Talk:Eritrea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Earlier discussions

Anyone up to write Cuisine of Eritrea ? Rama 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• The article has since been created. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous user 206.205.123.242 had replaced the article's text with the following comments:

Please provide your reader with a well balanced content about Eritrea that reflect the 50/50 fair share of Christian/Moslem history, culture and relegion.

I'm willing to help out in this if you agreed, if not the whole content about Eritrea should not be here.

I am moving the comments here. For future reference, comments about the article should be posted here, not in the article itself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

there. happy now?

List of Eritreans

The "List of Eritreans" was removed from the article. Most countries have a separate article for such a list (for example, List of Egyptians). Thus I have created a List of Eritreans with the content that was in this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikify

Any reason why the wikify notice was removed? The article still does not make use of the standard country template. Greenman Greenman 09:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

September 2005

Could someone please do a writeup of the story of the design and the building of the Asmara-Massawa road? I believe an Italian woman was responsible for the work. thank you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.130 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 September 2005‎

Trivia

2/00, first female fighter jock in Eritrean AF was Senait Kidane. Trekphiler 23:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

PoV problems as of 12/21/2005

Some edits (by different editors) to the "Politics" section on 12/18 and the "History" section on 12/21 introduced highly biased language into the article. I am tempted to revert to this version but didn't want to mess up other edits that occurred in the meantime. If no one beats me to it I will try and work on this one in a little while. (I wouldn't want to be accused of doing a "hit and run" PoV tagging, but frankly these seemed rather blatant; I'm surprised someone didn't catch these edits sooner.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've edited the History section a few times now to make it NPOV. What else is bothering you in the article? I didn't notice the problems in Politics. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks better now, I guess someone else took care of the "Politics" section. I'll go ahead and remove the "NPOV" tag. Thanks for your efforts! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject LOC Country Studies

I have started a Wikiproject that involves taking the public domain LOC Country Studies and incorporating them into Wikipedia. Go to the Eritrea subpage to participate or observe progress.--Bkwillwm 00:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Page vandalised

This page had been vandalised - I don't know how to put it right, so I just copied and pasted the old (un vandalised) page.

Don't worry it's been reverted. But, for future reference, you can revert a page simply by opening up the old edition of a page and then saving that edition. Mesfin 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

cheers!

History

Settit has added a very POV paragraph to head the Eritrea section. While nothing it states is an outright lie or fabrication, it contains inaccuracies and definite POV. I will not revert it out, but instead edit it to make it less POV. I acknowledge that I am an Ethiopian nationalist, though, so I encourage discussion. Yom 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This section in the page needs to be pared down. It is bloated and there is no purpose to going into such depth on the country page.

-Merhawie

If ur an Ethiopian nationalist, you shouldnt have anything to do with this article then. The reason being that you would be biased. Go improve your Ethiopian article. Dont worry about Eritrea, let the Eritreans fix the article.

Sounds a little xenophobic to me. I have every right to edit this page, and you have every right to edit the Ethiopia article. I'm not editing it to represent my views, but simply the facts and from a neutral point of view. The only reason I acknowledge my personal feelings is that they could unintentionally show up in my edits when I'm trying to better the article (whether adding info or removing POV).

Yes, but why dont u just let the Eritreans fix their own articles, mind ur own business. You have every right to, but why, why does it matter to you. It doesnt concern you. Period. You might be serving up propoganda to make Ethiopia look good, who knows, thats why I am saying this. You may be a bit biased. That is all im saying

Yom 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages

English is spoken in practically every country but has never been a language of Eritrea. Therefore I have edited this bit out. Also Tigre is not a language of Eritrea either ok someone has claimed that Tigre is an Eritrean language however if we accept this then we should include all the other languages like: Afar, Bedawi, Arabic, Bilen, Kunama, Naro, Saho and Geez (now extinct). (I have purposely left out Italian and English).

There's a disagreement over what the working languages of Eritrea are. I've shown places saying that only Tigrinya and Arabic are its working languages (and have once seen Tigre as well, but I doubt this), but I have never seen English listed as a working language, nor have I seen anyone cite a source for their assertion. Though Merhawie told me that almost any form can be submitted in English, that does not mean that it is a working language. Almost any form in the U.S. can be submitted in Spanish as well (certainly in the SW, and generally across the U.S.), but that doesn't mean that it is an official language (there are none). Unless evidence is given for English's status as a working language, I will revert any attempt to make it one. If someone provides evidence for it being a de facto working language, then they can note that somewhere in the article (under "Languages," most appropriately), but it should not be listed as a working language without evidence.

