Talk:Persecution of Amhara people

Dubious

Regarding the 'dubious' tag inserted in this edit:

Prosperity Party appears to be mainly Amhara and Oromo dominated, not just "Oromo-dominated" - unless this is based on the Oromo fraction of the total Ethiopian population being bigger than the Amhara fraction? In any case, a proper source is needed, or even better, remove the adjective "Oromo-dominated" because it's rather weaselly, telling the reader what s/he should think about the PP, rather than providing an NPOV adjective, if needed to very briefly tell the reader what the PP is without him/her having to go to the actual article.

If a national-level Ethiopian political party tends to have more members from the ethnic group that has the biggest fraction by national population, then that doesn't give any useful info to the reader except that the party reflects the national demographic balance. (For example, we don't write "the German-French-Spanish-Italian dominated European Union" in Wikipedia.) Boud (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Boud: Could you please share the source for the Amhara positions in the Prosperity Party? My research couldn't lead me to the claim. Agreed on the actual population- both make the highest in number.

Here is the clarification for "Oromo-dominated":

This is referring to the ethnic federal system and describes the dominating and highest-level decision-making ethnic group in political, economical, and military systems. For its 27 years of ruling, the Tigray TPLF group dominated EPRDF and that governance was described as TPLF-dominated. See the report by Australian Foreign Affairs. Ethiopia continued a similar system replacing TPLF with ODP (Oromo Democratic Party) and changing the EPRDF coalition with Prosperity Party- having some party representatives from various regions even if the political power is generally dominated by the major party. Please note that Abiy Ahmed is an Oromo and still serves as chairman for ODP, and prime minister of prosperity. The same was true for the late Meles Zenawi (in the previous ruling).

-Abiy’s cabinet is dominated by Oromo ministers in a 13:2:2 to 4 ratio for Oromo: Tigray (interestingly the current Defense minster is led by Tigray region's prosperity party): Amhara, respectively showing most military, economic, judicial & political systems are dominated by Oromo.

-Notice the two consecutive Oromo mayors of Addis Ababa appointed by Abiy Ahmed and the subsequent restructuring of the capital city with various policies, including the annexation of Addis to the Oromia region is another example, although it is resisted by certain groups.

- The European Peace Institute disclosed Oromia building a large number of special military forces (at least 31st rounds already graduated since 2018) with over 100,000 armies with state-of-the-art artilleries, vehicles & accessories. Notice unlike Afar, Tigray, and Amhara, the Oromia region is a NO-WAR zone but there is some political unrest and the Amhara are continuously massacred in the region. In contrast, by the time the report was produced Tigray had heavily armed 80:000 soldiers, and the Amhara force increased its militias from 20,000 to about 60,000 during the war in the later cases both Tigray, and Amhara encountered significant losses while the Oromo military keeps growing despite the war in the North and North-east.

-Other events that are related to dominancy includes impunity, lack of action when OLF groups robed over 20 banks in just a few months, lack of protection of the Amhara civilian in the region for the continuous massacres, other massacres and evictions of non-Oromo in Addis Ababa Shashemene…and other places. Sources are included in this article but more can be provided.

-About ADP (formerly known as ANDM): This political group was formed by TPLF when they took power with mostly non-Amhara members of EPRDF. Just as an example, Bereket Simon was Eritrean- one of the founders and former chairman. Ordinary Amhara oppose the foundation of ADP, which blames the Amhara for the issues in the Country, and ADP's failure to protect the people. Instead, it was accused of allegedly killing the youth/resistance forces, and corruption that led to protests in Amhara and Oromia that resulted in the 2018 “reform.” However, the majority of ADP resumed their position in the Prosperity Party continuing the crack-down arrest of resistance forces and journalists. The Amhara don’t seem to trust ADP to protect the interest of the people and those leaders grown into the role were assassinated. See this source for Amhara vs ADP and this for a report on resentment of Amhara against Prosperity. I've seen your other recommendations as well and I will add the archives. BTW, the Lemkin Institute link was not taken from twitter. Petra0922 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a source for the relative roles of Amharas and Oromos in the PP, but the fact that Amhara forces were heavily involved in the Tigray War makes it seem likely that Amharas had a strong influence in decision-making by Abiy's government, although that may have recently changed because of the tentative Tigrayan peace process.

The question of Abiy's parents' ethnic attributions is currently rather poorly presented in the first paragraph of the section Abiy Ahmed#Early life, with the WP:WEASELly "Despite ... claiming" used to describe one POV, and the alternative POV is supported only be a YouTube video, which normally is not a reliable source, and based on the apparent information there, is not a neutral source - it's Abiy talking about himself. In any case, whether or not Abiy has Amhara origins in addition to Oromo is at best only a hint of what the dominating groups in the PP are.

The ratio of ministers (which I haven't checked) would imply that Abiy's government (which is not the PP itself) is Oromo-dominated.

The two Addis Ababa mayors both appear to be from Oromia State, but again, to say how this relates to the PP would require interpretation of power relations. You and I can make personal guesses, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia.

This Addis Standard article uses the abbreviation "APP" for Amhara Prosperity Party, not "ADP". It only describes disagreement between the APP and the OPP - I don't see how it establishes Oromo dominance of the PP. The Africa Report article describes Amharas in Amhara Region being angry with the PP, but again, while that does suggest "Oromo-dominated", it doesn't show that.

Independently of whether "Oromo-dominated" is justified by the sources, it would be best to establish that with good sources in the article Prosperity Party itself, where people can focus discussion on that question. For this article, the WP:WEASEL problem remains. Adjectives on a subject should generally be used if they are uncontroversial and well accepted and help clarify information to the reader about what the subject is, rather than what the reader should think about the subject. For example, a reader may not realise that PP is (currently) the dominating party in federal government in Ethiopia, or that it was essentially created by Abiy. We currently have the rather confusing phrase after PP, "ruling began in 2018". If we had ", the ruling party of Ethopia since 2018", then that would be enough to inform the reader of the main information about the party. Let the reader go to Prosperity Party and then try to decide from the sources there if PP was or is Oromo-dominated.

