Talk:Tigray War/Archive 2

POV in the infobox
Please revert in which you put the edit summary  to describe your insertion of the word  (in quotes) in  in the infobox.

Apart from the grammatical error, the main problem is that the fact that the TPLF views the ENDF (and Eritrean) troops as invaders is a POV disputed by the federal government, which sees the military action by the ENDF + Amhara militias + Eritrean troops as a "police action". The role of this part of the infobox on this page is for the reader to find out if the conflict is ongoing or not. The detailed points of view of how the different groups see the actions as a whole - "invasion" versus "police action" - are irrelevant here, and there's no space for adding a sourced list of POVs here.

So I suggest that you read Tendentious editing and revert your edit. Thanks. Boud (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should follow Verifiability and put things as stated on the source (which is France 24 this time). And I said "invaders" in quotation, so it is not a POV. You can says ENDF + Amhara militias + Eritrean troops, but the infobox does not have that much space. About the grammar, I have now corrected the "is" to "are". Thanks for pointing it out (you're correct about the grammar), but not on your other points. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The word "invaders" is in quotes, but it not an NPOV summary. It supports the TPLF POV and leaves out the federal government POV. You have clearly expressed your personal POV: you should be able to separate that from what goes into the Wikipedia article. We don't have to put all three groups (ENDF/Amhara militias/Eritrean army); we could find another expression such as "until it regains control". We should also get rid of the tabloidy headline term "vows". There is nothing religious about the TPLF stating that it will continue fighting. Boud (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am getting tired of arguing with you over nothing. If you have problem with France 24, deal it with them, but we stick to Verifiability. You can write all you want here, but you are not correct. As simple as that. And I don't know which "vows" you are talking about, since I didn't add it. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The and Infobox should be a summary of information about the subject/topic of an article. The word "invaders" in quotation is previously presented in the article's LEAD clearly as per the France 24 reference (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). Before adding the verified under quotation "invaders" in the Infobox, I've twice before added it to the article/LEAD (diff). So this is not a POV or anything like that; I'm using the Infobox for its intending purpose of summarizing the content in the article. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A summary generally does not need to use a quote unless that quote highlights a critical piece of information. The word "invaders" is a POV: "invaders" (TPLF POV) versus "police action" (ENDF POV). In terms of the infobox, where there is very little space, the fact that the TPLF views the ENDF and associated forces as invaders is not a summarising or key piece of information; the ENDF POV of the military actions as a police operation is not a summarising piece of information either. It is generally to be expected that two opposing military forces see the action of other side as unjustified and their own action as justified. The part of the infobox under discussion here is to state whether or not the conflict is ongoing. The POVs of the two sides are irrelevant in the infobox. They make sense in the body of the article, in an appropriate place where the reader will expect to find that information, and in summary form, in the lead. Boud (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2021 (closed)

 * 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2021
Tigray conflict → Tigray War – The conflict has escalated into a full scale war, and the death tolls prove it. War has also been the most common term used for the conflict. If we are accepting the name change, please refrain from using “Tigray war” with an uncapitalized “war” since most wars in wikipedia have capitalized “War”. Sources:    Ridax2020 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

--Support per   --Elserbio00 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per above Wowzers122 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I too Support per above. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. Esmost  talk   16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support -- Wendylove (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. This is doubtlessly a war, and this is the best name for it (I previously suggested Tigray Crisis, which has seen widespread use in the media). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per above.  Giggity Giggity  Goo!  14:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, per above as well Nerozxd28 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. This is now a full on war. 2001:1970:48AA:8100:5443:3412:5B32:8055 (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. Obviously it is a war, from the first day on. See the huge amounts of troops involved and the heavy materials on both sides. Rastakwere (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. per Elserbio00 Shadow4dark (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. If the Maryam Ts'iyon massacre is confirmed independently of EEPA, then this will soon need to be renamed Tigray genocide, where the victims and perpetrators are of multiple groups, qualitatively like the 1994 Rwandan genocide, although numerically much smaller, and also qualitatively like the Rohingya genocide, where a Nobel Peace Prize winner holds responsibility as national political leader failing to stop it. But for the moment genocide is not the common name. Boud (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That should be a separate page like how the Rwandan civil war and Rwanda genocide aren't the same pages. Wowzers122 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. Boud (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2021 (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.