On a similar note, I am going to remove "English" from the list of living languages, as it is spoken as a second langauge only (Italian, on the other hand, still has some native speakers in Eritrea). I will make a note that it is, along with Arabic, the most widely learned non-Eritrean (i.e. not Tigrinya) second language.

Yom 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yom is correct in that no references were given for English as a working language. To ameliorate this I have done a bit of searching online.

http://www.bisharat.net/wikidoc/pmwiki.php/PanAfrLoc/Eritrea http://www.embassy-avenue.jp/eritrea/info/index.html http://www.africanchorus.org/Voam/Voam634.htm http://africa.oneworld.net/article/articleview/65335/ http://beilul.com/Eritrea/Eritrea_Info.htm

In my searching I have also found that there does not seem to be any particular consensus on what the working languages are or are not. This confusion is not surprising as there is not an official policy on this matter, as in other states. For this reason I propose that 'Working Languages' be all inclusive, as there are various sources that quote Tigre and English as other working languages. Finally, those languages are also easily workable in Eritrea from experience.

Merhawie 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The situation with working languages seems to be puzzling, indeed. Wrt to English, though. While it could be a working language, it most certainly is not spoken natively in Eritrea and for this reason should be removed. Note that the Ethnologue says that there are still some monolinguals of Italian left, but they say nothing of the sort for English, as all of its speakers learned it as a second language (and is not even used as a first language in the sense of one used on a day to day basis as a primary means of communication - even if it was not the first language learned). If a source can be provided showing that it is spoken natively, i.e. that there are enough Brits left in the country from the 1942-52 period, then we should keep it. Otherwise, I'll remove it in a few hours. As to the working language situation, seeing as it is not even mentioned in the version of the constitution provided by Merhawie, maybe we shouldn't even mention any or say "conflicting, see 'Languages' below". Either way, we need to do more research on this.

Yom 21:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Eritrea and not Ethiopia, therefore Amharic should not be added (for obvious reasons). - Settit

WRT to the languages section, English and Italian should remain, and perhaps Amharic should be added (by the way there is the question if the languages should be arranged alphabetically or by percent speakers). The reasons for this are because the languages section in general can be considered as the "Languages spoken" as opposed to the "Indigenous Languages" spoken. The question is not which is indigenous, as Standard Arabic is not (only Geez is) and remains listed.

WRT to the working languages section, if you note this page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_language

In particular note the second sentence where it says that it is defined as a language used in daily conversation and among people of different language backgrounds. In Eritrea this is certainly Tigrinya, English and Arabic. Especially in the capital Asmara, there is a large concentration of English speakers, as I can vouch for having worked there for three months in an domestic engineering office. All communications with the Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Construction, and Ministry of Public Works was done in English.

Merhawie 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrt to languages, I'm not sure if that's such a good idea. If the only criterion is that it is spoken in Eritrea, then the presence of one Romanian family in Nakfa would mean that we would technically have to add Romanian to the list. A more helpful list would be one of native speakers, which would include all those listed (the Rashaida speak Arabic natively, don't they? - though this would make Arabic sort of an "Eritrean" language, which is deceiving) except for English.

As to working languages, the Wikipedia definition only takes precedence if there is no official working language(s). If there is one (or more), then we would be listing official working languages. Only when there is not should the wikipedia standard be used. We have yet to establish whether or not there is an official working language(s), so our goal should be to clear up that confusion before determining what constitutes a working language.

Yom 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has had to work with the Eritrean government for any length of time knows that you are allowed to offically comunicate in English, Tigrigna, or Arabic. All offical documents that are published by the Eritrean government are translated into these three languages, and all official forms can be accepted in these three languages. These are the three languages that are used by the government run newspaper [[1]], and the offical state seal [[2]]. English is also has a special status in Eritrea as it the language of instruction in all schools in Eritrea above grade six, and it is also the predominant language on the Eritrean Nakfa (money) [10 front], [50 front], [20 front], [100 back], [10 back], [1 back], the other laguages on the nakfa are Tigrigna and Arabic (seen on the extreme right of the front of the money)

Lets not confuse this issue Eritrea has Three working languages: English, Tigrigna, and Arabic. Mesfin 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is what the Constitution or law says, not what the practice is. Ethiopia's only national working language is Amharic, but all schools above a certain level (probably something around 6-9) are taught in English, as are all Universities. This does not mean, however, that English is a working language of Ethiopia. The currency also has no bearing, as Ethiopian Birr has english writing on it, despite the fact that English is not a working language. I'm not sure as to the extent English is used in the Ethiopian government, but you'll have to cite something as to the use of English in Eritrean gov't offices and its status (i.e. whether it is an official working language, or simply a de facto one - which we would have to make explicit in the article).

