Jump to content

Talk:Tigray war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2021 Tigray offensive)


Is it over?

[edit]

The government and TPLF signed a peace deal on November 2. But does this really mean the war is over? I've started this topic to hopefully prevent disruptions over the end date of the conflict. However, Eritrea was not involved in the peace, their status remains currently unknown. We've also seen allegations of attacks against the TPLF by Ethiopian forces. I think that for now, the war is "over", but if more fighting happens or Eritrea continues to remain involved, then it can be changed to ongoing. I suppose only time will tell if it really is over or if it isn't. I'm inviting you to put your comments here as well to help us all come to a conclusion. Mtcat101 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things are really ambiguous at the moment. While the peace treaty might indicate that the war would be over, there's a lot of talk emphasizing that peace hasn't been achieved quite yet, and there's still a lot of unknowns to consider (particularly Eritrea, but also arguably Amhara). I can go either way right now, but I'm open to the idea of it changing back to ongoing if things start sparking up again XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The war should be labelled as being "over." Ethiopian federal troops now have full control of all of the Tigray region. TPLF troops have surrendered their heavy weapon, while being allow to keep light weapons. The key word here is "allowed" as in being given permission to do so by the opposing army; meaning that the are now being overseen by them. In the grand theme of things, organized heavy armament fighting has ended and as such the war should be labelled as such. Ericandude (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


To add the first few sentences say this: The Tigray War[b] was an armed conflict that lasted from 3 November 2020[a] to 3 November 2022.[51][52] The war was primarily fought in the Tigray Region of Ethiopia between the Ethiopian federal government and Eritrea on one side, and the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) on the other.[53][54]" The war is described as a past tense, meaning the war is presumed to be over. Ericandude (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The War should be declared a victory to the Ethiopian and Eritrean Forces

[edit]

Given that the entire region of Tigray is now under the control of the Ethiopian Federal government, as was the objective of the Ethiopian government; with the peace agreement being implemented stating that the TPLF forces are to disarm. I believe that it would be safe to not only label the war over, but to also declare that the Ethiopian federal forces have defeated the TPLF. Ericandude (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really draw any of our own conclusions but, rather, need to wait to see what reliable sources say. RegentsPark (comment) 20:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not 'drawing our own conclusions'; according to the Pretoria agreement the following has been agreed upon by the Ethiopian government and the TPLF.
1. The disarmament of TPLF combatants
2. Respect the authority of the Federal Government (a key precursor to the starting of the conflict)
3. The TPLF shall be refrained from conscription, mobilization or deployment of any forces.
4. The federal government shall take control of all federal facilities within the Tigray Region.
Source: https://igad.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Download-the-signed-agreement-here.pdf
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks and walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. Setting aside any emotion aside, the war for the time being should be declared over; with an Ethiopian/Eritrean victory. Ericandude (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ethiopian government/Eritrea clearly won this war [1] [2] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The war is over; source:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/01/12/ethiopias-war-in-tigray-has-ended-but-deep-faultlines-remain
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/25/ethiopia-tigray-eritrea-peace-deal/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-64229074
The fighting stopped in Nov 2022; 6 months ago and has not resumed. Ericandude (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither side won the war. The Ethiopian government failed to reach its main objectives which were to crush the TPLF and its leadership – it achieved neither. Furthermore, despite the peace agreement, recent reports reveal that TPLF has not been fully disarmed and still has armed units operating in the Tigray Region's disputed territories.
Source:
youtu.be/x4rw0tybL7Y
youtu.be/1bxc8WKNGWQ Agamino911 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The main goal of the federal government was to assert control of the region via centralized government authority. This was achieved as the the central government in addis is dictating how Tigray will choose its leader. It also rejected Debretsion as its leader, a clear show of the authority of the central government over the region. Ericandude (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten that the federal government wanted to crush TPLF (both militarily and politically) and eliminate its leadership – but it failed. Hence, the war effectively ended in a stalemate. There are many issues that indicate that the Ethiopian government still does not possess the capacity to have full authority over the Tigray Region. If it had, then there would have been: the full disarmament and demobilization of Tigrayan forces, there would be no new military recruitment in Tigray and there would be no deployment of tens of thousands of TPLF combatants stationed at the borders of disputed territories in Tigray (i.e, Raya and Welkait). Agamino911 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another wikipedia page, that has accepted that the fighting has ceased and that the TPLF have been defeated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Eritrea

Ericandude (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

[edit]