I hope this helps to explain. Boud (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Boud The section title has now changed to Oromo-Led and I did check the majority of the ministers in the Prosperity Party are ethnic Oromo. Also improving the overall section. Another thing related to independent sources is that Addis Standard's Notability is disputed and contents are criticized although in this case, the statement made on the naming change from ADP to Amhara Prosperity aligns with the general fact. I also sourced Addis Standard in the past but like to avoid it whenever possible. For Abiy’s ethnicity as partly Amhara, could you share a source for that too? I can't also find any reference that reports the Amhara making the decision on the war, and how that is related to their position in the prosperity party. Could you please share? It is also important to note that Amhara Prosperity Party still consists of the same ADP members; just the name changed (not to forget, the people on the ground expressed issues with the fact that their interest is not represented by the Amhara Prosperity (ADP), since its inception. There are many examples that I can add, especially for the last part. But I think I already mentioned majority non-Amhara elites established ADP (the current Amhara Prosperity Party). Petra0922 (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922: I see your point about ADP/APP, that sounds highly credible. The best way to present that information would be to (1) find some WP:RS and edit the body of Amhara Democratic Party to explain how/when/why (depending on what info is in the sources) ADP became APP; (2) ask/propose/discuss on the talk page which name should be the main name, so that after seeking consensus, either Amhara Prosperity Party becomes a redirect to Amhara Democratic Party or vice-versa; (3) after a reasonable delay (e.g. 1 day is very likely too short, 1-2 weeks would be reasonable), do the WP:REDIRECT.

My impression is that Addis Standard is the Ethiopian newspaper of record (though I don't have sources that establish that). Are there any other high quality English-language Ethiopian online newspapers?

"Oromo-led" closely overlaps with "Oromo-dominated". Maybe Larataguera or Pincrete can better explain to you why either adjective, even if it could be supported by sources, is weaselly in this context, and the information should go into Prosperity Party, not here (and editorial disagreements can be sorted out on the talk page over there, not here). Abiy's ethnic origin should be sorted out, based on sources and respecting WP:BLP guidelines, over at Talk:Abiy Ahmed. Boud (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with Boud about commentary on the parties. It's maybe less a matter of weasel words and more a matter of scope. This isn't an article about the parties. If there were a source establishing that leadership of the Prosperity Party is important background for understanding Amhara genocide, then you could include it.

I would like to say that this is a somewhat minor detail compared to the article's broader issues (although perhaps it indicates a widespread tone issue). It's difficult for me to determine what's meaningful background and what isn't, because there are so many sources and most of them aren't very good (sorry!). We desperately need 1/2 dozen really good sources to form the bedrock of the article. Petra0922, I know you've proposed some in the move discussion. The formatting of these proposals is awkward and makes it more difficult to review them, but I'll try to look them over. Larataguera (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what Larataguera says about scope - he seems to be implying that sticking to the main narrative, using best sources will produce a more coherent, more focused article. I admit to knowing very little about this part of Africa or these conflicts, (which may make me a very typical Western WP reader), but the lack of a clear, concise account of events is what I notice most about the article. Sometimes fairly basic mistakes in use of English or unintended ambiguities impede that narrative. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

The "Partial list of massacres committed by Tigrayan forces" is extensive, but contains only two events for which a separate Wikipedia article exists. The author adding the material is relying on sourcing from the Amhara Association of America, a group whose purpose is expressly to advocate for Amhara. This source cannot be considered neutral in this matter. Either better sourcing must be found, or the extensive list must be pared down to those events that can be indepdently and neutrally verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You completely dismissed the response I provided to your other note that you put on my user talk page. My response specified that the edit is a work in progress and other supporting sources are being included. You seem to be restlessly reverting edits and adding a tag in the middle of communication. This is why I am doubting your neutrality as an editor. You seem to insist on destructive edits for articles other than the Tigray situation. As for AAA, it is used as a key source for international publishers including the U.S. Government. Your statement on the work of human rights organizations as illegitimate or unreliable is poor labeling. I have a problem with the tag you added in the middle of discussion, and we should discuss the timing further probably with engagement of other Neutral editors.Petra0922 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 More sources are added to the War crimes section and the TPLF invasion of Afar and Amhara. Could you please review it?

The shelling and attacks in the whole region of Amhara except Gojjam and some parts of North-Shewa occurred from August 2021/with an earlier massacre in November 2020, until its last withdrawal in fall 2022. During this period (two full years), TPLF committed a long list of massacres as captured in the article. These crimes are reported by various sources and also by an additional human rights organization, Amhara Association of America (AAA) which provided field data with witness testimonies, victim lists, photos, and locations. Technically, if we look into the purpose of other non-profits such as Amnesty, and Human Rights Watch, they are all set up to "demand/advancing the cause of human rights." The same applies to AAA but this US-based organization was able to leverage its grass-root network to collect data especially when access was restricted. AAA is legally required to abide by the U.S. Non-profit accountability, transparency, and ethics standards for the organization to exist. Petra0922 (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922: Thank you for clarifying your sources. I will consider the matter closed now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Petra0922 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2023