Yom 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I visited Eritrea in 2002, and to my knoweledge it was italian and arabic that were most widely spoken. Street signs were in both languages, and in Asmara one could get round with only a little italian knowelege. Whatever the others may say, I say Italian is a widely regarded and probably official language.

Segafreak2 19:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but we have to use verifiable information. I could say that I went to Eritrea just a week ago, and said that Klingon was most widely spoken, but I wouldn't be able to add it here without some sort of a source. Ethnologue only mentions "a few monolinguals" for Italians, though, and nothing of significant second language speakers, so maybe what you're talking about is localized in Asmara (I would imagine the rest of the country would have less contact with Italian and Arabic, with the exception of the coast near Mitsiwa where the Rashaida live).

Yom 19:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am desparate about this discussion. Is it so difficult to find out that English is used even for Eritrean laws? What else is a working language than a language used by the administration? When I was an intern in the Eritrean government in 1993, laws were published in Tigrinya (most of them), Arabic (many of them) and rarely in English, like the Proclamation on international commerce. Also later some of the government publications and government discussion papers were in English. English is the language of higher learning at the University and secondary schools. There are government newspapers in English. I think it is quite evident that under these circumstances one should admit that English is a (minor) working language in Eritrea. By the way: Italian is NOT. It was in colonial times, and many old people still remember it, that's all. Italian is only well understood by elderly people and those few individuals who had visited Italian schools. In the countryside especially younger people do not Italian at all. But there are still native Italians in Eritrea - in this sense Italian IS an Eritrean language (but not "official"). wolli-habesch 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I would have to disagree. I have in my apartment right now, sitting next to me, about 35-40 of the Eritrean Proclamations and Regulations as approved in the National Assembly (almost all of them are in English as well as Tigrinya, and most have Arabic copies).Merhawie 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is in reference to. Is this a response to Segafreak's comment on Italian (which is obviously not spoken aside from a few old italians and old Eritreans). — Yom 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No Yom, this is in reference to the comments by wolli-habesch directly above my comment...Merhawie 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All Ethiopian schooling is conducted in English from High school onward and many documents are in English, yet it is not an official working language in Ethiopia.

Yom 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats special for Ethiopia Yom. Anyway onto the important part, Eritrea does not have DEFINED working languages, as such it would seem obvious that the working languages would be the languages that that are commonly spoken in business and Government.

Merhawie 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I found another wiki (random search that we hadnt looked at already, it is on african localisation and says that eritrea has 3 working languages. http://www.bisharat.net/wikidoc/pmwiki.php/PanAfrLoc/Eritrea

Merhawie 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the US Library of Congress profile on Eritrea says about languages. I hope it can help clarify some of the confusion:

"Languages: Arabic, English, and Tigrinya are the three official languages in Eritrea. Arabic and Tigrinya are the most widely used languages and, along with Italian, are used in commercial and public business. English is also widely spoken and is the medium of instruction in middle and secondary schools and in higher education. Other languages spoken in Eritrea are Afar (Denkali), Amharic, Beja (Hadareb), Bilen, Kunama, Nera, Saho, and Tigre. Languages in Eritrea belong to one of three linguistic families: Semitic (Amharic, Arabic, Tigre, Tigrinya); Cushitic (Afar, Beja, Bilen, Saho); and Nilotic (Kunama and Nera). Linguistic categories do not always coincide with ethnic identities; for example, the Beni Amir include both Beja- and Tigre-speakers."[3]--Bkwillwm 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that we could include that entire passage verbatim, since it's in the public domain. Furthermore, it's a verifiable source. (Wikipedia policy says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That may seem strange, but that's the rule.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found a citation in a scholarly journal for English being an official language (I hadn't seen bkwillwm's link). [4] I'll take away the disputed tag and add a couple links. I'm not removing it from the second list, though. English is not spoken as a first language, so it should not be included on that list (there are just as many English speakers in Ethiopia e.g., but it is not on the list).