Name: War in Tigray
Wouldn't the name 'War in Tigray' be more fitting? Such as in other cases (War in Donbass, War in Darfur, etc.) and it has been used by other sources. Flalf Talk 19:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems more fitting to use "War in Tigray". The name is also used by several WP:RS (Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal, AfricaNews). — CuriousGolden (T·C)  19:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Seems fitting. Starting a whole move discussion would be better though. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support this move. Temeku (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The name change discussed has had a move discussion opened below. Flalf Talk 19:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Eritrea as a belligerent infobox
Should Eritrea get a side3 as a belligerent? I’m removing them from the Ethiopia side because all three sources provided state that they are involved but not necessarily pro-Ethiopia. There are sources that allege them siding with the TPLF but it seems mixed so I think it warrants a third side. Flalf Talk 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the change on the infobox, I had moved it initially because none of the three sources originally on it actually indicated who they were fighting with.
 * Eritrea is like 90% on the side of Ethiopia at this point, but I still think we should wait a couple more day/week until the Information stranglehold on the war gets better.--Garmin21 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

talk-reflist Boud (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Civilian deaths in the infobox
The civilian deaths in the info box is broken and not showing, so can someone fix it.--Garmin21 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Boud (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV complaints, in many parts, including LEAD
The article is rigged far to the Amhara extremists' view (anti Tigrayans and TPLF). My NPOV complaints about this page are updated and listed below. Since they are opposite of the above NPOV section, and since I have many more points I want to add to it thought I list them in a separate subsection.:-


 * All our materials should be well sourced and verified. User:KZebegna was two days ago 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, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News, Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera and Foreign Policy. With all due respect; even thought User:KZebegna says that all these are Yellow journalism and that Ethiopia is a sovereign UN member states; many of the publications are even from UN itself (and its internal organizations like UNHCR and UNICEF). The other above articles also quote UN in them.


 * The Humanitarian crises still does not appear in the LEAD, even though it is very important and is part of this page. Please lets us not try to hind the issue (I was even completely deleted before). 2.3 million children are cut off from desperately needed aid and humanitarian assistance. The Tigray conflict subsection is well referenced by UN, UNHCR and UNICEF among others. Give equal voice to the voiceless dying children also. Recent 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.


 * The involvement of Fano (the Amhara irregular militia) have been deleted in most parts. This is one of the reasons why I say this page rigged based on the Amhara extremists' view. Please read the below listed credible articles which detail the involvement and atrocities of Fano in the war. Please do not call them Yellow journalism because they expose to the world the heinous acts that happened.
 * https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28A1M7
 * https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/02/tigray-war-refugees-ethiopia-sudan
 * https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/escape-massacre-ethiopians-recall-tigray-092740037.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-sudan.html
 * https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ethiopia-conflict-sudan-bombings-idUKKBN27T1OL
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/video/refugees-from-ethiopia-mass-in-sudan-border-from-conflict-in-tigray-96440901567
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x2z2d5prcjz
 * https://us.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/12/07/ethiopia-tigray-tensions-refugees-sudan-eritrea-horn-of-africa-elbagir-pkg-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn
 * https://www.smh.com.au/world/africa/ethiopia-may-be-on-the-edge-of-genocide-20201122-p56gum.html
 * The Telegraph’s official YouTube channel report:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjCfsQWqIo4
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/14/fleeing-war-ethiopians-recount-horror-of-tigray-violence


 * Eritreans president Isaias Afewerki's involvement is trying to be hidden in the article. When I added his picture, it was removed saying it is not relevant to this article. But above that, my well referenced text was deleted. Anyhow, please lets not try to hide president Isaias Afewerki involvement in the war. Here is yet another article about it from today. It is from The Guardian :-
 * https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/21/slaughtered-like-chickens-eritrea-heavily-involved-in-tigray-conflict-say-eyewitnesses

'''My other points below, are the once from yesterday. But I thought this was the more apportionment subsection for them.'''


 * 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.      


 * 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 of 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) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Another NPOV issue:- All of the comments of Awol Allo criticizing the Ethiopian federal government for sending the military to Tigray to solve an ideological problem with war, have been completely deleted (not even a single sentence left). Awol Allo's comments was even very well referenced by the article on Al Jazeera that was added along side it. User:KZebegna even called Awol Allo a detractor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tigray_conflict&diff=994990486&oldid=994983938), then even by others well edited comments of Awol was completely deleted from the page. By the way, I hope User:KZebegna calling Awol Allo a detractor was not a BLP policy volition. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The LEAD does not mention anything about the Ethnic profiling of Tigrayans part.


