Talk:Benishangul-Gumuz conflict

2020 Benishangul-Gumuz bus attack was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 March 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Benishangul-Gumuz conflict. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Ethiopia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethiopia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ethiopia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EthiopiaWikipedia:WikiProject EthiopiaTemplate:WikiProject EthiopiaEthiopia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / Post-Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Sorting out factual-type claims

@Tyamz: The information you inserted into the lead in this pair of edits has some interesting, but unsourced information. There's a strong claim that would make sense (the claiming that "the regional ruling party" is partly to blame), it seems to me, in the Groups involved section. The number of people displaced would probably make sense as a separate subsection; I'm not sure if before or after the timeline would make more sense. These would both need a source or sources.

The text about "past three months" is quite annoying for Wikipedia. You can see a proper explanation at WP:RELTIME, but in brief, the problem is that there is no guarantee that you or other editors will update the text very month! If you look around Wikipedia, you'll find some articles that talk about "now" or "currently", but they are not talking about February 2021; after making an effort to look at the references, or trace through the editing history, you may eventually find that "now" or "the last few months" means 2005 or 2010. This is why we have the WP:RELTIME policy.

The lead is normally for a brief definition of the topic and a summary of the body of the article; it's not normally meant for introducing new material, although almost every rule has a few exceptions. Boud (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

@MfactDr and JustBeCool: I agree with JustBeCool that the older structure lacked a 'background' section, which is common in armed conflict articles, so I started one. I also added a brief overview of the massacres themselves, leaving the detailed timeline at the end. There's no obligation to have exactly the same structure as other conflict articles. In this case, the questions of who? why? and peace process attempts - how can this be solved? what is being done to try to solve it? do seem to have quite a few sources (including the New Humanitarian source!). Boud (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing says this has to exactly follow the pattern of other conflicts but where it helps to follow maybe it should be followed. I still think having the displaced people section is useful. Still, all what you are saying are understandable points. What I have trouble with are the edits from MfactDr removing some content and adding others. The description was added, "there is no sourced citation verify TPLF and OLF involves in Metekel conflict. various source confirms gumuz militia and Amhara involved in Metekel Zone" when the article has sources stating TPLF and OLF are claimed to be involved to the same extent the sources are claiming that the Gumuz militias are involved. As can be seen from the user's contributions and talk page, adding some narrative concerning Oromos and Amharas for some reason has been going on with other articles as well. I hope this article will not get affected. JustBeCool (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

Requested move 2 May 2021

The request to rename this article to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict has been carried out.

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. JustBeCool (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metekel conflict → Benishangul-Gumuz conflict – The sources speak more often about conflict in the wider Benishangul-Gumuz region rather than in just the Metekel Zone and now an unidentified armed group has taken over a county in neighboring Kamashi Zone and the sources refer to that violence in the same topic as the violence in the Metekel Zone. JustBeCool (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Bada Kaji (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If no conversation, then I'd move the article. JustBeCool (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

AAA - a good source

There are several detailed reports at https://www.amharaamerica.org/reports that could be used in this and other Ethiopia conflict articles. Boud (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]