Remove the "Full-scale war, Ceasefire, and War Re-escalates" section in the infobox. It is redundant information that is more clearly explained in the rest of the article. For example, the Lebanese Civil War only has the date from 1975-1990, and it doesn't mention the many ceasefires and pauses in fighting that occurred within that timeframe. 2601:85:C100:46C0:103:C9C7:756B:8E17 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 2601:85:C100:46C0:103:C9C7:756B:8E17 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done brought the infobox in line with other war infoboxes. Clone commando sev (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article’s name

[edit]

The current article’s name is valid but most news articles now call this an Ethiopian civil war, should we start a rename request to Ethiopian civil war (2020–2022)? 78.172.135.213 (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economist.com “Nine months after a formal end to Ethiopia’s civil war, many had hoped the country was inching back towards stability.”
Reuters.com “… risking a further backlash from former allies in the country's 2020-2022 civil war.”
Nytimes.com “Ethiopia went from being one of the most prosperous nations in Africa to the site of a brutal civil war. How did it get there?”
Theguardian.com “Ethiopian civil war: parties agree on end to hostilities”
Cnn.com “Warring parties have agreed to a truce in Ethiopia's two-year civil war. Here's what to know” 78.172.135.213 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean, but also:
It's either that or "war in Tigray", which is sometimes mentioned alongside "Tigray War." XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol idk but ethiopian civil war sounds cooler 78.172.135.213 (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough, I get it. XTheBedrockX (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"occupy"

[edit]

"Eritrea continues to occupy parts of Tigray as of mid-2023."

Tigray is Ethiopian sovereign territory, recognized by all other countries. A country cannot "occupy" itself. This choice of words is biased, misleading and highly suspicious. Lastdingo (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea is a sovereign country that's separate from Ethiopia, and has been since 1993. Tigray is part of Ethiopia, not Eritrea. Eritrea is the one that has been described as occupying parts of Tigray. XTheBedrockX (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

was Egypt involved in war?

[edit]

because someone told me Egypt was one of main backing in that war, it is hard to know since war are rough to get reliable sources, and he stated

"Ethiopia created one of the biggest dams blocking Nile River that puts 95% of Egypt's water supply in risk"

Sniper4721 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arms suppliers in infobox

[edit]

@MWQs: Per Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_"supported_by"_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter, the inclusion of non-belligerents was deprecated a year ago. Merely changing the wording does not circumvent MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That thread is focused on the specific use of supported by. Consensus summary also concludes that there are exceptions. Can you quote the relevant section(s) that you think apply to this page? MWQs (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should really get some more informed input from people who've made a substantial contribution to the page. But it's a bit hard to tell who that would be, there seem to have been a few style guide edit wars going for quite a while. Possibly we could share it to the WikiProject for the two that rate it as top importance. MWQs (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was reached because including non-belligerents violated the manual of style. The way the left column looks now, non-belligerents outnumber belligerents 3:2. Whether we say "supporters" or "arms suppliers" is irrelevant. (Before "supported by" was deprecated, the Nigerian Civil War infobox even became a meme because it included a ridiculous number of countries.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox probably needs another field. The suppliers have a massive impact on the outcome. "diplomatic and material support". MWQs (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can put them in a collapsible list when it's too many to show. MWQs (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely what was deprecated a year ago. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the consensus you linked is irrelevant. It was about changing the template, not how to use the current one. MWQs (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused about how you were able to reach that conclusion. The consensus was to deprecate the inclusion of non-belligerents in the conflict infobox. I see no compelling reason why this article should be treated as an exceptional case. Arms suppliers are important, but they can be mentioned in the article itself. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen BBC

[edit]

There may have been thousands of cruelties by the Ethiopian federal forces, but if we pick the story of the refugee, carefully, he and his wife have not been attacked or delt incorrcetly by Ethiopian federal soldiers, but they became victims of their own panic: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55731439
"We used to live on farmland near Mai-Kadra town in western Tigray. On 10 November, federal troops advanced to our area and went past our home. They did not notice us. It was a big relief. … After about 20 days, I went to the federal army stationed in the area, and I asked them if I could take my twins to the clinic in Humera, another town close by. Luckily they allowed me to pass, but I then walked to the Tekeze River and crossed it by boat to reach Hamdayit in Sudan."

The federal troops passed their home without destroying it or attacking them. Some days later, when he asked a federal army post for permission to go to a health station, he was allowed to go there.

Perhaps his wife could be alife, if he had gone to the federal army post and received a permission to fetch help, just after the delivery.

War is a great mistake, and many people commit mistakes in war. ––Ulamm (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tigray_war&oldid=1246014881"