Talk:Timeline of the Tigray War/Archive 1

Somali Guardian
Trying to search online (searx, duckduckgo, GAFAM) for info on Somali Guardian is difficult, as it is for many other online news sources, because most links go to the site itself rather than to independent sources who talk about the website/newspaper, but it's still unusual not to find any third-party comment about the site or its creation.

In this case, somaliguardian.com has an IP based in Germany, looks very professional, but has no "About us" page and even https://somaliguardian.com/contact-us has no contact information.

I found a rumour that Matthew Bryden and/or Sahan Africa could be involved in Somali Guardian, so searches including one or the other of these might lead to usable sources. Feel free to add links until/if we have enough serious sources to start an article. Boud (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The web pages of somaliguardian.com are rather weird. They include the text

{ if(wccp_free_iscontenteditable(e)) return true; show_wpcp_message('You are not allowed to copy content or view source'); return false; }
 * of which the second part (no viewing the source) is legal nonsense. You cannot read a web page without sending an http request and storing the response, which is html source that your computer and you may view in whatever way you wish. The first part (no copying content), for private uses or for quoting, is nonsense both legally and in a practical sense. Select "View" - "Page style" - "No style" in firefox for copying/pasting titles of somaliguardian articles. Of course, copy/pasting content into a Wikipedia article would be a WP:COPYVIO, apart from quotes.


 * There is also a rather unusual legal aspect to copyright here: who holds the copyright when SomaliGuardian appears to be anonymous, with no known editors or authors? Search at WP:COPYRIGHT if anyone is curious, but my guess is that anonymous authors still hold copyright. I'm sure that for Wikipedia purposes, we would assume that by default anyway. Boud (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Author: The author of the Somali Guardian articles appears to be Durjogbiyocirdhul - https://somaliguardian.com/author/durjogbiyocirdhul - but the URL redirects to the home page. Boud (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Eliminate
Ethiopian News Agency (ENA) quite frequently uses the hate speech term eliminate which means kill, possibly with the intent to kill rather than the intent to use the minimal level of force. Without independent witnesses and video footage investigated by the State of Emergency Inquiry Board (Tigray) or by other investigative bodies, we don't know if these were extrajudicial killings or defensive measures that resulted in deaths.

The word eliminate has a dehumanising connotation. Instead of necessary defence against an armed person, the idea is that the armed person does not have value as a human.

In any case, unless we want to illustrate the apparent intention of security forces to commit human rights violations, in which case we can use in scare quotes to illustrate that as the news source's or spokesperson's point of view, we should not copy ENA's use of the word eliminate. Please add other hate speech or dehumanising terminology from Tigray War news sources to this section to help editors who are unfamiliar with these connotations and with human rights law. Boud (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Or: have a specific section in the article on hate speech and then the use of eliminate can be elaborated there?Rastakwere (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I think that this should go into the Wikipedia: namespace. See this proposal for a specific MOS page. Boud (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Plain English
In, you reverted my edit and gave the edit summary,. Launching a surprise, military attack against the army of your country is not a threat of war, it is an act of war (more specifically, civil war or armed rebellion) under any reasonable interpretation, and, most importantly, in this particular case, in the interpretation of most of the sources. The 4 November Northern Command attacks are already covered in the main part of the timeline. It doesn't make sense to repeat this in the pre-war preparation section. If you know of a specific statement by the TPLF, prior to 4 November 2020, threatening to attack the ENDF, with a source that supports that, then feel free to add it.

The source says nothing about a military threat by the TPLF against Eritrea in the recent (2020) epoch. , who reverted your revert, might be able to explain this better if my explanation is unclear.

Any specific statements by the ENDF or EDF making threats of military attacks against the TPLF, if sourced, would also be appropriate to add. There is certainly a lot of rhetoric (vague words trying to persuade the listener/reader) that sound threatening, and hint at genocidal intent, without clearly stating that, against the TPLF in the online record prior to 4 November. These are not (yet) included here. They would have to be included in the article without adding Wikipedians' interpretations of the words. Boud (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2021 (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 discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mulugeta Gebrehiwot in the field ©Mulugeta Gebrehiwot (published with permission from the author).jpg (discussion)
 * Ox slaughtered by Eritrean troops during the war in Tigray in 2021 ©Mulugeta Gebrehiwot (published with permission from the author).jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hailu Kebede and Genet Berhanu VOA.jpg

NPOV Concerns
I have some NPOV concerns about the current portion of the article. For instance, A senior member of the TPLF central committee, Sekoutoure Getachew, confirmed that a "pre-emptive strike" had been carried out in "self-defence".

The use of quotes within this is problematic in my opinion, based on WP:SCAREQUOTES; this fragment would be better rephrased as A senior member of the TPLF central committee, Sekoutoure Getachew, said that a pre-emptive strike had been carried out in self-defence as it presents a more neutral impression of the truthfulness of the statement; with the quotes I feel it implies that the claim is false (removing the quotes while leaving confirmed would result in the opposite implication, per WP:CLAIM)

If someone disagrees and wishes to remove the tag, I won't object, but I do hope you go over the article with particular consideration for what the text implies, particularily in the context of WP:CLAIM and WP:SCAREQUOTE.