Yom 03:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yom, this dispute is ridiculous because it is no longer tenable. It has been proven that in Eritrean Government and the larger businesses that English is spoken. Especially in the technical field I can vouch (as apparently can Mesfin). Furthermore the schooling system uses it for nearly half of its instruction.

To remind you of the point of this conversation it has been to determine whether or not ENGLISH is a WORKING language. It has been shown that Eritrean laws as well as communication (both academic and business-related) are done in English as well.

Your point that it is not native to Eritrea is also irrelevant, as English is not native to say Hong Kong or Singapore it is still spoken there and listed on their pages. Furthermore this is also an irrelevant point as no where in the languages section does it say that the languages are Native.

And finally, maybe the Ethiopia page should update, it is not the fault of Eritrea or Eritreans that Ethiopians deny that English is spoken in their country (at least on this wiki). So now if you dont mind please remove all citation required's and disputed links on the page or I fear I may of to again petition for a straw vote. This discussion has been going now for nearly 3 months and I cannot in good conscious allow it to go further unless there is some movement on the issue.

Thank you. Merhawie 18:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote above? I said it's fine to add English to the working languages as I found some reliable citations for it. English, however, is not spoken as first language (just see the Ethnologue), so it shouldn't be located in the second languages list. I'm going to remove the Disputed & citationstags now from the working language section but remove English from the spoken languages section. I assumed that someone would have removed the tags earlier after I said I found a source, but no one went ahead and did it. ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 19:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Border Conflicts

Currently Eritrea has only 1 border conflict. This border conflict is with Ethiopia and has been technically arbitrated by the EEBC and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Eritrea's border with the Sudan is not delinieated however, there is no conflict over the border (and there never has been).

Eritrea's border with Yemen was conflicted but no longer is. It was solved by arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1996 I believe)[5]. There has been further news since 2001[6]. Further information at the Permanet Court of Arbitration.

I tried to edit this earlier (and then left the room for a while), not knowing that Merhawie had edited the page in conflict with my edit, so here's what I tried to put below:

== Border Conflicts ==

Merhawie, I am not aware of a border conflict with Sudan (other than minor disputes), but the sentence's current state is completely ungrammatical:

External issues include the border conflict with Ethiopia, Yemen; over the Hanish Islands in 1996 and the Sudan.

I propose to change it to this:

External issues include border conflicts with Ethiopia, with the Sudan, and with Yemen over the Hanish Islands in 1996.

where it is grammatical and understandable. If there was no conflict with Sudan, then the sentence needs to be changed some, but the current version is still incorrect.

Yom 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, Merhawie, the current set up is grammatically incorrect as well as confusing. Both ways show that the Yemen conflict was a while ago, but neither tells what the deal with Sudan is. I propose the following (and will edit as soon as I post this message.

External issues include recent border conflicts with Ethiopia, an undemarcated border with the Sudan, and a war with Yemen over the Hanish Islands in 1996.

P.S. It's interesting that we picked the exact same title.

Yom 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yom, I was thinking something a bit more like this.

The undemarcated yet delimited border with Ethiopia is the primary external issue facing Eritrea. This has led to the occupation of nearly 20% of Eritrea by UNMEE and Ethiopian forces.

A secondary external issue is the undetermined border with the Sudan. Eritrea and Sudan have had periods of warm and cool reltions throughout the past decade. Eritrea and The Sudan in the past have hosted one another's 'opposition' forces. In 2005 The Sudan expelled the Eritrean opposition from its capital.

In 1996 Eritrea and Yemen complied with an arbitrated decision from the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague regarding the [[Hanish Islands] dispute.

Merhawie 22:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Patriarch of ErOC

Reports from the Eritrean Orthodox Church report that he was removed by the Synod, not the Government.

'Recently in 2005, the Patriarch of Orthodox Tewahdo Church of Eritrea, H.H. Abune Antonios, has been forced out of his post (but this has been challenged by the Diocese of North America of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church [1]). Earlier, when Abune Antonios protested at government interference in Church affairs, his Christmas radio message was cancelled [2]. Abune Antonios was elected on 5 March 2004 and enthroned as the third Patriarch of Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Eritrea, on 25 April 2004. It is to be remembered Pope Shenouda III presided at the consecration and enthronement in Asmara, together with the Holy Synod of the Eritrean Orthodox Church and a Coptic Orthodox Delegation that accompanied him.'

