Talk:Persecution of Amhara people

OR template

I added an OR template, because many of the sources don't explicitly mention Amhara genocide. This would seem to support the move request above, but I will also say that there are plenty of sources that do discuss Amhara genocide (some of which are not included in this article yet) so it would be possible to have an article about this, (probably Amhara genocide debate) but if that were the title of the article, I think a large number of sources would need to be removed for WP:OR Larataguera (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources that explicitly mention, cover, discuss, make statements… with the common name, Amhara genocide, are given under @Pincrete's response. These are academic works, books, reports, and so on. Part of the list is already a portion of the article and the others will be added. Even if a significant number of them are already included in the article, I now see the importance of capturing them right in the lead section for accessibility, and clarity purposes. Petra0922 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but to avoid OR, this article would have to be based ONLY on those sources that EXPLICITLY mention Amhara genocide. Nothing else. If you don't want to remove ALL the other sources that don't mention Amhara genocide (only mentioning massacres, etc) then you should support the above move. Larataguera (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for Larataguera, but for myself the issue goes beyond whether the actual term used is 'Amhara Genocide'. Some of these sources don't support the point they are making. For example, how can the Ethiopian Constitution support the opening sentence about what happened AFTER the adoption of that constitution? Source 22 (a Reuters report about 4,000 people being arrested) is used to support about 5 claims - including that violence is ongoing, that violent ethnic attacks are happening. It supports neither of these, and may not support the other three. It may suggest that unjust ethnic based persecution/discrimination is happening, but even that is implied rather than stated by Reuters, who offer little explanation for the arrests. I'm not seeking to deny that Amhara may be being persecuted, I simply don't know, but the effect of poor sourcing is counter-productive to the very case that editors here seem to want to make. The quality and care of use of sources is more important than their number if the article is to be credible. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

LaratagueraThere are enough sources that explicitly state Amhara genocide. I want to understand your comment on the removing the other sources part? Are you referring to the sources that provide background information too? Petra0922 (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A source need not refer to 'Amhara genocide', especially if it is supporting background info, but it MUST explicitly support the text it is attached to. That is not always the case at present AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I will work on it. Could you please share the link for AFAI cases (just curious)? Petra0922 (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922, yes. A quality source that describes the situation as genocide will provide sufficient background for the article, so you have to source the background from those articles that explicitly mentioned genocide. (So I apparently disagree with Pincrete here). Otherwise, you're doing a WP:SYNTH that some set of massacres or arrests constitute genocide, and we can't do that. Also, sources that don't mention Amhara would have to be removed.

@Pincrete yes, there are also statements not supported by their sources. These should be removed or rephrased. If Petra removes sources that don't mention genocide as I suggest above, many of those statements would disappear anyhow, so that's the first place to start in my opinion: broad removal of all sources that don't mention genocide (or move the article as proposed above). Larataguera (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing background from articles that don't mention genocide means that Wikipedia editors are deciding what background is relevant. That is for reliable sources to decide Larataguera (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Larataguera@Pincrete I need time to work through this- to strictly cite only that name the issue Amhara genocide. Is there a timeline to reach consensus? Petra0922 (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of what you remove could possibly be placed at Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia or another article. And there could be better linking between these articles. Not sure about time frame, but your work would inform the ongoing move request, so I suppose there's some time constraint there. Larataguera (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These are good sources. I will check if Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia consists of the Amhara information or is incorporated as a new addition. The sources can also be added to other appropriate sections. I am not sure if you have noticed but the lead section is entirely backed with sources that mention the genocide, to help address the OR + CommonName recommendations. I will need to update the last paragraph in the lead. I am also looking through other genocide and human rights Wikipedia articles to refer to how the sources in those articles are combined to support statements even if each doesn’t necessarily state genocide. If the sources that don't mention Amhara are removed, I think the approach taken in sourcing this article isn't too far from the example that I just reviewed under the OR guideline as well (I will explain in the OR discussion). Petra0922 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is also Ethnic violence in Ethiopia, presently a redirect to a section of Human rights in Ethiopia. Maybe build that section from some of the sources you are removing, eventually to a full article instead of the current redirect? "Ethnic discrimination" is a little bit of an understatement for what is actually taking place, unfortunately. Larataguera (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I will check it out. From the title, it looks like the redirect can make an independent article and also I see an alignment with the earlier discussion that you and @Boud brought up but that was in the context of the Genocide debate. I think I mentioned earlier that controversies on sources may be an issue for this proposed article but that may evolve into some kind of useful debate (?). Petra0922 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To give a brief background on this article, the initial unfinished draft was added to the MainPage by mistake before sources were included. It was meant to go to my Sandbox so the content was Draftified. To avoid POV, the draft specified potentially controversial content using quotes from the sources. Following the Quote Tag I mentioned earlier, I applied this guideline on quotations to It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright). Then submitted the draft to AfC and it was accepted as Class B. Another editor found issues in Citation style but re-rated it to "B" after satisfying the CS requirements. I bring this up to explain the process, the approach to paraphrasing, and how that seems to lead to WP:OR, based on the recent Tag. This is where I found content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words versus the WP:OR Tag, contradicting. I also like to add, the WP:OR § What is not original research and how the article was using this logic throughout when written: A, and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. In this article the sources followed this principle: “A” & “B” provide the same context/argument and are captured as, therefore “C”. Could you please help me understand this? I found this to be pretty conflicting. Thank you.