Finally, thank you to the editors who have kept this article so up to date; it is a remarkably detailed and extensive article that covers a conflict with too little coverage in English Language Media. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the careful re-reading. I changed the sentence and left out the "central committee" because redundant with "senior member". Removed the npov banner.Rastakwere (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit
The first sentence uses a forum post as a source. The second sentence is valid so long as the FIRST sentence has a reliable source which it does not. Meaning it is pointless to add it in here. Irshadgul isn't a reliable source just by looking at its other articles for five minutes. Regarding the capture of the towns, I know they have been captured but the Ethiopian government has denied it making this a he said she said situation. Cited sources can't verify due to a communications blackout meaning it's only claimed and should be made clear to readers. I did change the text to ease you I guess.--Ue3lman (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Atlas and TGHAT as sources
Both the Atlas report and the TGHAT database are self-published and constantly changing. Ordinarily, neither would be allowed as a citation in Wikipedia, but would be seen at the end of an article in the "External links" section, with a link to the Atlas and one to the TGHAT database.

The Atlas report has been published online at ResearchGate which is considered generally unreliable at RSP. The report has also been constantly evolving; per the authors, they are continuing to update it as information comes in. I have no doubt that the authors have been meticulous in the compilation of their data and presentation in this report, but it is still evolving and changing online, and is published on a website where it is considered a self-published source.

The TGHAT database is on the "tghat" website which seems to be an anonymously published blog. Again, Wikipedia guidelines would have us regard that as a self-published source.

I understand the desire to publish this information and want to treat this topic with respect. I don't have a simple answer to the sourcing issue, but I want to open discussion about it and get ideas on how we should proceed. Please discuss. Platonk (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding both and especially Tghat regarding WP:INDEPENDENT policy concerns, it is not independent of subject, and according to AP so far only 30 of 3080 victims were verified through phone calls with relatives & friends, not even independent investigation. Also most of the victim list is based on social media posts(largely facebook & twitter). As for Atlas, led by Jan Nyssen is a expert geographer who lived and worked decades in Tigray not a subject matter expert on killings, so question how independent is that source really? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with the 106 individual massacre articles
Pinging ,

These are my thoughts on how we could handle the 106 individual massacre articles that were the subject of the mass-AFD at Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre. Rather than AfDing each one (or even in batches; we saw that fail already), I recommend using WP:MERGE. One by one, we take each of the 106 articles, and make sure that the information and citations are in the Timeline article. If we copy text into the Timeline article, then we mark the edit summary with "Merged content from source page to here." . Then blank out the source article and make it a redirect per the instructions at WP:MERGETEXT. By keeping the redirect, it discourages people from re-creating the article. Also, it preserves the edit history of each of the 106 articles. We've already read the community's debate at the first mass AfD, which leans towards delete or merge or similar, and we have ongoing concerns about reliable sourcing. The RS issues can more easily be handled with a single article (or group/series of articles if we split up the large Timeline article). If we find some of the 106 individual articles represent something that might be notable enough for a standalone article, then we leave those alone. Platonk (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There were like 3 who sugessted merge, but yeah it's an option. The first AFD only failed because it included several articles which was broadly covered by reliable sources, hence final recommendation, was procedural keep and resubmit to AfD in smaller batches. I nominated 25 articles, which i before hand checked to make sure whether they were or not covered by reliable/independent sources, so this is not exhausted yet, and even if people were to recreate an article after deletion, they would face the same issues if RS is not resolved. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. I would probably wait until this 25-article AfD is completed to see the outcome, then it would give you a good consensus for how one handles the rest of the 106 (non-controversially). If you simply do a merge process, then you can skip the AfD. The merge process doesn't require that you actually find content to merge, but that you've checked and the relevant content from the source article is either already in the target article, or you've put it there. Platonk (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you group your batches by number of sources in the article. A batch of massacre articles with no sources, a batch of massacre articles with only the atlas source, etc. I really don't feel comfortable voting delete on 25 articles when there's a large list of sources and NPPs have marked them reviewed. Any article with a lot of sources deserves thorough WP:BEFORE. With that said, I did spot check one from your most recent batch, and the sourcing was bad, definitely not up to Wikipedia notability standards. In fact, I was having trouble even finding the incident name in most of the citations and search results for that article. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will consider that in my next batch, but regarding the NPP, to be frank they have not or did not bother to properly verify the sources. NPP's need to be on guard when Rastakwere creates articles, is there a way to alert them? He repeatedly uses the names of otherwise reliable sources Euronews, CBC and others, but which doesn't mention the claimed events. It creates an article that on the surface has a large list of sources, but you need to verify every source he uses to see that it is mentioned in self-published sources. The creator didn't just create bad articles, the articles are deceptively structured in conjuction with sources that doesn't mention those claimed events. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawit S Gondaria. Thanks for mentioning your concerns. I'd suggest making a post similar to what you just said above over at WT:NPPR, and include 3 sample articles that were approved by NPPs that you think were incorrect approvals. Then we can all take a look and see if these articles were marked as reviewed correctly. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Thank you i will. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to discuss this here?
This appears to be a parallel “strategical” discussion between two like-minded editors on how to successfully nominate and get a bundle of pages deleted, all articles about massacres in the Tigray War. The main discussion takes place here: Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination). Just wondering if it is according to Wikipedia procedures that a “strategical” discussion is organised on this parallel talk page in order to agree on the approach to be taken? Rastakwere (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * — With notification to:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Rastakwere (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this the second or third time this is brought up? Let's keep the discussion in one place. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Responding to ping: I do not see a problem with this discussion, as there's no evidence of malicious intent, or intent to cover up anything. I would recommend to all participants that they search thoroughly for sources before attempting mergers. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a brief cross-link at Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) to alert people over there and the closer would be reasonable. But it would be better to keep the main discussion to one place. Boud (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * it is completely acceptable for editors to discuss how to remedy the procedural issues that led to the first discussion being closed as "procedural keep". It might be slightly better to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia, but this page is also an acceptable forum. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 21:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)