Source: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Eritrea

Merhawie 23:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading

Right now, the order of the books is kind of Haphazard. I say we do it MLA bibliography style to sort out the order, and maybe excise a couple to keep the list briefer.

Yom 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of "State of Eritrea" in Tigrinya

Using the commnon transliteration, the "State of Eritrea" is read as "Hagäre Ertra." This seems very close to "Hagärey Ertra" ("my country Eritrea"). I'm not sure, but it seems to me as if the final "e" might properly be a "ä" like the Ge'ez usage for "of" (which is also used in Amharic for more formal names and titles). Is it supposed to be "Hagärä Ertra" (I.e. Hagär-ä Ertra = State-of Eritrea), or am I completely off?

Yom 19:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but Yom, all Geez based languages (to the best of my knowledge) are extremely phoenetic, as you have the correct official name (ሃገረ ኤርትራ) it should not be that difficult to transliterate, something I know little about.

The spelling in both languages was wrong, but consistent, so it didn't apply. ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk

Tigrigna are the Majority, not Tigre, uv got ur sources wrong

I'll be changing the majority of Tigre to Tigrigna, because someone's been fooling around with this article. Ethnic groups: Tigrinya 50%, Tigre 31.4%, Saho 5%, Afar 5%, Beja 2.5%, Bilen 2.1%, Kunama 2%, Nara 1.5%, and Rashaida .5%.

This is the website from the US department of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm

Good. Thanks for that. BTW, if you are Tigrinya speaker, can you answer my question above? I will supplicate the CIA data with this on the Demographics of Eritrea page.

Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (type this: ~~~~). — Yom 19:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know tigrigna very well. Are you the editor of the Ethiopian article too? Are you Ethiopian? Maybe thats why you confused Tigrinya with Tigre. Because they are in Ethiopia, the ruling government.

That wasn't me who confused Tigre with Tigrinya. I know the difference. The Tigre are muslim pastoralists living in the Western lowlands, whereas the Tigray/Tigrinya are agrarian, living in the Highlands and are overwhelmingly Christian (90+% in Ethiopia, not sure how many Jebertis there are in Eritrea). Some random editor changed those figures. And yes, I am Ethiopian.

Yom 16:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Extent of Ottoman control in Eritrea

What parts of Eritrea belonged to Ottoman Emipire when it colonized Eritrea? Which provinces?

The coastal areas.Merhawie 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely, actually. More specifically the Ottoman province of Habeš comprised Hergigo, Mitsiwa', and some of the surrounding areas (about 20 mi. diameter I believe, but I'm not sure. Dog`ali, 10 mi. outside of Mitsiwa' wasn't part of the province, e.g.). There was also some indirect control of the coastal areas, I believe, but that was more the northern area (the Southern Red Sea coast was under the control of the Awsa Afar sultanate, a vassal of the Ethiopian Empire). The Ottoman control of Habeš actually wasn't very direct either. It was really under the control of a Beja Na'ib appointed by the Ottomans who had to pay a certain amount to Istanbul each year and given free reign aside from that (i.e. the "tax-farming" system that they had employed ever since the 1516/7 conquest of the Muslim world). Habeš actually included Jeddah, and Suakin (and I believe also Aden), as well actually; the capital was at Jeddah. Hope that helps answer your question.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. So, Hamasien was never associated with Ottoman Empire?

No, it wasn't. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 03:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but after seeing the Ottoman map, it seemed as though dekemehare and akule guzai were part of the Ottoman Empire. Am I correct?

They weren't part of Ottoman Habesh, really. The Ottomans got as far as Debarwa and even farther during the first invasion, but after the first invasion was beat back, they were limited to the areas I described above. Actually, Hergigo was even recaptured once and in the same raid Massawa had half of its fort's defender's killed. There was always the threat of starvation of Massawa (because it didn't have it's own food or water source - it was dependent on the hinterlands, specifically Hamasien), which usually settled any problems, except for under Iyasu II of Ethiopia, where his threats were countered by the Na'ib threatening to execute the clergymen he had arrested for not paying fees (which they were not required to do by the long-standing deal, but the Na'ib was greedy). The only problem was, that once Habesh was conquered, the emperor had no way to hold it, so a stalemate persisted.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 19:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank u very much for your response, but in your answers, u say not really, so by that, do u mean that some parts of Akule Guzai (very little) were part of the Ottoman empire (indirectly)