Since this is key, we can probably discuss it on your talk page or I can move it to another section. Please note that as stated at the start of this sub-section, Genocide is the mass killing or massacre of a specific ethnic group/race/religion and involves the mental and bodily harms listed above (the UN Convention definition). It is important to clarify that the massacre of groups of people regardless of race/ religion is different from the massacres that occur to specific ethnic groups such as the Amhara, and other races or religious groups with the intent to destroy. The point is that sources that provide information on targeted ethnic/racial massacres and are backed by another source that names genocide, both provide the same argument, i.e. if the former lists the crime of genocide and the latter specifies the international crime (which is genocide). To be more specific: a source that lists the mental or physical harms to an ethnic group in the form of targeted massacre/or it lists the crimes of genocide (A) + source that mentions literally genocide (B), both provide and help to elaborate the type of crime under that specific genocide (C). This article seems to concentrate its genocide references in the lead section but the above approach was applied (lists the crimes of genocide) in its sections. It should, however, need to add the genocide sources more often, where appropriate. You will see this approach being used in other articles in Wikipedia, including the Holocaust or others such as the Rohingya genocide, just as randomly selected examples. If you have noticed, each and every statement doesn’t necessarily use sources that specifically name genocide but one can observe that the genocidal crimes are listed and events discussed. On the other hand, I would agree with your statement if the massacres listed here were not ethnic-based but the 30+ years of events and sources teach that they are ethnic- (in some instances, religion-) motivated. Hope this helps. Thank you. (this is duplicate but fits to this section better). Petra0922 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

A requested move (RM) does not require the article under discussion to be edited or updated with better sources before someone closes the discussion. Obviously, improving the article can influence the close, but that's not the main thing. If someone provides a list of a small number (for example five, but there's no formal rule on the number) of sources that are independent of each other and of advocacy organisations with a direct interest in the issue of naming, and if these clearly establish the WP:COMMONNAME in the interpretation of most of the people discussing, then that might be enough to convince the closer that rough consensus based on Wikipedia principles has been reached. (Obviously, making improvements is welcome, but there is no speed competition involved here.) @Petra0922: you've clearly done a huge amount of work on this article. I don't think you should feel pressured to instantly revise the article in a rush to meet a "deadline": the recommendations and discussion in this section of the talk page and the issue of original research do not have to be solved in order to close the RM.

In the RM, we now have quite a few different sources and discussion by several different people about the ones that appear the strongest and why some are relevant or not relevant for the title debate. If someone made a list of, say, the strongest five, and put it in the RM section (above), with brief comments to show why they are good sources for "Amhara genocide", together with his/her updated !vote if it has changed (you can use {{s}} to strike through your own old talk page text that you consider no longer valid), then that could help convince people for the oppose argument. Boud (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Boud Both the deadline clarification and the recommendation you put in sound reasonable, and they help. I will continue making improvements to the article as suggested. I can help with down-selecting some sources for WP:COMMONNAME but I am not sure if this is supposed to be assessed by others. Petra0922 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering everyone is busy, how about I provide the 5 sources/candidates to help establish WP:COMMONNAME, per @Boud’s suggestion, and for closing the RM discussion. Petra0922 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Attention needed

This article appears to be a mess of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SYNTH as most of these sources do not explicitly mention genocide. It was discussed multiple times before, but nothing has been done. I'm not sure what must be done, so I'm calling for an admin to look into this. محرر البوق (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what administrator action you are requesting. Admins have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools- any editor may help with an article content issue. If you feel that the subject is not accurately depicted, you are welcome to either fix the issues yourself(ideally with a consensus to support such changes) or do something like start an Articles for Deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Posted on NPOV noticeboard: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Amhara_genocide. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As some do it is not synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I should of rephrased my words. What I meant was no neutral or reliable sources explicitly mention genocide. The only two that do call it a genocide is an opinion article and a youtube video by "borkena". We shouldn't come to conclusions based on fringe sources, you literally can find sources for anything nowadays, what should be discussed is whenever this is mainstream academic position or not. This article should be deleted or merged before it further damages Wikipedia's reputation. محرر البوق (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven @Random person no 362478479 I propose that we should merge this article with Ethnic violence in Ethiopia or Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia. محرر البوق (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Random person no 362478479 and the other editors that stated that the article had been discussed thoroughly by experienced wikipedians and rated as B first and now C with recommendationsn to improve some disputed and potential Original research contents. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing ethnic division in Ethiopia, articles that discuss ethnic violence are constantly nominated for either deletion or endless tags are added to them from opposing parties (ethnic groups). Bottom line is that the article has more than adequate sources that discuss "genocide" directly to meet the WP:COMMONNAME requirement to say the least. On top of that the nominator had been going after and nominating articles that discuss the violence against the Amhara and others in Ethiopia for deletion quite often. I will add to evidences for these. Petra0922 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't make false accusations about the intention of my edits only discuss about the content of this article, WP:FOC. If you really have a problem with my edits feel free to file a report at the ANI, don't turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. As for your sources, I don't believe their reliable but I will thoroughly look into this article later. محرر البوق (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق I can pull out more evidence if necessary. Besides the destructive edits you continue to make on the topics of Amhara and Ethiopia, the important question here is that you failed to provide clear examples what content and sources are WP:POV. Until you list the issues and provide adequate reasoning for adding three tags at the same time, your edits will be reverted. This issue had been discussed in detail here and addressed before. You cant just add a list of tags because you don’t like the existence of the article. Considering the contentious nature of the topic, thorough discussion on your tag is needed which is what myself and the other editors asking you about. Petra0922 (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop with these accusations, I will interpret these as personal attacks. If you have a problem with my edits, please feel free to open an ANI, this is not the time and place for it right now. I will be able happy to discuss how this article violates WP:NPOV, albeit with other neutral editors. محرر البوق (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding evidence for that @محرر البوق persistently and unjustifiably go after Amhara and related articles that cover the ethnic violence in Ethiopia. Here is another example of deletion nomination added by the same editor but it was voted by majority to keep. I can add more of such destructive editing that he kept pushing for that are specific to Ethiopia.

Also see another conflict of interest that @محرر البوق consistently demonstrated when it comes to Amhara materials in this platform Petra0922 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Content disputes are not resolved by administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy tag: محرر البوق Petra0922 Hemiauchenia. Let's focus on content. Are there any articles or texts from genocide scholars or academics or other international institutions characterizing what's happening here as a "genocide"?

Likewise, are there any articles or texts from genocide scholars or academics or other international institutions denying what's happening here as a "genocide"?

