journalists, not mentioning TPLF history of authoritarianism - Barely any reference at all to TPLF’s historical control of Ethiopian politics - Few to no descriptions of the Federal Gov’t’s POV

These are serious problems. I don’t see how this is acceptable status quo for the article. The lead needs a serious revisions. Jogarz1921 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good edit. Thanks.Roundtheworld (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear everyone. I argue the the exact opposite of, the article especially the LEAD is (anti-TPLF, and express the views of the Amhara extremists). Since User:KZebegna (with all due respect) is a very harsh critic of TPLF and oppose it to the extreme, he believe there is still more room left to shift the article far to Amhara extremists side. I suggest, that it is better to focus on materials that adhere to the Wikipedia Verifiability policy. People should add what they can verify from reliable sources, but not what they feel is true (based on whatever Amhara extremism politics they follow.) KZebegna was yesterday calling all my references on this main page "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism", even thought all my references where from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Amnesty International, The New Humanitarian, Yahoo! News , Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy. So I don't know which medias are qualified by User:KZebegna.


 * My NPOV complaints about this page are listed below:-


 * The following well referenced part was removed and changed to something that hides the involvement of the Fano Amhara irregular militia, in the whole article:- The Tigray conflict is an ongoing armed conflict that began in November 2020 in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia, between two sides: the Tigray Regional Government that is led by the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF); and a military alliance between the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF), special forces of Amhara, Fano (an Amhara ethnic irregular militia) and president Isaias Afwerki's Eritrean Forces.<ref name="france24_ref_1">      


 * The following well referenced part telling TPLF's current position about the war, with an interview with France 24 has also been taken out:- The federal forces captured the Tigrayan capital of Mekelle on 28 November, after which Prime Minister Abiy declared the Tigray operation 'over'. The TPLF stated that it would continue fighting, until the 'invaders' are out. 


 * There is a propaganda from the Ethiopian federal government that the war started out of nowhere by a sudden attack on a military camp. But as International Crisis Group and reliable international media outlasts published for long, the war was coming, and even the federal government has been preparing for it.


 * The following line which someone else added is from a FAKE NEW. Both sides the the conflict (Tigray's government TPLF and the federal government) have said this is not true- "On 29 November claims that South Sudan was harboring Debretsion, led to the Ethiopian ambassador to South Sudan abruptly returning to Ethiopia, and South Sudanese diplomats in Ethiopia allegedly being given 72 hours to leave the country."


 * The following is also not really correct. The United Nations said they have been approved "on paper" by the federal government to access territories held by ENDF, but both the United Nations & the European Union asked (and are still asking to) to be allowed to access all parts Tigray to give humanitarian aid (as there may be malnourished children in all corners on Tigray, they said), not only on the ENDF controlled sides. Read the references on the Tigray conflict subsection. So these line is not 100% correct. "promised" should be changed to "was on paper allowed by the federal government". On 2 December the United Nations was promised humanitarian access to the territory held by ENDF in the Tigray Region.