 * There is no mention of the communication black out. (I.e. there is no mention that the internet, phone, mobile, electricity has been disconnected to Tigray region during this war. Even running water has been disconnected.) We know Abiy Ahmed's government cuts communication whenever. According to Human Rights Watch and NetBlocks, politically motivated Internet shutdowns have intensified in severity and duration under the leadership of Abiy Ahmed despite the country's rapid digitalization and reliance on cellular internet connectivity in recent years. In 2020, Internet shutdowns by the Ethiopian government have been described as "frequently deployed". Access Now said in a statement that shutdowns have become a "go-to tool for authorities to muzzle unrest and activism." His government will the cut internet as and when, "it's neither water nor air" have said Abiy.  Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Added talk-reflist. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

My exact WP:NPOV points from the above listed articles
My first and main line was “Hello everyone, this page has many WP:NPOV issue, against Tigrayans and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF).” “The army”, the Amhara paramilitary, the Fano Amhara militias, president Essays Afewerki Eritrean’s forces are all on one side (allied with Abiy Ahmed), against people of Tigray and TPLF. However, my references many times also explicitly say Fano and Amhara militias. And even if “the army” is doing it, the ideology comes from the Amhara imperialists (thought this is not so important). That is why I spontaneously said the Fano Amhara militias, but they are all on the same side. And my WP:NPOV point is NOT that which exactly (from the federal army, the Amhara paramilitary, the Fano Amhara militias, president Essays Afewerki Eritrean’s forces) are committing the killings & massacres. My WP:NPOV point is that it is being committed by one (or all) of these Abiy Ahmed allied forces, but the other side (Tigrayans and TPLF) are being blamed.


 * I add this as bold since it is very important to my WP:NPOV claim. It does not need to be included as bold in the article, but it has to be included. Media outlasts like Associated Press (AP) have reported that Amnesty International (Amnesty) has changed its position; that is, even Amnesty is now saying that both Tigrayan ethnic and Amhara ethnic were possibly targeted. This is the exact quote from the below more recent AP article link:- 
 * https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78

'''Here I list what I meant by these reference support my WP:NPOV against Tigrayans and TPLF claim. .'''
 * 1 https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/dec/02/tigray-war-refugees-ethiopia-sudan
 * This says


 * 2 https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/escape-massacre-ethiopians-recall-tigray-092740037.html
 * This says


 * 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-sudan.html
 * This says


 * 4 https://www.nbcnews.com/video/refugees-from-ethiopia-mass-in-sudan-border-from-conflict-in-tigray-96440901567
 * This is even a very spacial video, it shows a Tigrayan ethnic people who are surviving witnesses & currently refugees in Sudan, with knife wounds expressing the horrors they experienced. Please someone make it archived or whatever the process is to be able to reference it. If you know the process.


 * 5 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ethiopia-conflict-sudan-bombings-idUKKBN27T1OL
 * This says


 * 6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x2z2d5prcjz
 * A BBC-News audio interview with a medical doctor who fled to Sudan from western Tigray due to the civil war. He describes the massacres & atrocities being committed by Abiy Ahmed allied forces (the FANO Amhara ethnic militias). Again, please someone make it archived or whatever the process is to be able to reference it. If you know the process.


 * 7 https://us.cnn.com/videos/world/2020/12/07/ethiopia-tigray-tensions-refugees-sudan-eritrea-horn-of-africa-elbagir-pkg-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn::::
 * This CNN video, shows the stories of several Tigrayan refugees in Sudan, how they were being massacred by Abiy Ahmed allied forces (including being beaten by president Isaias Afwerki's forces) Again, please someone make it archived or whatever the process is to be able to reference it. If you know the process.


 * 8 https://www.smh.com.au/world/africa/ethiopia-may-be-on-the-edge-of-genocide-20201122-p56gum.html
 * This says


 * 9 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN28A1M7
 * This says


 * 10 The Telegraph’s official YouTube channel report about Mai Kadra massacre witnesses:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjCfsQWqIo4
 * Please someone who knows how to do this, have this video archived. It a reporting by an independent international journalist telling that the ethnic Amhara militias and government forces massacre Tigrayans with machete & axes.


 * 11 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/14/fleeing-war-ethiopians-recount-horror-of-tigray-violence
 * This says By the way, Gidey Asafa is a typical Tigrayan name. And in the video on the same article it says 