Or is there a dearth of serious scholarship on this issue? I suggest that the way forward is to lay out all of the reliable sources on this issue, and see what they really say. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard I have already addressed all the sources that were cited to support the genocide claim in a reply to Bonewah over here[1]. The reality is that there is no reliable sources or anything from academia stating that what is happening here is a genocide. I have sincerely looked on google books and everything, but was not able to find anything even remotely adequate. This article does not satisfies WP:V محرر البوق (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard, my answer for your questions is Yes. Let me add link or list the sources that was discussed from previous discussions here. These are sources that directly name the violence Genocide or majority discussed the crimes of genocide and the intentional attack based on ethnicity. 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Petra0922 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard, these are some but i can add more. Sources that discuss intent can also be added to this list.

Publications (Scholarly):

• [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], A Quest for Identity and Geographic Restoration of Wolkait-Tegede: Forceful Annexation, Violation of Human Rights and Silent Genocide
• Washington post: [7]

• I understand this is only an abstract at this stage but the International Association of Genocide Scholars published it and also created a specific and separated "Genocide in Ethiopia" session to discuss just the topic. The author presented the full paper.

Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention:

• [8], [9]; for the latest waged war on Amhara by government (Red flag alert for a different region: occurring outside of the Oromo and the Benishangul-Gumuz regions): [10]

Other analyses

• [11], [12],[13], [14]

U.S. Congress hearing

• [15]

U.S. Congressional research, discussing the violence in Ethiopia in the context of genocide, [16]

UN Human Researches Council's hearing:

• [17]. The publication cited this report: [18]

House of Commons of Canada hearing:

• [19]
• [20]

Additional but more can be added:

• [21], [22], [23],[24], [25]], [26], [27],[28], [29], [30], [31]. Petra0922 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 Once again these are not reliable sources,

• The first three "Pubilications" do not refer to these events as "Genocide". The next two are self-published sources. The last one was published by the "Amhara Council" in Addis Ababa.
• That Washington Post article is an opinion article by Tewodros Abebe. (The same article I have already stated was unreliable).
• Once again, that is not a Publication, it was a presentation by Fasika Yosef of the Amhara Women Association Against Genocide Incorporated at the IAGS. Not published by them at all.
• Lemkin Institute does not called these events a genocide. Here is a direct quote the Amhara have been targeted by all sides with violence that amounts to crimes against humanity, and, arguably, genocide.
• "Other analyses", those are just opinion articles by Graham Peebles from "CounterPunch.org"
• That Congress hearing is a statement by the "Amhara Association of Amhara"
• That U.S Congressional research does not describe these events as a genocide once again and it talks about the different ethnic violence towards various ethnic groups in Ethiopia.
• That HRC Session is talking about the massacres of Amharas at Gimbi, does not refer to that event as a genocide. The "publication" you cited is just another opinion article.
• That house of Commons hearing is another statement by the Amhara Association of America.
• The last 10 sources you cited are just various different opinion articles you've compiled together.

I'm really shocked at how this article managed to get approved in the first place. Its very clear that you do not have any reliable sources that establish that the events going on here are a genocide. Many of the sources you've used are the same ones I've already addressed in my comment towards Bonewah. محرر البوق (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

These are reliable sources and need to be discussed according to the guidelines, and not based on your opinion. Obviously, you had been applying the same argument for the Amhara people and other contents that you seem to destructively nominate for deletion although editors fairly discussed some of them and voted to keep. i.e. to keep. You already made your point clear with the multi-tags you added right after you knew the consensus didn’t go your way for your edits on Amhara people. This discussion is open for others as well; not just only you.Petra0922 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Petra0922 محرر البوقMy apologies for my delayed response which is overdue - work commitments. Foremost, I applaud and appreciate Petra0922's thoroughness and devotion in putting together all of the literature on this topic of whether what's happening with the Amhara people in Ethiopia constitutes genocide. This kind of effort is what enriches wikipedia, and I applaud your efforts to bring awareness to this overlooked human rights issue, which commitment I share.

I have reviewed all of the 32 sources Petra0922, in terms of its content, author credentials, and the nature of the publication.

Here's my honest views on this matter - the literature and evidence presented in support of the proposition that there has been a genocide on the Amhara people is too voluminous to be ignored by Wikipedia. Clearly, this is a well substantiated, but overlooked human rights crisis outside the Amhara community, who is (IMO, quite justly) seeking attention and recognition of this atrocity as a genocide.

That said and in due regard to WP:RS, I feel that a number of qualifications deserve to the made. First, in my view, the vast majority of the sources in support of the finding of genocide bear the characteristics of primary research, and sometimes advocacy, presented by the victim community.

Second, of all of the scholarly works cited on these, only source [56] comes from a somewhat reputable journal that is peer-reviewed. Many of these authors and journals come from the field of social work. There appears to be no coverage on this issue in the recognized journals in genocide studies, or by recognized genocide studies scholars. It is also apparent that none of the discussions of genocide arising from these studies adopts or applies a rigorous definition of this term accepted in genocide scholarship.

Third, in regards to the sources from independent institutions such as the UN, Lemkin Institute, the congressional bodies of different countries, or the mainstream media, none appears to conclude that genocide has taken place. The Lemkin Institute comes very close, and declares serious red flags alert for genocide, but ultimately falls short of concluding that genocide has taken place. The US congressional research calls for further research, attention and investigation into the allegation of genocide, but similar falls short of making that conclusion.

Personally, I do not believe that a voice ought to be discredited simply because it comes from the victim community. However, in regards to WP:RS, such sources, individually speaking, lacks the independence, secondary research, and reliable scholarship, that are the hallmarks of a WP:Reliable Source.

That said, the materials in support of the presence of genocide is too voluminous and prominent, to simply not exclude them from Wikipedia, let alone concluding the converse. In my view, I think discussions of these sources may be presented with proper in-text attribution. In another words, the content of these sources supporting genocide should not be presented as fact.

The sources on this issue from the independent institutions should also be discussed. It will be inaccurate of course, to cite sources to support a factual claim that genocide has taken place, as none appears to really hit this conclusion. But these sources can be presented for the statement that various international institutions have urged increased attention and investigation for the possibility of genocide.