I say not really because it wasn't a part of the province, but parts were conquered in the initial Ottoman attack. I.e., the 1557 invasion was able to advance far (I think perhaps even as far as Debre Damo), but it was reversed by both the peasants and Bahr negus Yeshaq in less than a year. The Ottomans made their capital Debarwa once they captured it in 1557, but the peasants revolted, kicked them out of Debarwa and annihilated the Ottoman force, taking all of their loot, as well as that of the pro-Ottoman queen Ga'ewah, and handed it over to the Emperor. The chronicle of Gelawdewos actually says it was the peasants who did this, and the chronicles usually attribute everything to the Emperor, so it's most likely the case. After this point, only Massawa & Hergigo were occupied. Menas (Gelawdewos's successor) defeated Yeshaq's revolt, after which he went to the Ottomans support, promising them Debarwa and the lowlands between it and Massawa. After the Ottoman support, the war continued until Minas's death (unrelated to the war - he died of a fever while getting ready to campaign) in 1563. Yeshaq made peace with Sarsa Dengel, and in 1572, the Turks withdrew from Debarwa (the only place on the plateau where they had control) & Yeshaq occupied it. He renewed the alliance in 1576, promising them the town, but Sarsa Dengel took arms against them and eventually killed Yeshaq and was victorious in 1579. He took Debarwa, destroyed its fortress and mosque, and took in some Turks into his army; it was at this time that Hergigo was looted and had its fortress destroyed (taken, but not held) and Massawa had half of its defenders killed and its fortress destroyed. The Turks tried again in 1588 to take Debarwa (it was the gateway to the hinterland), but failed; Sarsa Dengel couldn't take Hergigo or Massawa this time, though. It was under Fasilides that the Emperor was able to take the towns, but not hold them. Basically, after 1579, only Hergigo & Mistiwa (Massawa) and some of the desert coast was occupied. After the 1557 invasion was repelled, only Debarwa was ever held by the Turks in the highlands, and that was intermittently (1562–1572 and 1576– 1579).

Hope the above helps. It was a bit long, but I figured you'd want more and more details, so I tried not to leave anything out that wasn't a bit trivial.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 01:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This article was nominated as a good article by User:SeanMack. Whilst it is a substantial article, with many facts suitably referenced, it has a couple of problems at the moment. The status of English needs to be sorted out - it looks like that's going to be hard to reference, unfortunately. A photographic image of a place in Eritrea would be nice, does it have a "defining image" like the Palace of Westminster in the United Kingdom article, the Imperial Palace in the Japan article, or the fishing village in the Norway article? The rather nice photo that is here needs to have its licence sorted out - at the moment it seems to have a software licence, not a photographic one... On the whole though this is a pretty decent and obviously improving article, it will be nice to see it when it's got sorted out a bit more (some more "paper" references would be good, perhaps a few more images and an agreement about disputed issues) and hopefully it can be nominated for good article or even featured article status.TheGrappler 17:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To address these concerns I thought it would be easiest if I went ahead and put these criticisms (constructive of course) into a list form:

1. The status of English needs to be sorted out
2. A photographic image of a place in Eritrea (a "defining image")
3. The rather nice photo that is here needs to have its licence sorted out
4. Some more "paper" references would be goodwill always need more

Ok everyone who is working on this article. We have a new list of tasks: Peer Review, thanks to the reviewers. I have provided them below in list form so we can work through them easier and strike them off when done.

1. Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
2. I'm pretty confident that paper sources can be found for this article.
   • I am not quite sure about this one. Surely there are indeed paper sources, however, it does not seem that the ratio of paper to web articles for this entry is any different than any other FA, especially PRC.
3. For examples of featured articles that this article can follow as a guide, see WP:FA#Geography and places. (countries include Canada, Australia, India, PRC, etc.)

   

4. Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
5. This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form).
6. There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged. For example, Culture is/are a bit short.
7. Merge languages into Demographics
8. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

I'm pretty sure that we can put in a defining image, I've come up with three;

File:Cathedral-asmara.jpg

Asmara Cathedral looks not dissimilar to the palace of westminster! And is an important building in Asmara, it also could be a defining image.

File:Asmara by night.jpg

Shows the hustle and bussle of Asmara in with the beauty of the cathedral in the background.