 * This line is correct but should be updated so not to mislead (perhaps change " The first" to "One"). The first UN convoy reached Mekelle on 12 December.. Since, except for this convoy, UN, EU and all the other humanitarian organization are still saying they can't reach Tigray. All of them said this after 13 th December. Again read the references from Tigray conflict, they all came out after 13 December. Children are dying, it is not fair to hide humanitarian crises by saying everything is going well, when the UN, EU and all the other humanitarian organization say they are not. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Added talk-reflist template Boud (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment on personal attacks. In the above parts of this talk page, I do seem to see one violation of WP:AGF by KZebegna against Loves_Woolf1882 - claiming deliberate use of yellow journalism (= tabloid journalism); and a violation of WP:AGF by Loves_Woolf1882 against KZebegna - claiming an attempt to present extremist Amharan points of view and opposing the TPLF "to the extreme". Please let us accept that all involved editors are serious in trying to develop high-quality, WP:NPOV, correctly sourced (not overcited) material in this encyclopedia. Boud (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have not presented any "extremist Amhara point of view" and this is a false accusation. Let us not be so tiny minded.   Fact is there are a substantial number of Ethiopians, especially urban, who simply do not self identify as any one particular tribe, or are from multiple tribal ancestries mixed together in one person.  Such people can self identify as "Ethiopian", and leave their ancestries at the door mat.  As far as language, because Amharic happens to be the main lingua franca that can potentially be used among any two tribes, there are far more Amharic speakers, who may speak anywhere from two to six other languages as well, and relatively fewer who identify themselves specifically as "Amhara tribe".
 * When you have foreign newspapers trying to malign a UN member state using all their journalism tricks, what is that called?  Is it not called Yellow Journalism?  It was called that in 1898.  We saw Mussolini's Italian press do this very same thing in 1936, telling the world many lies about Ethiopia, looking for any disaffected voice they can blow out of proportion to the corners of the earth, as a pretext for making *all* the people far more disaffected.  Please note I told the other editor "It doesn't matter how 'prestigious' you think they are", and his response is basically "But *I* think they are prestigious!!!"...  Thumping "prestige" is basically an appeal to authority fallacy, it is prone to all kinds of abuse, once you accept someone as a "prestigious authority", anything they then say becomes like "gospel truth" that is above being critically questioned. KZebegna (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant in this context (this talk page), whether the accusation of an "extremist Amhara point of view" is true or false. What is relevant is that the claim focuses on your (KZebegna's) intentions instead of on your actual editing behaviour. The focus on your motivations is something like a personal attack against you; it's what we want to avoid. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL mean that we focus on editing content, and concrete editing behaviour, as logged in the public record.
 * Almost all UN member states are responsible for human rights violations, so responsible foreign newspapers criticise and document those violations based on journalistic procedures, with a certain degree of fact-checking and care in editing and publishing reports. The reality is that they are biased, and as per the Propaganda model, these patterns of bias are quantitatively studied as systematic (statistical) biases in the mainstream western media. However, this doesn't justify claiming that a user X is deliberately using these as sources (yellow journalism) while X is aware that the information is false or misleading.
 * There are many overlapping issues here. One standard Wikipedia way of reducing the number of issues is WP:AGF. Unless someone persistently is unable to follow Wikipedia guidlines, then we do not assume that s/he has bad intentions in editing.
 * Once we have accepted WP:AGF, there remain the actual editing issues, which themselves are of some complexity. It's acceptable to point out that someone made some editing mistakes or has a pattern of editing in a way that would better be changed, but without trying to claim that s/he made those mistakes with bad intentions. Boud (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with that. In terms of concrete edits, the record should show that almost none of the current lead was written by me, it was written by many others, and my edits to it have been mainly to straighten up the grammar or syntax etc. on occasion, certainly not to 'shift' anything, but it is true that I have been usually content with the 'consensus' worked out as written by the other editors. KZebegna (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the Lt. Col. rank from the photo of Abiy Ahmed, but I was reverted. I agree that his history in the military is important. However, I removed it from the caption because the photo is of him as the Prime Minister. He isn’t “Prime Minister Lt. Colonel”, but simply a Prime Minister who was previously a Lt. Colonel. I leave this here because there will obviously be an edit war should I attempt to revert. When cooler heads prevail, please refer back to this statement. HiberniantearsII (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In Ethiopia the last military title is conserved. And: AA frequent shows up in military uniform, indicating that de facto he is still part of the military. Rastakwere (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
162.83.145.69 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC) This article is written by TPLF sympathizers to deliberately mislead and disseminate false narrative.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 06:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021
Could I gain access to edit please? I just want to clean up the Background section to have it adhere more to wikipedia standards. Emergencypsn (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC) This isn't a talk, but how do I change the info bar? Wikicat1234567890123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicat1234567890123 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seyoum Mesfin 2021.jpg

Destroyed and damaged heritage sites
Multiple heritage sites have been damaged during the war. Lalibela's occupation has been widely publicized, probably because it's a popular site with "western" powers, but other sites critical for Ethiopian history (such as Debre Damo monestary & Al-Nejashi mosque) have been destroyed or damaged.
 * Then, I suggest that you make a section about this and populate it.Rastakwere (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Casualties
We know full well that the number of casualties on Tigray's side have exceeded 550. We also know that Government casualties have been in the thousands at least. Tens of thousands have died in total.

If sources are *entirely* lacking to confirm that tens of thousands have died in this conflict, it would be best to simply put "unknown" as the number of losses or to cite the claims of the belligerents (as is currently being done in the info box with the Tigrayan casualties in November) and put their fully up-to-date estimates in the info box.Idontneedyouinmyband (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
Under the "Protests opposing the TPLF and/or supporting the federal Ethiopian government" section, Reference #276 does not support the claims being made, as it only points to the "About Us" section of the business that was allegedly attacked. Unless there's proof from a reliable source (the only thing I could find was a Twitter post linking to a FB video), the entry should be removed. Thanks. D3xter.308 (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also removed the uncited entry above that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)