Amhara genocide → Massacres of Amharas – This article does not show well-sourced legal or academic consensus classifying these massacres and intent together as genocide (e.g. per the Rome statute; without genocidal intent there is no genocide). In the current version: the best source for the genocide claim appears to be Tesfaw, Muluken (19 April 2022). The Amhara Holocaust: Accounts of the Hidden Genocide of the Amhara People in Ethiopia: 1991- 2015. Talem Publishers. ASIN B09YCBX9W3, an offline source by a currently non-yet-Wikipedia-notable journalist, which appears currently in multi-reference [6]; the source from a not-yet-notable institute Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention (also in [6]) says that TPLF (1991–2018) human rights violations could amount to the crime of genocide. That there have been several long-term patterns of massacres of Amharas, as for other patterns of massacres in Ethiopia, and as in the multiple pogroms of the Hazaras (see also Category:Massacres) is well-supported by the sources, so Massacres of Amharas should be uncontroversial to satisfy the WP:TITLE criteria. Boud (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, with reasons given above, though depending on the quality and content of the sources given below, I would of course change to 'oppose' if that seemed justified. Boud (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Unclear. See Talk:Amhara genocide#Summary: examples/ sources that name Amhara genocide below for five sources listed by Petra0922 and my analysis. It's not clear that Amhara genocide is the WP:COMMONNAME, but these five sources (in case (2) Hearing: Democracy ... shifting from a list of sources to an actual source, and in case (4) ... Silent genocide: A Quest ... shifting from a bibliographic one-line item to the actual source) do provide some justification for the current title, especially given the difficulty in getting strong sources for the Ethiopian situation. Boud (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion weighs more towards defending TPlF rather than Verifiability of sources. Due to another engagement at this time, I will respond more to your argument a bit later on. Petra0922 (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article does provide meaningful & well-sourced legal and academic journals to support the classification of "Amhara Genocide". The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states that " Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; C) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These classification of Genocide are clearly supported by the article. For instance, the Lemkin Institute stated that " the Amhara have been persecuted for several decades. Recent mass atrocities targeting them are an amplification of longer-standing patterns. Mass crimes against the Amhara people began in the 1990s, (e.g. per the Lemkin Institute Statement on the Ongoing Violence Against the Amhara People. Lemkin reaffirmed that persecution of Amharas have been going on for several decades, and that it has been amplified in recent times. This statement is further supported by European Times on 21 June 2021, (e.g. per the Ethiopia:In the shadow of the elections,Amharas are massacred in silence The article stated that in early November 2020, at least 100 people from the Amhara ethnic group were killed in an attack by suspected members of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) group. These frequent and amplified killings clearly indicate the "intent to kill". Scholars from the "Amhara Association of America" "Human Rights Watch" and "Amnesty International" have shown patterns of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Ethiopia. The killers/attackers use the code word "Nefetegna", meaning gun-bearer, and "Sefari" meaning settler to dehumanize and leave these Amhara civilians susceptible to an attack. It was the former-secretary general of United Nations - Kofi Annan that stated that "a genocide begins with the killing of one man - not for what he has done, but because of who he is." Amharas are killed not because of what they've done, but because of who they are. It's also important to note that in the intent of massacring Amharas, genocidal acts are performed, and all the sources that are provided in the article clearly indicate that Amharas have been systematically ethnically cleansed and genocide has been committed with the intent to kill. In addition,Boud intention of altering the title from "Amhara Genocide" to Massacres of Amharas" is a deliberate & organized intention to minimize and downgrade the genocide of Amharas, and insult the innocent Amhara women and children who were victims of genocide in various parts of Ethiopia. Instead of acknowledging and showing remorse for the thousand innocent Amhara civilians that are being persecuted in Ethiopia; users such as Boud are more interested in altering phrases to downgrade and minimize AmharaGenocide. Therefore, I wholeheartedly oppose the changing of this article title from Amhara Genocide to Massacres of Amharas. The title of the article "Amhara Genocide" should remain as the article's main title. BiniamAmbachew (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  @BiniamAmabchew: You wrote intention ... is a deliberate & organized intention to minimize and downgrade the genocide of Amharas, and insult .... This is a personal attack that is not acceptable, because it distracts from the arguments and is unpleasant for the person attacked. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The designation of the "Amhara Genocide" is supported by the article's thoughtful and carefully cited legal and scholarly publications.

According to Montreal Holocaust Museum genocide is a process that develops in ten stages, described here.The stages are not always sequential and may coexist. Classification, Symbolization, Discrimination, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, prosecution, Extermination and Denial https://museeholocauste.ca/en/resources-training/ten-stages-genocide/. The Amahara Genocide is currently in its latter stages, and the proposed amendment represents the final step of genocide, or denial. It's also critical to understand that genocidal acts are carried out with the intention of killing Amharas, and all the resources cited in the piece makes it abundantly apparent that Amharas have been subjected to systematic ethnic cleansing and genocide. Additionally, the title "Amhara Genocide" has been changed to "Massacres of Amharas" with the purposeful and coordinated intent to belittle and denigrate the Amhara genocide and belittle the vulnerable Amhara women and children who were victims of genocide in different regions of Ethiopia.As a result, I vehemently object to the title of this article being changed from Amhara Genocide to Massacres of Amharas.The main title of the article should continue to be "Amhara Genocide." One Amhara (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia with your first edit! Instead of vehemently object[ing], it would be more convincing if you could provide a small number of high quality sources that directly state that the massacres constitute a genocide. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, your suggestion will result in redundant sources, and from what I can tell, many people have provided you with various sources.

Why don't you give us your high-quality sources that led you to suggest the Change instead of classifying or discounting sources by using the phrase "high quality sources"? (Redacted) 19:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no need (in this title discussion) for providing sources for the Massacres title, because that is not disputed. Boud (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a source of high quality? To respond to your suggestion, there is some critical information that is lacking.

Based on your requirement for "High Quality Sources," I will tailor my response. Can you tell us about your benchmark for high quality sources? One Amhara (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. What is needed are WP:RS that directly state that the massacres constitute a genocide, without needing original research. Boud (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose.

The article has enough evidence for a genocide that occured against Amhara people starting from Welkayit in early 1900s. The person proposing the name change is doing so as part of a coordinated effort to deny the fact that a genocide that fulfills all the stages has occurred this is part of the genocide denial. To change the title into massacre instead of genocide is simply incorrect considering all the evidences for genocide taking place against amhara people in this article. Menotmebaloni (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You wrote The person proposing the name change is doing so as part of a coordinated effort to deny the fact. Please do not engage in personal attacks. If you present some good sources, then you will have a fair chance of convincing other editors who participate in this discussion and the uninvolved closing person (and myself – see where I wrote I would of course change to 'oppose' if that seemed justified). Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

The Amhara Genocide is clearly supported by the below articles.

The Lemkin Institute stated that " the Amharas have been persecuted for several decades”. Mass crimes against the Amhara people began in the 1990s, (e.g. per the Lemkin Institute Statement on the Ongoing Violence Against the Amhara People). Lemkin reaffirmed that persecution of Amharas have been going on for several decades, and that it has been amplified in recent times. This statement is further supported by European Times on 21 June 2021, (e.g. per the Ethiopia:In the shadow of the elections,Amharas are massacred in silence). The article stated that in early November 2020, at least 100 people from the Amhara ethnic group were killed in an attack by suspected members of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) group. These frequent and amplified killings clearly indicate the "intent to kill".