The article title might be a problem. But this post is long enough, and I will leave this issue to be addressed elsewhere. I welcome everyone's feedback on all of the above. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this perspective. The genocide claims should definitely be mentioned, but they should not be stated in wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard. Thank you for this discussion. It certainly brings back important questions on determining genocide, specifically in this platform. The two key points that would be helpful to separate and assess in here is the determination + recognition of genocide by political groups and by the ICC (referring to the role of politics on recognizing genocide), and the second point is that using the UN convention – the international technical and clear guidelines on the crimes. The latter explicitly characterizes the elements/violence that constitute genocide and provides a more reliable assessment of such cases than the highly lobbied and politically-influenced requirement which I believe that you emphasized here- in a way that demands international consensus for such articles to exist in this platform although careful evaluation of all the genocide articles we have here doesn’t entirely rely on that at all. Carefully studying the genocide templates or navbox, demonstrates that the Wikipedia articles on genocide are characterized by the crimes. I believe, this discussion encourages those who already engaged or other experts to look into the Template:genocide topics and Template:genocide, and probably extend this assessment to ultimately establish (if it doesn’t exist) or to refer to any clear requirements for such topics. Up until now, this discussion seems solely focused on the political side rather than the crimes. I agree with you on taking out the emotional element in this thread. I am assuming good faith and focusing on the technical aspect here although such ethnic topics area always susceptible to the mentioned issue. Petra0922 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this the rough form of your argument?

1 If conditions x are fulfilled it is genocide. (Definition)

2 Conditions x are fulfilled. (Empirical observation)

Conclusion: Therefore it is genocide (follows from 1 and 2)

If so I would say that it falls under WP:SYNTH. Even if 1 and 2 are true Wikipedia does not let us state the Conclusion unless reliable sources do. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479, I am not discussing WP:SYNTH at all. What I am explaining is that any genocide topic should discuss the crimes in a similar way as the UN Convention itself clearly describes it rather than relying upon a majority political consensus that demands recognition by major economic powers and political groups which is driven by political interest. Note that the convention only mentions genocide when it introduces it otherwise it only describes the crimes explicitly. Petra0922 (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need recognition by nations or political organizations. But we do need recognition by reliable sources (see WP:Verifiability not truth). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That I agree. However, it is important to note that the United States and the interest of the "global north" matters since the bulk of the donations to either publish, assess/review, or provide coverage come from these groups. The article discusses crimes so do the sources. The argument is how do we weigh on cases that are highly lobbied and received excessive attention by media as well as abundant funding awarded to the scholarly space- to specifically amplify these cases; on the contrary, we have "marginalized" cases that constitute genocidal crimes and provide adequate reliable sources for the exact crimes. Petra0922 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the consensus + follow up for current tag, WP:OR was to specifically add quotes to the sources and that we agreed up on /and not addressed yet but need time for that. Petra0922 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Petra0922 Thank you for your discussion, Petra. Random person has spoken my point. We don't necesssarily need a lot of reliable source to affirm a finding of genocide before an international court, but we do need reliable sources to support our edits here on Wikipedia.

You are right that genocide is a highly politicized topic. Human empathy to human suffering should be equal, but some perceived slights gets undeserved attention, while others atrocities are marginalized, all to toe the political buzzword of the day. But there are rules we have to follow on Wiki, and the recognition of genocide tends to be a slow and gradual process. In my view, what we can do here, by identifying your sources and giving them in-text attribution (notwithstanding that they are not necessarily WP:RS), is already going a long way towards achieving greater awareness and recognition of this issue. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard, I would say, you fairly summed it up. The real human struggle and the unjust assessment of suffering in the eyes of the IC is unfair and demonstrated serious issues- in pretty much misguiding the world to construct a flawed conclusion- if the global north doesn’t talk about or publish it then it “never happened.” It is the unfortunate reality of overshadowed such as the Amhara, Yemen, and other similar causes. However, I agree with your suggestion of assessing sources in this article WP: RS- always important. I believe this will naturally lead to another discussion on the requirement for determining the reliability of foreign language and non-western sources. I see this discussion as crucial and probably we need to extend it to articles on multi-party and unfortunate ethnic conflicts such as the Tigray war for Ethiopia, the Russo-Ukrainian War, and others that received significant coverage but quality standards could continuously be assessed and improved to address important questions on verifiability and neutrality on current sources- heavily media-based.Petra0922 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Article tags, factual accuracy

The article currently has 3 tags on it. OR, Neutrality and factual accuracy added by User:محرر البوق on the 25th. Can you please specify what exactly you feel is factually inaccurate in this article? Ideally, id like to deal with all three tags, but I think resolving this one first will make dealing with the rest easier. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an important thread. Thank you for starting it. Although the POV issue thoroughly discussed and addressed before, here, any new tags other than the WP:OR, which was already added by another editor and in the process of being addressed, require discussion listing specific issues for the new tags. The new editor just added three tags when he/she already demonstrated conflict with Amhara and Ethiopia materials in the platform. Someone can not just add list of tags just because felt like it. Considering the contentious nature of genocide topics, clearly stated justifications as for the provided sources aren’t adequate to support the title WP:COMMONNAME and the genocide topic itself are needed here. Petra0922 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bonewah They are some statements that are blatantly factually incorrect in this article for example: The Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF) among other groups were formed in the 1970s with a manifesto and plan, for Tigray to secede from Ethiopia. the TPLF has always supported self determination within a unitary Ethiopia, it has never aspired to secede from the country [32] (pg 86)

the Raya-Alamata and Welkait Amhara lands were annexed into the Tigray region. These lands have been ruled as southern and western parts of Tigray for three decades. Following the outbreak of the war in Tigray, the Amhara forces occupied the - with reported tension in these area. Metekel is also another strategic land from the point of view of accessing the Nile river and annexed to the Benishangul-Gumuz region from the Gojjam Province. Similarly, the Dera and surrounding lands in Shewa, Amhara region are also forcefully administered under the Oromia region following the Oromo-led ruling since 2018. on page 37 of The Ethiopians by Edward Ullendorff, he idenfites Wolkait as being primarly inhabited by Tigrayans[33] I'm not saying that the lands belong to Tigrayans it is obviously ethnically mixed, but to say that these lands are Amhara is very controversial and not entirely accurate.