 * 12 This reference I didn’t even list before:- https://www.africanews.com/2020/11/25/amnesty-international-releases-findings-on-mai-kadra-massacre/
 * This says At one part this article says the Amnesty International representative (researcher) sent to Mai-kadra was Fisseha Tekle. Perhaps we should create a Wikipedia page for him, to give the readers a complete picture, as he may have personal bias (due to his Amhara ethnicity). Even though not said in this article, the  Amnesty International representative that was sent to Mai-kadra is an Amhara ethnic himself. Furthermore, the  preliminary investigation and report only includes interview with the people that where in Mai-Kandra when it was under the Fano & the Amhara paramilitary's control (or with the people who fled to Amhara region), so they are most likely all Amhara. But most of the real victims (the Tigrayans) appear to be dead or have fled to Sudan from the Amhara paramilitary, from the federal army and from the Amhara Fano militias. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 13 https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpzqw/hes-planning-to-exterminate-us-all-ethiopians-speak-of-ethnic-massacres
 * This says Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Loves Woolf1882. I see that the article body mentions already that there have been civilian massacres alleged on both sides, and articles have been made for as many individual events as possible. (Thanks to Boud). If you are complaining because this isn't mentioned in the lead, I would agree with you that it is significant enough to mention in the lead, I'm not sure why it is not currently.  It should of course be added to the lead in an evenhanded way that makes clear there are allegations of give and take on both sides, the alleged massacre of 600+ non-Tigrayans at Mai Kadra, and several subsequent smaller scale alleged attacks on Tigrayans. With regards, KZebegna (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Massacres should be in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DresdenZZ (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The massacres are . They are not attributed because there is little space in the lead and all of the main forces involved (ENDF, TPLF, EDF, Amhara militias) are attributed responsibility for some of these. These will most likely all be classified legally as war crimes or crimes against humanity (as the EHRC has stated for the Mai Kadra massacre), but we should probably discuss that in a new section of the talk page about whether war crimes would be a purely descriptive term or rather WP:OR, prior to wide use of the term by the media. Given that there are no sources claiming that the soldiers were defending themselves against an otherwise unavoidable military danger from the civilians, the term "war crimes" would seem uncontroversial to me. In any case, anyone interested, please start a new, specific talk page section, since this section seems to me to be closed. Boud (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sudan in the Infobox, a POV and Vandalism
Whoever wrote Sudan as supporting Tigray's regional government/TPLF in the Info-box is a clear NPOV/POV (and probably even a Vandalism). Sudan even seized large amount of weapons on its boarder near Tigray (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/29/sudan-forces-seize-large-weapons-haul-near-ethiopia ), which other media outlets said it was stashed by TPLF.

Sudan has a completely different another boarder dispute with Ethiopia, but it is not related to this Tigray conflict. You can create a page for the boarder depute between Sudan and Ethiopia, if you want. But Sudan is not supporting Tigray's regional government/TPLF in the Tigray conflict. And no independent media has reported saying Sudan is giving weapons or other military aid to Tigray's regional government/TPLF. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is Mulu Nega in the Infobox as leading (or co-leading) the "Tigray conflict"??
Speaking of POV in Infobox, why is Mulu Nega (the federally appointed leader for its Transitional Government of Tigray Region) mentioned on the Infobox as taking part in leading this Tigray conflict/war? Mulu Nega has no troops he contributed to the war (like the Amhara region). Mulu Nega have not lead any part of the war like Abiy Ahmed (federal government), Tiruneh Temesgen & Agegnehu Teshager (Chief Administrators of Amhara Region). In-fact, not even low ranking Tigrayan ethnic soldiers in the federal army have taken part in this conflict, since they were told to disarm by the federal government (for details and references see Tigray conflict). It does not make scene to add him on the Infobox as a co-leader of the war. It is again a NPOV/POV (and probably even a Vandalism). Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Should Sudan be included a a 3rd belligerent in the Infobox.
Sudan is in a pseudo war with Ethiopia and militias with burning of villages, cross border raids, and massacres, Ethiopia is now sending air defense systems to the border region. So, do you think Sudan should be in the info box as a belligerent, or do you think their should be a new article created called Sudan-Ethiopia Border conflict or something like that.--Garmin21 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a new article is best. Name should be something along the lines of Spillover of the Syrian civil war, so Spillover of the Tigray War. Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done - Spillover of the Tigray War