Scholars from the "Amhara Association of America" ,”Human Rights Watch" and "Amnesty International" have also shown patterns of ethnic cleansing and genocide of Amhara people in Ethiopia. The attackers/killers use the code word "Nefetegna", meaning gun-bearer, "Sefari" meaning settler/ non-indigenous to dehumanize and leave these Amhara civilians vulnerable to an attack. As the Late former-secretary general of United Nations - Kofi Annan Stated "a genocide begins with the killing of one man - not for what he has done, but because of who he is." Amharas are also being killed not because of what they've done, but because of who they are ethnically. It's also important to note that in the intent of massacring Amharas, genocidal acts are performed. The sources that are provided in the article clearly indicate that Amharas have been systematically cleansed on ethnic lines and genocide has been committed with the intent to kill .

The intention of altering the title from "Amhara Genocide" to “Massacres of Amharas" is a deliberate & organized intent to minimize, downgrade the genocide of Amharas, and insult the innocent Amhara women and children who were/are victims of genocide in various parts of Ethiopia. Instead of acknowledging and showing contrition for the thousand innocent Amhara civilians that are being persecuted in Ethiopia; altering the Phrase Amhara Genocide to Amhara Massacre downgrades/minimizes the suffering of the innocent . Therefore, I completely oppose the changing of this article title from Amhara Genocide to Massacres of Amharas. The title of the article "Amhara Genocide" should remain as is.Lakomelza Bete-Amhara (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia with your first edit! However, you wrote users such as Boud are more interested in altering phrases to downgrade and minimize AmharaGenocide. This is called a personal attack and is unacceptable on Wikipedia. It is a logical fallacy, not an argument. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote that comment based on a slightly older edit; your first edit on Wikipedia was cosigned BiniamAmbachew (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Lakomelza Bete-Amhara 03:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC), which was confusing; your second edit removed the BiniamAmbachew (blocked for 48 hours in March 2021) signature; and your third edit softened the personal attack, changing to users are trying to alter the Phrase Amhara Genocide to Amhara Massacre to downgrade/minimize the suffering of the innocent; this is no longer a personal attack on a specific person, but it's still a general attack on editors instead of an argument. Boud (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@BoudI am new to Wikipedia and getting acclimated on the workings of the page. As you have stated I did rephrase what Binyam said because I agreed with his point in regards to why the article title Amhara Genocide shouldn’t be changed to Massacre of Amharas. If doing so is against Wikipedia rules I will take full responsibility as he has nothing to do with my mistakes. A genuine question for you and other editors/admins, do Non-western Journalists and organizations reports on genocide hold water as their western counterparts as evidence ? Lakomelza Bete-Amhara ( talk) 08:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The long list of sources in the article reported intent, and support the title which is genocide per the UN guidelines and the Rome Statue. Deliberate or targeted killings of ethnic Amhara have been carried out since the 1990s if not earlier. The article not only provides sources such as the Lemkin Institute report, the “Holocaust of Amhara” book by Tesfaw, the Genocide of Amhara book by Moresh Wogene, and others, but also almost all the sources provide details of intent, with contents in the sources supporting or validating each other. Exhaustive examples can be provided but for the sake of keeping this discussion readable, here are some sources that demonstrated intent. As for visibility, among scholars and human rights groups, it is well known that genocide acknowledgment and efforts in the academic, legal and political spaces are highly politicized. If we look into most recent instances, un-lobbied or marginalized cases such as the Amhara, Yemen, Sudan, and the likes remain in the shadow. Lack of overwhelming visibility in the mentioned spaces, however, should not serve as the reason to dismiss, diminish or deny actual genocide occurring to people. I encourage editors to read sources but quotes are given to provide context. Please also look into these sections (Amhara genocide § I. Genocidal Acts (Article 6 of the Rome Statute), (Amhara genocide § II. Crimes Against Humanity (Article 7 of the Rome Statute)), and (Amhara genocide § III. War Crimes (Article 8 of the Rome Statute) in the article for the crimes of genocide listed, according to the UN Genocide Convention definitions.

1. "Killed like Chickens" “He said ethnic Amhara that moved to the area about 30 years ago in resettlement programmes were now being “killed like chickens”. Only Amhara are killed (Intent to destroy)
2. [1]".... men entered Amhara neighborhoods shouting 'This land is Oromo land,' burned Amhara homes and attacked Amharas with machetes"] (demonstrating intent)
3. "Targeting the Amhara" Details are given on how the Amhara ethnic group is targeted (demonstrating intent)
4. "750 civilians killed in Amhara in half of 2021: Rights body" Aljazeera reported the killing of ethnic Amhara by Tigray forces (another example of Intent)
5. "239 killed: the victims belonged to the Amhara ethnic group" (Genocide Watch specifying the ethnically targeted Amhara victims/Intent to destroy) Petra0922 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for this list, since it helps focus the discussion. Your first source is this article in The National (Abu Dhabi); this is one source in regular media that reports a massacre of Amharas that is attributed to either OLA as an ethnic massacre, or to government-aligned forces by OLA. Your second source is by Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition, and attributes a mass of Amharas to OLA after the ENDF left the area on 31 October 2020 (in the last few days of the Timeline of the Tigray War#Pre-war preparations). Your third source is an opinion by Girma Berhanu (education researcher) from the University of Gothenburg writing in Eurasia review (which was deleted for lack of notability), where he starts by referring to the baseless and fabricated reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, he does claim that there is an ongoing Amhara genocide. Source four by Al Jazeera English is mostly a summary of an Ethiopian Human Rights Commission report, and both AJE and EHRC qualify as WP:RS; it says that about 750 civilians in Amhara (not necessarily ethnic Amharas) were killed or executed in 2021; it does not claim genocide. Source five is by Gregory Stanton#Genocide Watch, which is a WP:RS; its summary statement is Genocide Watch is issuing a Genocide Warning for Ethiopia due to the government’s inaction to stop ethnically motivated violence between Oromo, Amhara, Tigrayan and Gedeo peoples, which is not a claim of a current status of genocide against any of the four groups.
  Your strongest source is the opinion of Girma Berhanu, who is currently un-notable, writes in a currently un-notable source, but does appear to be a faculty member of a well-known university. I don't see properly sourced support for Amhara genocide. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