In addition, the polarizing and open remarks made at a large Oromo public gathering by the Oromia President, Mr. Shimelis Abdissa heavily criticized. His speech, "We broke the Neftegna or Amhara" was broadcast on national television. Not true, he only said Neftenya while it can be interpreted as a ethnic slur for the Amhara, the use of the word is a lot more ambiguous.

The use of the word "Oromo-led Prosperity Party". While they are many Oromos who are involved in the PP government, to label PP as an "Oromo led government" is inaccurate, they are many ethnic groups that are involved in this government it does not appear to be dominated by any specific ethnic group nor are there any reliable sources cited that support such a claim, the vice PM for example is an ethnic Amhara even Abiy is half Amhara according to some sources.

Then there is the the use of the word "Amhara genocide", which was brought up multiple times before. The article does not show reliable academic sources that there is an ongoing genocide at the moment, as I said before we shouldn't come to conclusions based on fringe sources, what should be discussed is whenever this is mainstream academic position or not. I don't really feel like I have to go deep into this, but its pretty obvious for any reader that this article suffers from massive POV issues, the sources cited are questionable at best. Hence that article tag was justified. محرر البوق (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bonewah

They are around 11 sources cited for the statement "Amhara Genocide":

[34] First one is a presentation by Fasika Yosef of the Amhara Women Association Against Genocide Incorporated.

[35] Second one is a statement by a congressman claiming that he was speaking on behalf of the All-Amhara People's Organization, their stamp even in included on the document.

[36] Third is an article done by the relatively unknown "Lemkin Institude" which states the Amhara have been targeted by all sides with violence that amounts to crimes against humanity, and, arguably, genocide

[37] 4th is an opinion article by "Tewodros Abebe"

[38] An article by "EuropeanTimes" that discuss ethnic violence of Amharas in Ethiopia but does not even use the word genocide in the article.

[39] The 5th is another opinion article written by "Girma Berhanu" on the Eurasiareview.

[40] The 6th is a youtube video by "borkena", which I myself am very familiar with. Its an Ethiopian website, that made very bizarre claims during the recent war, I believe its mostly made up of opinion articles aswell.

[41] The 7th is a "genocide report" by the "Moresh Wogenei Amhara Organization Research and Study Department"

[42] The 8th one only states The Amhara diaspora in particular followed the Ogadeni diaspora in its use of the genocide frame. [...] These reports circulated widely on diaspora media sites, radio stations, and served as the basis for petition drives on change.org. The transnational advocacy efforts by many political actors in the diaspora saw powerful leverage in the genocide framing.

[43] The 9th one is a link to a very sketchy and insecure website which seems to be a statement by the relatively unnotable "Ethiopian Information Service Network"

The 11th source is not accessible, but it seems to be another work of the Moresh Wegenie Amhara Organization.

None of these sources are reliable, but Petra0922 keeps insisting that the sources cited in this article are sufficient enough to justify the title. Hence those tags are completely justified until more reliable academic sources are found (and replaced) or this article is deleted or merged. محرر البوق (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق, Genocide denial is the last phase of its process. However, your response here takes us to a discussion, what sort of crimes are stated as genocide based on the most crucial, article 2 of the 1948 UN genocide convention definition which is exactly what this article and its sources discuss [44]. The article consists of selected sources to satisfy the WP:COMMONNAME and also provides sources that thoroughly explain the genocide crimes that caused the destruction of the Amhara people in-part, per the UN definition. My suggestion to those who want to weigh on this topic is to refer to UN definition and the other genocide articles in this platform including the Holocaust. You will find that the genocide crimes are discussed in a similar fashion as this same article.

Petra0922 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of Genocide Denial? Please don't engage in personal attacks, the reason why we are here is because you failed to provide adequate verifiable sources for this article. The latter half of your argument is just WP:SYNTH which further proves to me that this article violates WP:V, expect a AFD nomination soon. I'd also like to ask you to bring back those tags as you've removed them for no apparent reason. محرر البوق (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you two should request a WP:Third opinion, or make a WP:Request for comments, or take this to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 That would be a good idea, might do that before opening up an AfD. But I'd also like to ask you, what do yo think about this article? You could possibly be the third opinion here. محرر البوق (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Id like to hold off on the question of the word 'genocide' for the moment as i think that is the most contentious issue. Factual accuracy is something we can deal with in a straightforward way so lets do that. Ill look at your commentary in the next few days if i get a chance, and Petra0922, if you can, would you look at the concerns above that are not related to the title or claims of genocide generally? Does that sound ok to everyone? Also, WP:Third opinion is not appropriate as there are already more than 2 editors participating. Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bonewah, I am catching up on the thread. Well, based on the previous and more meaningful discussion held related to adding quotes to sources to satisfy the WP:OR is a work in progress. Another thing that was considered is also to reduce the sources so we can reach to consensus quickly when such disputes arise. In the previous version of the article, quotes were added after major statements but that was abandoned to reduce copyright issues and those quotes were "re-phrased" cautiously to avoid, again copyright concerns (per recommendations of another editor and Wikipedia guidelines). About 3rd opinion, that was my take too. Too many people involved. Besides, the editor who wanted to add tags demonstrated solid conflict with Amhara and selected Ethiopian ethnic cases already. Although it is not as relevant here, due to the editor's persistent attack on materials of certain ethnic groups, it is almost expected to see what I call destructive responses, and sadly neutrality of his/her edits is seriously questioned when it comes to the ethnic topics in Ethiopia. He/she was involved in serious previous disputes with other editors that led to blockage. That is why, it is important to engage as many neutral editors as possible to help improve the article and also meet the question of WP:OR, which I believe will help meet the overall quality requirement (there is always room for that). As for whether the violence against the Amhara is genocide or not, we all should look back to the sole source (the UN Genocide Convention). It is the intentional and targeted killings of people “in-whole or in-part”, based on ethnicity, religion, or race. The given sources are supporting just that.Petra0922 (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

sadly neutrality of his/her edits is seriously questioned when it comes to the ethnic topics in Ethiopia. He/she was involved in serious previous disputes with other editors that led to blockage.