Already done Made an article for the clashes between Sudan and Ethiopia 2020–21 Sudanese–Ethiopian clashes, going to change its name to the one you specified if it becomes wider. Ridax2020 (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 to move. I don't see any especially convincing, policy-based arguments either for moving or keeping where it is. No consensus defaults to remaining at the current location until there is consensus for a move. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Tigray War → War in Tigray – War in Tigray is a more fitting name in my opinion, and similiar format has been used in other cases (War in Donbass, War in Darfur, etc.) and it also has been used by reliable sources as other sources have used it: (Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal) <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 06:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The other conflicts aren’t some sort of historical events and whenever sources refer to them they mention “War in ___” or “Conflict in ___” because of the obscurity of these conflicts, while most articles other than the ones you listed refer this as the Tigray War. (Foreign policy put “War in Tigray” in the name for grammatical reasons also) 1. https://www.koin.com/news/protests/ethiopians-in-portland-protest-ongoing-tigray-war/amp/ 2. https://africanarguments.org/2021/01/eritrea-in-the-tigray-war-what-we-know-and-why-it-might-backfire/ 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-sudan.amp.html 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/world/africa/ethiopia-tigray-sudan.amp.html Ridax2020 (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument here is that this conflict is too mainstream to have a name reserved for 'obscure conflicts'? That is just false considering that an example that I provided, the War in Donbass, was less obscure than this conflict, and might I add that there are several other highly notable conflicts with the name structure (War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq (2013-17), even historical events like the War in the Vendée.) Also foreign policy easily could have adjusted the headline for their article, they chose to use the name not for grammatical reasons, what are you talking about? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 13:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is I don’t like the name of the article War in Afghanistan, and the reason why War in Iraq (2013–2017) is named that is because the Iraq War is immediately thought of the war from 2003 to 2011 (if you were to mention the “Iraq War” the first thing to come in mind is 2003–2011 iraq war, and if you mention “War in Iraq from 2013 until 2017” they would know about the 2013-2017 war.) If foreign policy used Tigray war in that name it would’ve sounded abnormal. Even though your point actually makes sense, half if not most other articles call it the Tigray War. So I think that another name change is unnecessary Ridax2020 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your Iraq argument but the rest aren’t any good. You don’t like the name? That’s not a good reason to oppose. Also let me rewrite the foreign policy headline with Tigray war instead: ‘The Tigray War Is a Fight Over Ethiopia’s Past—and Future’ That is completely fine grammatically contrary to what you have been proposing. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per above Wowzers122 (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There's no obvious preference in common usage between "War in Tigray" vs "Tigray War", and there's no obvious difference in meaning. Boud (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only does War in Tigray sound better, but it 'War in Tigray' better follows standard naming conventions for armed conflicts. We don’t name wars by slapping [place name]+war. I mean how terrible would it sound if we called WW2 ‘Germany war.’ I can’t find a single full war that has a precedent for the naming convention it currently uses. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  18:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. War in Tigray is a more neutral wording and this name is also used by several WP:RS (Foreign Policy, Wall Street Journal, AfricaNews). — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 20:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. Per nom and in the sake of consistency. --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  00:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per above Ridax2020 -- Wendylove (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And pls do not persuade other people because they have no consensus with you. If they don't agree with your idea, then you should recognize it, not persisting your own idea. You made your own contradiction by your suggest. You said "You don’t like the name? That’s not a good reason to oppose." to Ridax2020, but you suggest "Not only does War in Tigray sound better" to Boud. That is quite twofold criteria. -- Wendylove (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of this is to be a discussion, not a poll please read the relevant policy at WP:RMCOMMENT. I am discussing what I believe the merits would be of a name change. Also that's not contradictory, while I admit 'sounding better' is a poor argument, I never said I dislike the original name at all, I just think a new name would suit this better which is a different thing. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk  03:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Where did I say “i don’t like the other name so let’s keep it” Ridax2020 (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe I misunderstood it, but when I provided examples with a similar format you said you just didn’t like it. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 01:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was stating my opinion on this issue, which is a thing that’s supposed to be seen from other users to reach a consensus. Ridax2020 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose because expecting anything like "consistency" from different armed conflicts in different parts of the globe that are anything but consistent, with totally different circumstances, seems to be problematic. This may be why Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote that "consistency" is the "hobgoblin of little minds"... KZebegna (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Propose. "War in Tigray" sounds like it refers to the general condition of conflicts occurring in the region. To my knowledge, The requested title formatting is common in cases when similar events have occurred in different years, so to specify the conflict, the title "_(year)_ _(event)_ in _(place)_" would be recommended, so "2020-21 war in Tigray" (or "2020-21 Tigray war"). But I have yet to see the "Tigray War" be used as the "official" name of the conflict unlike "World War II", for example. Therefore, I propose the idea that the title be changed to "2020-21 war in Tigray", as the conflict seems to have spillovers beyond the region, as the infobox suggests, and also because conflicts in the region are not limited to this war (Ethiopian civil war). Fahambnd (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn’t just War in Tigray better because of consistency with other articles? <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 01:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the title of "War in Tigray", I further proposed the idea that the year is added to the title as to differentiate from other conflicts which have broken out in the region's history. Of course, if a conflict of this scale is unprecedented, then you may be correct. (I also took example of the many articles existing about war in Afghanistan, with the duration of years being specified in the title). Fahambnd (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Propose you sate Fahambnd is a good idea as the TPLF doesn't seem like it going to surrender anytime soon and it seems increasingly like Sudan may get involved as both sides are sending reinforcement and air defense systems to the border region, and clashes have been escalating. So, it other words this War may become another Syria, being dragged out for years.--Garmin21 (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with what you said, I also don't think the title change conflicts with the context of the war. This conflict may as well expand onto a full-on war at this rate, as you mentioned. Fahambnd (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose No. We do not call 'The Winter War' the "War of the Winter" So why this? - Programmerwannabe 10:40 13 Jan. 2021 (EST)
 * But the winter war isn't a place name, tigray is, this better fits similar cases. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Any objections to closing the POV tag?
There is quite a bit of work that could be done to improve this article overall, including some points listed above, but I don't see any active POV dispute. People worried about upsetting other editors can first make a proposal here. If there are no objections within a reasonable delay, then edit. Come back and discuss here if there's an editing conflict. That's what the talk page is for...

