Talk:Tigray war

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)

Without a source, it would be difficult to verify Egyptian involvement. However, it does seem like they are at least actively moving in that direction after the conflict so it wouldn't surprise me if there was some involvement.

Africa File, October 17, 2024: Egypt-Eritrea-Somalia Summit; Challenges with Tigray Peace Process - Institute for the Study of War, Oct. 2024 Vordigan3693 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can put them in a collapsible list when it's too many to show. MWQs (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely what was deprecated a year ago. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

How is the Tigray war The deadliest war of the 21st century, perhaps one of the deadliest but clearly wars like the Russo-Ukrainian war are far deadlier. 47.229.144.239 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The death toll of the Tigray war according to a study by the ghent university showed its death toll to be up to 600k and political geography estimates a death toll of 800k The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2025 and 15 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vordigan3693 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vordigan3693 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stop -TigrayGenocide- Columbus, OH (12.09.21) IMG 9500-(42) (51737069929).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to request a revision to the “Result” field in the infobox.

Right now the article lists “Ethiopian victory,” but this appears to oversimplify the outcome and may not accurately reflect the consensus in reliable sources. Multiple reputable sources describe the end of the conflict as a negotiated settlement via the Pretoria Agreement (also known as the Agreement for Lasting Peace through a Permanent Cessation of Hostilities). The TPLF retained political authority in Tigray, the conflict ended through internationally mediated talks, and the federal government did not achieve a total military defeat of Tigray forces.

Because the war ended in a negotiated peace agreement rather than a decisive battlefield victory, the “Ethiopian victory” label may be misleading or non-neutral. I propose changing the Result to something more balanced such as: “Negotiated settlement via the Pretoria Agreement”, or “Ceasefire and negotiated settlement (Pretoria Agreement)” This would better reflect what reliable sources describe as the war’s actual conclusion and would improve the neutrality and accuracy of the article. I welcome feedback from other editors. ~2025-35547-91 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)