This is a complete lie, I was never blocked on Wikipedia. Lets focus on the content here محرر البوق (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bonewah, please see above. I added sources that explicitly discuss the Amhara genocide. I can add more for both the Name, Genocide and more sources that demonstrate intent to destroy the group based on its ethnicity, "in-part." Petra0922 (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

TPLF desires to secede from Ethiopia

OK, the first (non-genocide) issue is around this sentence in the lede "The Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (TPLF) among other groups were formed in the 1970s with a manifesto and plan, for Tigray to secede from Ethiopia.". The issue being the claim that the TPLF was founded with the goal of Tigray secession. Its worth noting that the cite for that sentence, here, currently cite 28 supports this claim, stating "The manifesto called for transforming the northern Ethiopian region of Tigray in to an independent country through expansionist policies." Further, this link to globalsecurity.org backs this claim "Since the establishment of Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), in their 1976 Manifesto, they labeled their struggle as “anti-Amhara oppressors” … It is only through this struggle that they may be able to secede from Ethiopia and establish the Republic of Tigray." (ellipses mine) but also states "The TPLF prefered the federal system it took part in founding, in fact the current Ethiopian constitution which was the brainchild of the TPLF." and "According to a Tigrean spokesman, the front would like to see the government of Ethiopia established as a civilian-led federation, providing for the full and equal participation of the various nationalities in the country. Failing this, he stated that the TPLF would like to acquire either a strong measure of autonomy or full independence for the province". The [Tigray People's Liberation Front] page itself is a bit unclear on the matter. The cite offered by محرر البوق above [45] (pg 86) actually says that the TPLF's 1976 manifesto called for independence, but that they have since backed off that desire. So at first blush, it does seem as though the TPLF's initial manifesto called for independence, but im not too sure that fact is really that relevant any more. Maybe we could change the description of the TPLF to match what is on its own wikipedia page, something like "Tigrayan People's Liberation Front, is a leftist,[citation needed] ethnic nationalist,[2][8][9][5] paramilitary group,[10] and the former ruling party of Ethiopia.[11][12]" Any thoughts on that? Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Genocide claim

Searching scholar finds only 18 sources that specifically use the term, "Amhara genocide" [46] a handful of which appears to be false positives, the vast majority of which are very recent and have few or no citations, some of which aren't even in academic journals, and some of which use clearly do not endorse the use of the term. e.g. Proxy Wars in the Horn of Africa, which describes it as a grievance narrative, while "The war in Tigray (2020–2021): Dictated truths, irredentism and déjà-vu" states that diaspora-based activists and the National Movement of the Amhara (NaMA, a political party founded in June 2018) crafted and imposed the narrative of the ‘Amhara genocide' The sources used to support this claim in the lead are unreliable, including WP:COUNTERPUNCH, https://europeantimes.news/ , which looks like a content farm, and a Candian parliament meeting (arguably a primary source). While massacres of ethnic Amhara have obviously taken place, I simply do not see enough evidence from reliable sources to describe it as a genocide in wikivoice. The Lemkin institute statement states nowhere explicitly that what is going on is a genocide, only that the Amhara are "very vulnerable to genocide". I would support moving the title to something like "Massacres of Amhara (1990-Present)", but also say that "some authors have characterised the massacres as a genocide". Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See also "Transnational Advocacy: Genocide or Terrorism?" The Amhara diaspora in particular followed the Ogadeni diaspora in its use of the genocide frame. The Moresh Wegenie Amara Organization issued a report that characterized political violence in the Benishangul-Gumuz as “Genocide Committed against the Amhara.” A documentary film on the “Genocide of Amharas” was posted on YouTube in 2016. These reports circulated widely on diaspora media sites, radio stations, and served as the basis for petition drives on change.org. The transnational advocacy efforts by many political actors in the diaspora saw powerful leveragein the genocide framing. Activists used comparisons to Rwanda in their efforts to influence how the international community understood violence in Ethiopia and used Facebook to mobilizeagainst Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Barack Obama for their silence on the issue.33 Activists built upon the power of the genocide label in their strategies to lobby policy makers.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I would also support a merging of this page with Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia. How would you feel about that? محرر البوق (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that massacres of Amhara people (the actual topic of the article) is probably a separately notable topic in its own right, regardless as to whether it should be considered a genocide or not, so I would oppose a merger. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think "massacres" may be too narrow. Maybe "ethnic violence" could work? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I've changed it to "ethnic violence, including massacres". Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you guys think that the title to the article should also be changed as well? To something along the lines of "Amhara Massacre and Ethnic Violence"? If genocide is not well established in the WP:RS, and should not be presented in wiki voice, perhaps much less should it be presented in the article title. I am sorry that I have to upset some fellow editors in making this suggestion... HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

If the article doesn't call it genocide in wiki-voice then it should be renamed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479, please see my note above. Genoide has clear technical and interantional guidelines and note that what was touched above seem to focus on the politcal aspect. My point here is we need to discuss this further.Petra0922 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not the article should call it genocide in wiki-voice. My point is merely that if the article doesn't then it should be renamed. The two are inextricably linked. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this can't be merged with Ethnic violence in Ethiopia or Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia. Massacres/ethnic violence have occurred towards various ethnic groups in Ethiopia. I believe that there was an article for the "Tigray genocide" but it later got merged into one of those two articles. محرر البوق (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia seems completely unsuitable to me. Ethnic violence in Ethiopia could work in theory, but I think the article is too long to merge it there. It would completely unbalance the article. I can't find a "Tigray genocide" article in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethiopia/archive or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa/archive, so I don't know if there was such an article and if so why it was merged. Although there is War crimes in the Tigray War. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For the time being, I would support a change in title to something along the lines of Amhara Massacre and Ethnic Cleansing.