Any objections to removing the POV tag? Boud (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No objections heard. ✅ Boud (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Isaias Afwerki photo
Are there any objections (e.g. ) after the 2002 photo to including a photo of Isaias Afwerki?

Since there are many sources claiming extensive EDF involvement in the Tigray War, especially in the Adigrat massacres and the Hagere Selam massacres, I don't see any justification in excluding Isaias' photo.

Independently, if the answer to that question is "No (no objections)", then: Are there any objections to using the photo currently chosen by people NPOVing/editing Isaias Afwerki, who chose File:Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki in the Eritrean city of Massawa (cropped).JPG, apparently from 2013?

Any objections to the choice of photo should probably be sorted out at Talk:Isaias Afwerki first, unless we have a good reason to disagree with the discussion (if any) over there. Boud (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are you framing the question in such a unique and convoluted way? Shouldn't we first establish that there is a justification to INCLUDE the photo, rather than proclaim an arbitrary rule that the photo must stay regardless, if there is no justification for EXCLUDING it? KZebegna (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For "unique and convoluted way", please see WP:NOTVOTE. My guess regarding the very likely consensus, especially given that your objection appeared to be on the basis of using a youthful photo that misleadingly represented Isaias, may have been wrong. You haven't stated any objections to the proposal, only objections to where the discussion should start from. Sorry, but as the person making the effort to make a proposal, I'm allowed to guess on what the likely consensus will be. My guess may be wrong. If so, we will soon find out. Since you hint that you have an objection, let's try again to get the arguments properly listed in a new section. Please clearly state and explain your objections to the specific proposal if you have any. Remember that the discussion below is fully transparent. An uninvolved person will most likely have to close it if the consensus is not clear. Boud (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Map
Could someone make a map for this conflict showing the frontlines between the two sides? Ridax2020 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough coverage on front lines, especially since it is being fought more and more like a guerilla war after the fall of Mekelle. <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Flalf <em style="font-family:Lucida;color:Indigo">Talk 03:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Europe External Programme with Africa does document the changes in the front lines in their situation reports. Then again I wouldn't call the EEPA the most reliable source out there. Wowzers122 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Liveuamap thinks it knows the front lines between ENDF/EDF (grey) versus TPLF (pale green) controlled areas, but that doesn't count as a source for Wikipedia, and the Liveuamap sources for individual incidents are mostly from Twitter (from sources judged privately by Liveuamap to be reliable). Liveuamap is reasonably good for the Syrian and Libyan civil wars, but in Tigray, it's clear that there is too little tweeting and tooting by citizen journalists for Liveuamap to build a serious live map. Boud (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the most updated map is this one https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1ukq3h-fUshA0a0ZDcSI22WHbfC6PnKtX&hl=en&ll=13.737863069692805%2C39.967730263657785&z=8 .--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the information and the people making the map seem reliable. Wowzers122 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Isaias Afwerki photo
Proposal: That we include the photo File:Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki in the Eritrean city of Massawa (cropped).JPG at Isaias Afwerki) together with the existing photos of Debretsion and Abiy.

Reason: There is overwhelming evidence in terms of sources used in this and related articles that the Eritrean Defence Forces (EDF) are playing a major role in the Tigray War, both militarily and in terms of war crimes (which, by definition, do not legally qualify as military operations). Isaias is the dictator of Eritrea, and most likely has more control of Eritrean military forces than Abiy has of Ethiopian military forces, given that Abiy only took power in 2018 and has been subject to attempted coups d'etat since then. Omitting Isaias' photo while retaining those of Debretsion and Abiy would be misleading for this article, given the sources.