* Comment: Concerns on bias and behavior of Tendentious editing WP:TE. It is important to capture the issue of bias reflected toward the Amhara content consistently. On the other hand, I couldn’t help noticing that the move requester is an avid editor of the Tigray materials with WP:POVPUSH even in remotely related articles. Please note that there is ongoing conflict between Tigray and Amhara. Such contentious move requests can only give meaning with unbiased and expertise-based editing more importantly on this specific topic. Please see the talk in Talk:Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia § Requested move 29 November 2021 for previous instance in which the same editor participated in a discussion about another article and the push for the title to be named “Tigray genocide”, even if the content wasn’t solely on Tigray. Another editor had to justify for correcting the poor suggestion. In addition, instead of help improving this article, the requester has been demanding Tendentious editing with numerous unjustified tags while giving no response for the explanations provided. Here is an example Talk:Amhara genocide § Dubious Petra0922 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's true that I have edited a lot on the Tigray War since early November 2020; my editing is based on the sources. I would suggest you look at my Ethiopia-related edits more broadly rather than attacking me, e.g. my creation of the Daniel Bekele page, helping to establish knowledge about the leader of the most important Ethiopian human rights body; my creation of the EHRCO page, about the best-known Ethiopian non-governmental human rights association (31 years old); and my insertion of the claim of OLA killing 700 civilians during 2018–2020, which currently remains undisputed. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  This doesn't justify bias especially when your recent edits are aggressively towards pushing the Tigray material (which i can share examples if necessary). I noticed you just responded today for Talk:Amhara genocide § Dubious, after a month, when questions of bias and conflict of interest, and Tendentious edits are raised against your Tigray vs. Amhara edits. Could you please justify that? Still, your dubious and other tags show Opinion and failed to provide direct sources for the argument on the current ruling in Ethiopia is dominated by ethnic Oromo. Another key question that you declined to respond to is your justification to name the Predicting genocide in Ethiopia article "Tigray genocide?" Your opinion on Genocide and the reasoning you provide for naming one and denying another is questionable and a series problem. Petra0922 (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Petra0922, I think it would be helpful if you stopped making personal attacks against Boud. Whatever their editing patterns may be, these attacks bog down the discussion and make it hard for other editors to read through everything. And incidentally, Boud's formal !vote in the move discussion Talk:Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia § Requested move 29 November 2021 appears to oppose the move. Your position will be best served by concise statements directly related to the topic. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The back and forth certainly doesn’t help others to focus on the discussion. The intention was to provide context on the ethnic conflict in Ethiopia in which over 80 groups are sucked in, and the parallel systematic advocacy issue that is being reflected in the platform (my observation). Petra0922 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: The article support the classification of the "Amhara Genocide". The ongoing persecution and genocide of the Amhara people have continued unabated since the 1990s in Ethiopia. According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states that " Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; C) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." This classification of genocide clearly shows that the purpose of killing the Amharas is an act of genocide and is supported by the article. Amharas are being killed because of their ethnicity. In addition, genocide is being committed with the intention of killing Amharas, and all the sources presented in the article indicate that they killed Amharas only because of their ethnicity and committed genocide. Changing the title of "Amhara Genocide" to "Massacre of the Amharas" is a deliberate denial of the Amhara genocide. Therefore, I strongly object to changing the title of this article from Amhara Genocide to "Massacres of Amharas". The title of the article should remain "Amhara Genocide". NigistA (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to your first edit of Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPA and do not make personal attacks such as deliberate denial of the Amhara genocide. Boud (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I am not going to weigh in, but I can provide some relevant journal articles that should probably be included in the article.

• Situating Ethiopa in Genocide Debates presents genocide claims from multiple groups, and suggests that the principal question is not “is it genocide?” but, “how can solutions be found to the crises of war, state collapse, starvation and mass atrocity?”
• I don't have access to the article Lived Experience of Amhara Genocide Survivors, but the title suggests that classification.
• The article Ethnic Politics and Violation of Basic Civil Rights of Amharas in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State contains the statement that researchers have uncovered the existence of acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Amharas in BGRS.
• Transnational Advocacy: Genocide or Terrorism? says, questions around what is genocide are recognized by all parties to a conflict as a key arena of the larger contention...The Ethiopian government would have experienced significant hurdles in its efforts to retain strong relations with global partners if the international community had determined that it was engaging in genocide (suggesting perhaps that the international community did not come to this consensus?)

Larataguera (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

These are useful sources. It's a pity that reference 3, published by Brill Publishers, was not proofread - it has many ambiguous sentences and contains several sentences that literally say the opposite of what is the likely intended meaning (such as ... Amharas are claiming on how they have repeatedly killed ...); a publisher normally pays language editors/proofreaders to propose language fixes to a research article after peer reviewers have accepted the article. This is not the fault of the authors - non-native English speakers are not going to write perfect English - it's the publisher's fault. A key quote from reference 4 is The process through which Darfur was labelled as genocide was deeply contentious and raised deep issues about how the world should position itself with regard to violence, particularly in Africa and the Islamic world. As Irvin-Erickson argued, 'genocide discourses' are a type of strategic narrative that shapes the way that individuals and groups position themselves. This strengthens the motivation for the discussion of this RM to be based on good quality sources, keeping in mind the geographical bias in Wikipedia that will tend to undervalue African sources, and to avoid the risk of advocating in one direction or the other. Boud (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC) In reference 4, more specific to this current discussion is the paragraph on p18 starting The Amhara diaspora in particular followed the Ogadeni diaspora in its use of the genocide frame. Whether the Amhara diaspora are right or wrong is a matter for WP:RS to say - preferably peer-reviewed sources, and ideally, proofread peer-reviewed sources where the reader doesn't have to guess the intended meaning, but that's up to a matter of judgment for people participating in this discussion and the eventual uninvolved closer. Boud (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I does seem like there's probably enough literature about the genocide label to warrant an article with that word in the title (these sources were just a smattering of what's available), but the title might be more appropriately 'Amhara genocide debate' or something similar. Broadly, I think that the existing article Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia should be developed to more completely discuss the situation as a whole and as it affects several ethnic groups. 'Amhara genocide' might be best conceived as a spin-off from a section of that broader article (if it can't just be merged?)