I would be disinclined to merge the Amhara topic under any broader category of ethnic conflict. These various ethnic related conflicts and atrocities can certainly be linked to each other. But I don't see why this Amhara article should not stand on its own. I also see the Amhara issue as a sufficiently distinctive topic to stand on its own.

If there are issues with the content of this article, we should deal with that content. If there are so much issues with content, that it cannot be addressed without changing the identity of the article, then I think we can consider a merge at that time.

Makes sense? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you're judging the sources based on a standard that you alone have:

" The sources used to support this claim in the lead are unreliable, including WP:COUNTERPUNCH, https://europeantimes.news/ , which looks like a content farm, and a Candian parliament meeting (arguably a primary source). "

What rule are you using to determine which source sounds good to you or not?

I don't think there was a valid reason given here to change the page to "Massacre", the article clearly presents evidences of the ten stages of Genocidee against the Amhara people. Menotmebaloni (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the title, but I don't think the recent RFC established a consensus to change it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@محرر البوق and Random person no 362478479: The discussion on renaming is clearly finished here, but just for completeness, I'm fairly sure that there has never been a serious debate to create an article Tigray genocide (though I see it's now a redirect). I personally think that the evidence in favour of that title is strong (10% of the population eliminated in two years), but my personal judgment doesn't count much. What counts is that the sources are unlikely to be strong enough, at least for the moment: the topic is not as Western-mainstream-media-newsworthy as other war crimes situations - and is out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. See the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the Tigray War#Crimes against humanity page from much earlier on: March 2021. If and when scholars (or war crimes courts or other courts) start using that term, then a title change or split of War crimes in the Tigray War will become viable. No point wasting editing energy on a title change that is unlikely to achieve consensus due to the small number of good sources regarding the likely legal characterisation. Boud (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Genocide in wikivoice

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus that ethnic violence and massacres against the Amhara people are not to be stated in wikivoice as a genocide.. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Addendum 9/14/2023: This should apply to both moves as well as mentions within the text. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Should it be stated in WP:WIKIVOICE that that ethnic violence and massacres against Amhara people constitute a genocide? Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Responses

• No There is no consensus regarding the title of this article per the January 2023 move request, which appears to have been heavily offwiki canvassed by Amhara activists voting for the keeping of the current article title, with other commenters generally being ambivalent. This is obviously a sensitive topic, and I sympathetic to the plight of the Amhara people, but any designation of genocide must be supported by reliable sources, rather than it being based on WP:OR regarding the definition of genocide, as Petra seems to assert in her edit summaries. As discussed in the above threads, Talk:Amhara_genocide#Attention_needed, Talk:Amhara_genocide#Article_tags,_factual_accuracy and Talk:Amhara_genocide#Genocide claim, the sourcing describing it specifically as "genocide" is weak at best, with many of the cites refraining from directly describing it as a genocide. The idea that it is a genocide should be attributed, similar to how the lead of Uyghur genocide is constructed. My preferred version would be something like this revision, the precise wording is something I am open to discussing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep in the first nomination. Split in the move votes. The article was voted to keep, and in the second discussion the decision for moving was Split. @Hemiauchenia, you need to stop these generalizing allegations. Any voters that were questioned were removed both involved thorough discussions and should be reviewed properly.Petra0922 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• No Since I've commented at length on this issue recently in a related discussion on this talk page, I will reiterate my position here. No offence to anyone who holds a differing view - the allegation of an Amhara genocide lacks discussion and consensus, in reliable sources (those interested can review my previous discussions here [47]). Clearly there's something serious going on, and there is no serious dispute that there has been a massacre, and serious ethnic violence committed against the Amhara people. However, there are insufficient reliable sources to support the statement that a Amhara genocide has taken place. As such, in my respectful view, no such definitive statement should be made on this wiki article.HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• No I think there really should have been serious attention being put to this article by administrators. The article has been largely written by editors closely associated with Amhara causes and neglected by those unaffiliated with Ethiopia or the region. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• No As I said before, I'm really surprised that this article managed to get approved in the first place. The events that happened here are not recognized as a genocide by any reputable organization. محرر البوق (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• No Reliable sources have undeniably mentioned ethnic massacres (and it continues to be a serious problem), but as far as I'm aware, there's no consensus from reputable news orgs or researchers that call it a genocide. Even when news organizations (like Al Jazeera) feature the phrase "Amhara Genocide," it's attributed to advocacy groups like Amhara Association of America, not to genocide researchers. Now, it's not set in stone: if a consensus from RS does emerge in the future that it should be called a genocide, there should be a discussion for that. But until that time comes, as it's not the consensus view by experts, they should primarily be called massacres or mass killings. XTheBedrockX (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, per previous comments but we should certainly consider terms like massacres which *are* used by RS [48]. Alaexis_¿question? 08:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes with a HUGE caveat - There is nothing more wikivoice than the title of the article. To include 'genocide' in the title then argue over the lede is (at best) silliness. I tend to agree that the genocide term is not used appropriately here, but that is very much beside the point. Either get consensus to change the title of the article or walk away. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Changing the title would be the next step if the outcome is not to use "genocide" in wiki-voice. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  This misses the point. Uyghur genocide is structured exactly in this way, because on the talkpage there is no consensus to describe it as a genocide in wikivoice, but there has been no consensus regarding changing the title either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a disruptive bad RfC that should be a Move Request, but wait that already failed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, per other comments discussing the lack of RS consensus. For now I agree that the article on the Uyghur genocide is a good model to follow. The lead could go something like "There have been numerous massacres against the Amhara people that have been collectively labeled as genocide by some scholars". HappyWith (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Responding to RfC

Can you say:

Very briefly... how this would improve the article Wikipedia:WIKIVOICE?

What would you like to see the article say that it does not say now?

Thanks Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2023 (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.