Refs: Reuters 8 Dec 2020 ; NYT 28 Dec 2020 ; Situation in Tigray by physical geographer Jan Nyssen Please state Support or Oppose and justify in terms of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and sources. Boud (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - as proposer. See above. Boud (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: you phrase it as 'omitting Isaias' photo would be misleading' but what is the photo's inclusion here supposed to do or lead on, exactly? If you can spell it out and connect the dots, since I can't read your mind and I am reluctant to guess.  KZebegna (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In simpler terms: There are three political leaders whose security forces are directly involved in the Tigray War, according to the sources we have in the article and the sources I give above and quote for the case of Isaias who the Eritrean Defence Forces who are one of the three main parties in the Tigray War. The photos of two of these leaders – Abiy and Debretsion – are currently included, but the photo of Isaias is currently excluded. The proposal is to include Isaias' photo so that we have all three photos. Hope that's clear now. Boud (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting... it would make sense to use the most recent pic available, if that is it, then it should say it is from 2013 since even that was a while back now. At least it is not the one from 2002, that was kind of weird... KZebegna (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ At Commons:Category:Isaias Afwerki I couldn't find any more recent photos. Boud (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Somali involvement
This whole section has to be deleted. The Somali Guardian cannot be considered a reliable source. The quoted "Ahmed" seems to have been an anonymous soldier and there is no other verification. Roundtheworld (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guled and his claim are referred to by BBC News, so the section as a whole should not be deleted: at least one claim is sourced to a known news organisation. The fact that there's a debate about this in Somalia and that the Somali government is denying the claim is also in the BBC article, and, at least for the moment, probably counts as notable.
 * I started Talk:Timeline of the Tigray War to see if there is any hint of reliability for the Somali Guardian; so far there's not much to go on, especially since the author of the Somali Guardian's articles, Durjogbiyocirdhul, is not terribly well known, to put it mildly. Boud (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The information, especially the date of 1 November for troop transfer to Tigray Region, would be highly significant if confirmed. This makes the question of having a quality source all the more important. I attributed uniquely to Somali Guardian. The references remain in the reference list, but they are commented out. If after some reasonable delay no serious info turns up about Somali Guardian, then it would make sense to delete the commented out references. Garowe Online has the advantage that it existed in 2011 and was analysed by two in-depth BBC analyses. We can presume that the BBC authors did enough wide checking beyond just reading the website itself. Maybe Somali Guardian is serious, but currently, we don't have any sources that support it. Boud (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The BBC analyses cited in Garowe Online state its strengthens and weaknesses. In the case of Ex-spy chief... we have While the Merille or Marille people do exist in Ethiopia, they live a long way further south than Mekelle. This shows at least one weakness in elementary research by the authors of the article. Checking the capital of the Tigray Region should not have been difficult. Of course, the BBC, NYT, Le Monde, The Guardian, The Washington Post also make errors... Boud (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably isn't going to get confirmed since only Somaliguardian was given this information by Ahmed. So it's best to just leave it out forever. Wowzers122 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with User:Leechjoel9
keeps removing the deaths in the infobox with "Unknown" and just says "Sources do not mention figures" when if you just add up the deaths reported in the sources you'll get that number. They are not just going to say 4,770 civilians have been killed overall. They also have put "denied" next to Eritrea on the infobox even though it's confirmed Eritrea is in the war. Lastly, they have had removed the picture of the Eritrean President and have had removed the Ethiopian claim that the Eritrean opposition has been supporting the TPLF but those are no longer issues. Wowzers122 (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar is done by in other articles that mention Eritrea's involvement in this war, for instance Eritrea, Assab, Badme, etc. Rastakwere (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You have failed to provide sources, therefore figures were removed. You got no figures of death toll with sources. Regarding the president image it is still there, the “(denied)” of the involvement of Eritrea was put in place with recent sources. If you keep adding content without providing sources or vandalising articles such as the Eritrea article, Badme article and Assab article you might get blocked. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources are the refs used next to the numbers. 12:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Wowzers122 (talk)


 * No, there is no mentioning of the number of casualties in those sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources don't mention the whole casualties number. They talk about the different events that happen every day and how many people died to the events if any did at all. And those numbers were added up to get the grand total 4,770 civilian deaths. All the sources are under the footnote with the group "b". And if your concern with there being one source (the EEPA) there is actually more. Now the topic on if the EEPA is reliable or not is a different thing that should have been rediscussed on this talk page. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Concerning the 6,000 killed number 5,000 were reported to have been killed in this report:
 * - "During the last three days, there has been heavy fighting in Daero Hafash (East of Axum) where four battalions of Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) and Eritrean Defense Forces (ErDF) were “totally destroyed” by Tigray forces..." "It is reported that in a place called Dairo Hafash, Tigray forces overtook 4.000 troops of the ENDF/EriDF." This talks about the first 4,000 killed.
 * - "Reported that one battalion of ENDF/ErDF was “eliminated” by Tigray forces in Ruwa Gered on the way from Adwa to Edaga Arbi two days ago." This is the other 1,000.