To be clear, I'm not especially familiar with existing Wikipedia content about these conflicts, but this is based on a brief survey of what we have so far. Larataguera (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced about the idea of a merger. Predictions of a genocide in Ethiopia, as defined in its lead, has the restricted scope of predictions made in the 2020s, making editorial convergence not too difficult. The topic of massacres and human rights violations in Ethiopia overall and over decades/centuries is a huge topic; many would qualify as crimes against humanity and possibly genocides if Ethiopia ratified the Rome statute and if the International Criminal Court had the means (especially funding) to investigate (and if modern definitions were used to interpret older events), but whether they would count as war crimes seems less clear, since many have occurred in situations that were not recognised as "war". The current Ukrainian case, which is much more tightly limited in scope (time and associated armed conflict), currently has the long-winded consensus title Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

A broad overview article such as Genocides in Ethiopia, with the plural "genocideS", where the lead clarifies that the scope includes the debates about which events are/were or aren't/weren't genocides, might be a very useful complementary article, and might have a good chance (in the long term) of becoming a high quality article, since people of different biases would have to come to consensus on describing the different events and providing sources for what terms accurately describe them. Editors would mainly first work on the body, with a brief neutral lead, and gradually build up the lead as the body develops. The lead would summarise the fact that the events have taken place and that scholarly debate (and diaspora and political debate) about which to classify as genocides is controversial. The cases where the sources converge in the body of the article on particular events constituting genocides, per stable editing consensus, would in the long-term be briefly summarised in the lead (best with labels to existing references). Boud (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion on capturing the complex issues in Ethiopia in one article certainly is interesting but would be challenging and requires serious thought especially when existing articles demonstrate Notability. The reasons I see:

1. The conflicts in Ethiopia are too polarized (eg. I struggle to imagine the merging of the articles on the Amhara, the Tigray war, the Gemballa, the Afar, the Agew, and many others, under Prediction of Genocide in Ethiopia or in another single article)
2. It will be challenging to come into consensus on sources. Most reports appeared unbalanced and seem to portray one group as the victim and others as perpetrators. Some embassy reports attempt to give coverage of all sides but noticed shadowed cases are buried somewhere while those politically important ones take their lead sections
3. Due to the depth of the conflict and grievances in Ethiopia, telling the issues for various groups in one article could be seen as telling violations on Palestine vs. Israel in the same article (is there any example existing on that?)
4. On the proposed future article on Genocides in Ethiopia, I thought there are already navigation boxes and tables that partially list articles with genocide and massacres. Don’t they serve the purpose that is being discussed here? My recommendation is to expand the boxes and tables, to make them more comprehensive
5. On the Amhara genocide article, the content attempts to capture the violations of 30+ years, with potential addition of specific issues such as the sexual violence against women and children

The way I see it, merging the issues in Ethiopia could bloat the final article due to the complex nature of the conflict and will be difficult to maintain. Petra0922 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with a lot of that. My aim was that Genocides in Ethiopia was to be a complementary article, but probably it would be better to have a title that makes that complementarity more explicit, in a variation on what Larataguera proposed. So now my side suggestion (which doesn't answer the main question of this RM (requested move)) would be Debates about genocides in Ethiopia or something similar such as Scholarly debate on genocides in Ethiopia. This would be a bit like Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Legality of the Iraq War, in the sense that the events themselves are not the main topic of these two articles, but rather scholars' (legal or academic) ways of defining the events is the main topic. If you want to know the specific events that happened in the Iraq War, then you (probably) won't want to read these two articles; if you want to make legal/moral judgments, then you probably do want to read them. In the current case, readers who want to know "genocide or not genocide" would go to Debates about genocides in Ethiopia; while readers who want to focus on specific events would go to the more specific articles (such as the current one). Of course, there would be cross-links and cross-summaries. Boud (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

My concern here is that the topic in discussion is being sidetracked. For providing additional information, I think it is important to share primary and in my experience, helpful links for clarity on the fundamentals of genocide and its politics: [2] and Genocide recognition politics. Debates are important, especially for passive events. On active genocide in Ethiopia such as the topic of this discussion, the Amhara genocide, events are live. To find out what is happening on the ground one only needs to read the news out there, and do internet search, and make a deliberate effort to talk to the community in the diaspora and people from the ethnic group. There are civic groups abroad who can share information. I am not dismissing the questions about reliable sources. For those with the capacity to travel, unlimited field data exist on the ground. Considering the selected and concerted effort to embolden one event in Ethiopia versus keeping the others in the dark, I would say such debates may add value (assuming parties/participants from various groups are fairly engaged). One possible challenge that can be expected is that due to language-barrier, technical issues, and unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia tools, many people with great views can be limited from contributing, which I fear that the debate would remain within the same circle of editors who already formulated opinion or bias. Even with this gap, it makes sense to start the debate for the purpose of encouraging/ possibly initiating the scholarly-like conversation for all the groups in Ethiopia (not just Afar, Agew, Amhara, Gambela, Gamo, Guraghe, Oromo, Tigray, but also other minorities in the South who are being mass murdered in silence). Still, it is important to re-route this discussion back to the topic, Keeping versus Moving the articles title. Petra0922 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support the issue is not whether the legal definition is met, even less whether editors here can prove or disprove genocide. Nor how badly the Amhara are being persecuted, all issues which occupy far too much space above, but which are ultimately irrelevant. Rather it is whether the WP:COMMONNAME for this series of events is 'Amhara genocide'. Even many of the sympathetic sources do not use the term 'genocide' unequivocally and certainly not 'Amhara genocide' as the name of the events. The closest that the Lemkin institute gets is saying : "During TPLF rule (1991-2018) Amhara people suffered numerous individual and collective human rights violations, some of which could amount to the crime of genocide and also "However, within this larger conflict between the Ethiopian government and Tigrayan forces, the Amhara have been targeted by all sides with violence that amounts to crimes against humanity, and, arguably, genocide. " That is very equivocal as to whether the violence is genocide and no suggestion that the common name is 'Amhara genocide'. This is not a case of how serious or 'bad' this campaign is. Genocide is not somehow more serious than non-genocidal mass murder, it is simply different in kind. Sometimes also it takes time for events to be generally recognised as genocide, but AFAI can see that has not happened. We follow sources, not lead campaigns for recognition and they don't seem to be there that the common name for this is 'Amhara genocide'. Pincrete (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  The cause of the Amhara is commonly named Amhara genocide by many sources. I am not sure if you looked through the sources thoroughly, but here are the references that explicitly mention the Amhara genocide, to justify the current title. However, the article needs to add some of these but part of the list is already added. These are examples and if needed more can be extracted from the article's source:

  • Reports and academic publications (randomly grouped for the purpose of easy access)

  1. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
  2. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
  3. [13], [14], [15],[16], [17]],
  4. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22],
  5. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]
  6. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]
  7. [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]

  • Books (also cited by others)

  [40], [41], [42], and [43] and [44] for Moresh Wogene Amhara Organization. The Amhara Genocide Ignored by the World: A study of the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Amhara ethnic group from 1991 – 2015, Moresh Wogene Amhara Organization Research and Study Department, Washington DC, 2016, and Muluken, A. (2015).

  • Video examples

  [45], [46]

  • Other mentions

  [47], [48], [49] Petra0922 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are proving my point. I have not checked every source, but the first one is a partisan Amhara campaigning group and the second refers to 'mass massacres". Others appear to be similarly compromised, or equivocal. There are sources that say genocide is happening - or may be - and those claims need to be expressed clearly and neutrally, but that is completely different from saying that the Amhara genocide is the generally used name for this series of events. Maybe it should be, but it isn't AFAI can see. Arguing about whether genocide is happening is ultimately irrelevant to the title of the article. 'Massacres' may not be perfect, there may be a better description for such an extended campaign (Persecution of …?), but adopting a title because it somehow better expresses how badly these people are being treated is not how WP works. Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To correct/clarify, the second source does actually say, mass atrocities including systemic genocide and ethnic cleansing on Amharas in Wolqait, Tegede, and Telemt areas Larataguera (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the general statements that you are making. Could you please read through the sources? It seems this discussion needs to continue, probably with broader participants. I am now looking through all the articles named Genocide in Wikipedia to confirm international consensus in each, per your perspective. It is difficult to deny that genocide involves various parties and consensus by all is one of the main challenges. Related to that, what is your definition of neutral, and would you please perhaps touch on it from the political aspect of it? I think it is important to understand your point based on what exists on this platform, and may I ask if you could pick randomly a few sets of diverse articles from different timelines and continents from the two genocide Navbox? I want to genuinely understand examples of reliable and neutral sources for genocide topics. Petra0922 (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking through other articles on WP is fruitless, since WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one of the most prominent cases is Srebrenica massacre. Several people have been tried, found guilty and imprisoned for 'genocide' iro the events at Srebrenica, but 'massacre' is the more common name for the event. We don't title articles according to the 'strongest' name, though we probably would do if we were a 'campaigning site'. The second source refers to genocide it does not call the series of events the 'Amhara genocide'. There probably are some other articles wrongly named 'ZXZXZX genocide' but that isn't a reason for wrongly naming this one.

There are many strong sources in the article, but they do not appear to be being used well sometimes and campaigning ones are almost worthless except as claims made - not as fact. My immediate impression is of something trying too hard to argue a case. For example, while the events documented in the "alleged crimes against the Amhara" section may well be properly sourced (I haven't checked), the overall effect is as though the article were trying to prove crimes, rather than documenting events, or even documenting what competent authorities have said about those events breaching international law. That is understandable as a wish, but isn't how WP works. I have to go now and apologise if this is a bit abrupt or direct. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose the original article is very high-quality and provides extensive reference material to support the "Amhara Genocide" designation with diverse sources from human rights organizations, mainstream media outlets, independent organizations and academics. In fact, the references are some of the most extensive I have seen and go far beyond citations used for other, similar articles. The Amhara Genocide is partly unique because there have been multiple perpetrators over an extended period of time. With this being said, it is possible it could grow even larger with more time. In my experience, the term "genocide" is not controversial among mainstream sources but rather among reviewers who have been unfamiliar with the body of evidence. It would be a gross misrepresentation of the evidence to move this article under the "massacres" title. I recommend the reviewers reexamine all of the evidence closely. TheGerazmach (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary: examples/ sources that name Amhara genocide

Summarizing per Boud's suggestion: for those who wish to weigh on !vote or change it after holding/reviewing the RM discussion here, I like to share a list of sources that support the current Amhara genocide title. Overall, the discussion seems to focus toward establishing WP:COMMONNAME, through sources that name the Amhara topic as genocide, and the list below is made to support that (ideally to provide information for whomever is closing the RM).

1. Looking Back and Reaching Forward: Prospects for Democracy in Ethiopia : Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives (1992)
2. Hearing: Democracy Under Threat in Ethiopia : Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations (2017) US House of Representatives or [50] (same testimony of Tewodrose G. Tirfe: Board Member, Amhara Association of America)
3. Ethnic Politics and Violation of Basic Civil Rights of Amharas in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State of the Post 1991 Ethiopia in International Journal on Minority and Group Rights (2022)
4. A Quest for Identity and Geographic Restoration of Wolkait-Tegede: Forceful Annexation, Violation of Human Rights and Silent Genocide Addis Ababa: Amhara Council (2016)
5. It only reopens old wounds: Lived experiences of Amhara genocide survivors in Families in Society: The journal of contemporary social services (2022)

For more examples:

• A case package presented to the Human Rights Council cited this report: https://www.europeantimes.news/2022/10/amharas-the-occulted-ongoing-genocide-in-ethiopia/
• Genocide Watch cited the Moresh Wogene book)
• [51].