@InvadingInvader: I would like to seek clarity that your closure is an indication for the article to be moved to Massacres of Amharas from Amhara genocide, given that the move was subsequently carried out by XTheBedrockX, an involved editor in the discussion. – robertsky (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus for XTheBedrockX's move in the above discussion, which really looks like a rough consensus against a mention of the genocide in not only wikivoice in also moves. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader @Robertsky Sorry about the hasty move. Wasn’t sure if this consensus also extended into a title change, but I probably should have asked first. My bad. XTheBedrockX (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't fret; we make mistakes all the time. I've moved the article to Amhara massacres as an interim solution in line with consensus, which per my eyes on the dispute watching both the talk page and the article seems to be a common alternative to genocide. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@InvadingInvader:Ah.. I misread your last few words in your reply to my question and had it moved to back to Amhara genocide before you moved it further. Fundamentally, I disagree with the page move as WP:RM should be the avenue for this, and if there is no consensus as you had determined in the first part of your reply, it should be returned to the last stable title rather than an interim title per WP:NOCON. – robertsky (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My previous comments did state it was more like a rough consensus against a move. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, a rough consensus against a move to which title? – robertsky (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to challenge this "consensus" as I don't believe there was one. There were two people who didn't agree, one person adamant about the title change and others not too sure but lenient towards one.

Let's reopen the discussion and reach one before suddenly moving it. Menotmebaloni (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky: Why was the change to the title implemented without a consensus? The title should not have been moved in the first place. -menotmehaloni (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Menotmebaloni, I see multiple issues up to this point with regards to the series of moves:

1. The move to Massacres of Amharas was done by XTheBedrockX on 13 Sept, which may be out of the norm with respect to move requests and RfCs even. Hence, the request for clarification above.
2. The subsequent move to Amhara Genocide that was done by you, was an attempt at reverting that move. However, there were two errors in doing so. First, the title to revert to is Amahara genocide. Second, you should have raised a request at WP:RM/TR for a pagemover or admin to look into given that you may not have the necessary rights to do so at the moment.
3. My reversion to Massacres of Amharas from Amhara Genocide was to correct the errors you had introduced. And pending the clarification from InvadingInvader on his closure, I would have moved the article back to Amhara genocide, which was the last stable title. I should notify you of this and my intent as well and apologise now for not doing so, which resulted in you trying to move to a closer alternate title at Amharas Genocide.
4. Now that there is clarity from InvadingInvader and XTheBedrockX, I have the article moved back to the last stable title at Amhara genocide.

– robertsky (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that there is a further move to Amhara massacres as an interim solution by InvadingInvader since. Although I disagree with the interim solution on rationale that InvadingInvader had stated, even if partially, that it is of no consensus to make such move. However, no further moves back to the any title indicating the article is of an genocide should be done as it constitutes as Page move war, until further discussion as ascribed at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE has been carried out and there's an outcome to do so. – robertsky (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Menotmebaloni (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My intent with the opening the RfC was not to challenge the "no consensus" result of the RfC regarding the article title. It was solely to do with the content of the article. I have no strong opinion regarding the article title, and have no issue with the title being "Amhara genocide". Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I also voted with the assumption the article would stay at the title "Amhara genocide" for now. HappyWith (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky it's clear that there was no consensus before @XTheBedrockXmoved the page to Massacres of Amharas. It seems like there's consensus that there was no consensus. Should I go ahead and move it back? Menotmebaloni (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No. As I have said, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is the right approach for this situation. Feel free to participate in the discussion below as well. – robertsky (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2023

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: moved to Persecution of Amhara people. There is a clear consensus both in this discussion and in the RFC against returning to a genocide label. Consensus appears to support either Massacres of Amhara people or Persecution of Amhara people, with claims that the latter would be the most neutral title. No consensus appears to have emerged in favor of the proposer's proposed title. The widest consensus would appear to support Persecution of Amhara people on grounds of neutrality. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Amhara massacres → Ethnic violence against Amhara people in Ethiopia – Much better title. Alternatively Persecution of Amhara people in Ethiopia can also work. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Admin note - due to pagemove-warring, I have move-protected the article at the Amhara massacres title, reflecting the consensus of the RFC above not to refer to the topic as "genocide" in Wikipedia's voice, but otherwise only because that was the title at the time of protection. Please disregard protection if consensus here determines a different title. Per WP:BADNAC this discussion should not be closed by an editor who does not have the ability to move the page through protection (i.e. it should be closed by a pagemover or extended-confirmed editor at minimum). Please do not lower protection just to move the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on technicality - Now that Amhara genocide is not the status quo, I don't see a need for a change. Policy considerations start with the lede of WP:TITLE: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources . We literally just established that the RSs don't support the genocide label but do support the current title (Amahara massacres, in case that changes again whilst this conversation continues). There are legitimate arguments against this specific target as well (see TITLE's Concision and Naturalness notes), making the current title preferrable. For the record, I would vehemently oppose returning to the genocide label. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The current title is completely unorthodox in Wikipedia and also ambiguous. It is not clear whether this refers to massacres of Amhara people or to massacres carried out by Amhara people (which also exist, and they're recent). No other Wikipedia article uses this unnecessarily short and uninformative title format. I would argue the title is the opposite of natural, and too concise. If the lenghty discussion above voiced itself in favor of specifically using the word massacre, then Massacres of Amhara people in Ethiopia, or just Massacres of Amhara people are my suggestions. But I do believe a different title is necessary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If the current title is not acceptable for consensus, any of the three suggested titles would get my !vote over the genocide one. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I am also opposed to it, and I regularly visited this article to see if the title would one day be changed or not. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support a move to Persecution of Amhara people or Massacres of Amhara people. There is a consensus against calling this a genocide in wikivoice, however, massacres and persecution of Amhara people have undeniably occurred, and the title should reflect that reality. These proposed titles would also follow the policies regarding WP:TITLECON (i.e. similar to pages like Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, Massacres of Kurds, etc., or Persecution of Hazaras, Persecution of Buddhists, etc.). XTheBedrockX (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support a move to Persecution of Amhara people. That seems to be more or less what was decided by the RfC. Of the proposed titles, Persecution of Amhara people seems the most neutral. Bonewah (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (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.