 * The other 1,000 is in this report:


 * - "Fighting was reported at Edaga Arbi and Tigray regional forces have destroyed one ENDF battalion and captured 8 Bren machine guns, 100 AK-47 and many soldiers. In revenge, ENDF forces killed more than 80 youths at Debre Abbay."


 * Even though this is all in the same 2 reports this doesn't mean it all happened on those very days just that they reported it on those two days. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please WP:INDENT consistently, . Anyway, you still haven't explained how 4,000 troops having been "overtaken" equates to them having perished ("4,000 killed"). And again, as for otherwise claiming "2,000 killed," I'm still not seeing mention of that in the source you cite for it. Can you explain? El_C 16:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It said in the first part that "four battalions of Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) and Eritrean Defense Forces (ErDF) were “totally destroyed” which means they were killed. A battalion is about 1,000 men and it mentioned 4,000 troops having been "overtaken" which is probably talking about the same force so about 4,000 were killed in total.


 * For the first 1,000 they mention a battalion being "eliminated" in Ruwa Gered. Eliminated is the same as killed. This next to the 4th dash in the pdf. For the second 1,000, it mentions a battalion being destroyed in Edaga Arbi. This is near the end of the first page. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , saying that a military unit was "destroyed" could also involve injuries, POWs taken, or just troops scattering (or any combinations therein), in contradistinction to any possible deaths. Like "overtaken," the word "destroyed" cannot be understood as only involving fatalities. El_C 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree with that. So just 1,000? Also, what do you think about the civilian death number? Wowzers122 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , with regards to "1,000" — please quote the actual passage describing this. I wasn't immediately able to locate it in the source. El_C 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Reported that one battalion of ENDF/ErDF was “eliminated” by Tigray forces in Ruwa Gered on the way from Adwa to Edaga Arbi two days ago." This is next to the 4th dash in the 1st source. Wowzers122 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , again, like "destroyed," the reference is to the respective military unit, per se. — any casualty numbers need to be otherwise specified. El_C 17:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay I understand. I'm guessing that means the civilian death number can be readded sense the sources were specific numbers. Wowzers122 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , no idea. Whatever data reliable sources cite (truly) would be a good candidate for inclusion (generally speaking). El_C 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources didn’t mention the number of casualties, as explained. It would bad to make assumptions without actual figures from sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources for the civilian casualties do mention actual numbers and not just "battalion" Wowzers122 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You are interpreting it incorrectly, that’s not the actual number of casualties.Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes that isn't the actual number of casualties but those are the ones we know are true so that's why it said At Least x casualties. Wowzers122 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, you don’t even know the “at least” judging from the sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by we don't even know the "at least"? Also, can we move this to a new section? Wowzers122 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that the source does not mention number of casualties, therefore it is impossible to write “at least x casualties”. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * See User talk:Leechjoel9, he tends to consider any page or information related to Eritrea as his private property. See also this page Tigrinya people, which is nonsense produced by the same user and never removed despite multiple interventions.Rastakwere (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Everybody are welcome to edit on Wikipedia but there are certain rules, for instance citing sources and reaching consensus, the Tigrinya people article had strong support and consensus were reached in the Tigrayans article to keep the two pages separate. This talk page is not intended to bring up issue relating to other articles or issues you have but is related to this article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Without solving the issue of the infobox, a partial solution would be to create Casualties of the Tigray War. Precedents include Casualties of the Syrian civil war, Casualties of the Iraqi insurgency (2011–present), and many other existing pages in Category:War casualties by war. Look at the source of those pages for example structures of tables. In our case we would need a column for references. Simple arithmetic is acceptable, but a reader should be able to precisely check individual claims against references.

This would not directly solve the issue of choosing a number for the infobox on this page, because a sum made by Wikipedians on Casualties of the Tigray War, which summarises the numbers in a table, would not count as a reliable source for this article. However, a link in the infobox to Casualties of the Tigray War would allow readers who are interested to look at the full topic and decide if the sum there agrees with the sum of casualties from other sources (e.g. Abiy: zero civilians were killed). Boud (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Didn't see this here until now. The problem isn't if the sources used are reliable or not the problem is that Leechjoel9 is saying the sources do not mention the number of casualties and I'm saying they do. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)