Petra0922 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick comments on source 51: (1) this is by Fana Broadcasting Corporate, a federally owned media organisation, and the ENDF (federal forces) and Amhara forces fought on the same side in the Tigray War, together with Eritrean forces; (2) extracting the sense of the text requires guessing the intended meanings, e.g. Gondar University has designated a team of 21 scholars and carried out the apocalyptic genocide against the people of Amhara literally says that Gondar University carried out a genocide against Amharas. Boud (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Fana’s link is now replaced by another source, having a total of 6 examples. I think we should continue discussing source selection criteria in the setting where independent bodies have no/limited access. You probably have noticed the challenge on the other side- Western reports that use TPLF and Co. as their sources seem to gain more traction than the other way around. Specific to Ethiopia, I think there is a lot under this topic. Petra0922 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have reformatted these sources to make it easier to refer to them. (Sorry Petra0922 for editing your text to do that. I hope it's helpful!) Of these five, I think #3 and #5 are the best, being articles published by independent peer-reviewed journals. It would make sense to me that this article should be built largely on these sources and others like them. As it is, these two sources (from what I can tell the best sources we have) are only cited a handful of times in an article with hundreds of citations. This makes it difficult to review the sources and determine whether the article accurately summarises them. I also think there are probably other sources not being used or proposed here that are of better quality than the testimonies before the US house (#1 & #2) and the article published by the Amhara Council (#4). Larataguera (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) Looking Back ... the All-Amhara People's Organization (AAPO) states that it was created in reaction to acts of genocide in the provinces of ... genocidal activity that was perpetrated singularly on the Amhara people since the TPLF 1991 takeover of Ethiopia; the AAPO considers the TPLF to have carried out acts of genocide against Amharas while it ruled Ethiopia;

(2) Hearing: Democracy ... - this source itself does not directly establish "Amhara genocide", but instead lists multiple testimonies; choosing the one most likely to be favourable to Amharas, Mr. Tewodrose Tirfe, Co-Founder, Amhara Association of America, first witness statement, refers to ethnic cleansing and genocidal acts against Amharas and lists 8 events that would be the "event" part of genocide;

(3) Ethnic Politics ... (Getasew Endalew+2022, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights) – genocide against Amharas is executed in BGRS, referring to internal ref 26 = The Amhara Genocide Ignored by the World: A study of the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Amhara ethnic group from 1991 – 2015 (Moresh Wogene Amhara Organization, 2015);

(4) ... Silent genocide: A Quest ... (Achamyeleh Tamiru 2016, Ethio Forum) - the title+author+publisher+year stated by Google Scholar are not usable as a source; but the actual source is archived here – p26: ... silent genocide on Amhara people in general and Wolkait in particular ..., p32: TPLF was not alone when it was conducting the genocide on the Wolkait-Tegede Amhara. ... to the genocide on the Wolkait-Tsege Amharas. ... ideological underpinning to the genocide on the Wolkait-Tegede Amharas ... genocide of Wolkait-Tsege Amharas that has been happening on a daily basis for the last 36 years ... all the genocides committed on their Amhara brothers; Ethio Forum is well-known, probably ethnically biased (I don't remember; in any case, there seem to be very few non-ethnically biased Ethiopian sources), not yet WP-notable; the author clearly would support the name Amhara genocide;

(5) It only reopens old wounds: ... Amhara genocide survivors ... (Adugna Abebe Bihonegn+2022, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services) – abstract: ... Amhara survivors of the Maikadra massacre; while attribution of "who started" the 9–10 Mar 2020 Mai Kadra Massacre remains contested, with massacres of both Amharas and Tigrayans, the massacre of Amharas is uncontested, and the authors here consider the phrase Amhara genocide to be accurate.

It's not clear to me that these establish WP:COMMONNAME, but these five sources do show some usage of terms close enough to Amhara genocide. Whether this is a term widely recognised by scholars independent of Amhara groups is not clear, but research is not currently well-sourced in the more specific Wikipedia articles on the individual massacres; most of the sources are for the past few years, not the 30 years of TPLF federal-level rule. Boud (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Amhara elites

I only came across this article today, it often lacks coherence and often appears to be trying to argue a point, rather than report events. A small, but clear, example of the lack of coherence is: The systematic murder of Amhara elites, including internationally renowned diplomats, began in 1975 following the rise of the Derg; however, the mass violence against ordinary Amhara, and intellectuals and civic leaders would not commence until 1990. If intellectuals and civic leaders were not targeted until 1980, who were the elites who were murdered in 1975? Pincrete (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete Do you mean "until 1990,..."?

I think it's saying elites were picked off singly (though systematically) beginning in 1975, and mass murder began in 1990. But it's unclear, and I agree with your points overall. The article has lots of issues. Larataguera (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This explanation is correct. The rise of the communist Derg, the execution of elites including Emperor Haile Selassie with the massacres of elites under the "Red Terror" campaign, and other forms can be elaborated further. Systematic killings started in the 1970s but organized ethnic-based mass murders intensified from the early 1990s with the implementation of ethnic federalism. Petra0922 (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My point was that the intended meaning was not clear - and the text was superficially self-contradicting. I'm afraid it is one of many examples where meaning is not clear. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

House of Representatives Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on Foreign Affairs publisher: US government printing office

Hello User:Petra0922 you might find this source useful in the article. It's Asrat Woldeyes appeal on behalf of All-Amhara People's Organization to the House of Representatives. The paper alleges grave human rights violations against Amharas including massacres, ethnic cleansing, genocial intent and acts of genocide, committed by the EPRDF, Islamic fundamentalist radicals, the Oromo Liberation Front and OPDO (the forerunner of the Oromo branch of Abiy Ahmed led Prosperity Party) among others, in several areas including Arsi, Bale, Harrarghe and South Shewa. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria This helps. Thank you. The UN refworld cited as attachment, a translated reference about the Amhara genocide, but it didnt provide the link for it. I am thinking the reference you shared could be related to that. Here is what I found from the refworld: "Ethiopian Review [Addis Ababa, in Amharic]. December 1992. Asrat Woldyas. 'The Genocide of the Amhara People by Ethiopian Government Forces.' (translated by Almaz Berhie Bjornson, Mosaic Translation Services, Vancouver)" Petra0922 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

References