A better picture of the Shida Monument would also be great. --Segafreak2 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I considered that at first, however, I realized that those are defining images of Asmara and not Eritrea. I concluded that the shida was probably a better defining image, though if you think there are others that would be great too, we can check it out! --Merhawie 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case how is the Palace of Westminster a defining image of the UK and not London? --Segafreak2 19:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I like those images, and they should be in the article. Merhawie I don't understand when you say that, "those are defining images of Asmara and not Eritrea." Stop pussy footing around and just add the pictures. When I came to look for images on Eritrea, why did I have to come to the discussion board to find those kind of beautiful pictures? Is there something you would like to say or not say? I don't get it. Just put them up. ----Nita July 18, 2006 2:35pm (CST) _______________________________________________________________________________________

Whats going on with the demographics section? Why are these people labeled as "Semetic" when that is only a language group? Also when was he migration from southern Arabia Massive? In fact it is known to me minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.192.138 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Religous Harmony

Yom has raised concern about the validity of the claim of religious harmony. Various sources that I am familiar with believe that there exists such harmony however, I am not sure of any 'study' as Yom desires. Closest thing I have come across is the following link http://www.erythros.org/eritrea_eng.asp .

That doesn't look much like a study. I'm well-aware of the claim of religious harmony in Eritrea, but never seen anything saying with any authority (aside from just repeating claims by the government) that it's actually more harmonious than other countries in the region. If you'd like, a reinsertion of its "reputation" as religiously harmonious (but no studies establishing this have been done yet), then that's fine with me, as I definitely agree with that.

Btw, can you answer my question about Hagere Ertra?

Yom 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edited out] Please go to Yom's talk page if you have personal questions for him.

Hey so I was wondering. I have been working pretty hard on this article for the past couple of days...and when I look at other similar articles there is not a religion section. Do you think we should have a religion section? Please weigh in everyone. Merhawie 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) [edit] Never mind. Merhawie 04:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

yes i think there should be a religious section. i was just wondering if in biblical times, eritrea and ethiopia were one country. and if eritrea has always been a separate country because i am sure that it has been except that eritrea is always forgotten in certain articles and they claim that ethiopia is across the sea from Yemen when really it is eritrea. thank you. -Settit

Eritrea and Ethiopia did even not exist in Biblical times. Their borders did not exist and half of the people who live there now did not live there. Other people who used to live there, do not live there anymore, they are gone. A lot has happened and things changed. The use of the word 'Ethiopia' in the Bible as well as the word itself was created by foreigners (Greeks) to refer to an area which they didn't know very well other than that dark (black) people lived there and which they thought belonged to just one country. So yes when you see "Ethiopia" being mentioned in the Bible, it is usually just a European referring to some country, any country south of Egypt along the Red Sea on the other side of Yemen with black people in it (could have been where Eritrea is now, could also been Somalia or Sudan or Ethiopia). It does not refer to the Ethiopia which we know today (created as a Habesha Empire). The Habesha Kings took the name

"Ethiopia" from the Bible and applied it to themselves and their country during the age which they became christians because it gave them a place in the Bible:-) Some people of Eritrea and Ethiopia share a history and culture, not as 'Ethiopians', but as part of an ancient empire called Axum.

You're hard to understand, but no, Eritrea wasn't a separate country until 1890, meaning it was Ethiopian in Biblical times. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me dumb this down then. Eritrea was not part of Ethiopia in Biblical times because Ethiopia did not exist in Biblical times. The "Ethiopia" being mentioned in the Bible does not specifically or accurately refer to any historic kingdom or nation in the Horn of Africa region which has existed in perpetuity up to this day, there has been no such nation in the region. It is a Greek term which simply means land of burnt faces. In much of the old testament, Nubia was referred to as "Ethiopia" and that kingdom lay in present day Sudan not Ethiopia. The name "Ethiopia" PREDATES the country we know as Ethiopia today, the Bible itself predates Ethiopia as a country. There is no mention of the word "Ethiopia" in pre-christian Axum if that is what you are referring to as 'Ethiopia'. Axum was not an 'Ethiopian' Kingdom, this is about as stupid as claiming the Roman Empire was an Italian Empire...Christian Axumites and their Abyssinian successors may have adopted the name "Ethiopia" out of the Bible as a form of bestowing Biblical and historical prestige to their state, especially as it roughly corresponded with their location (South of Egypt, source of the Nile), but it certainly was not a specific reference to the Axumite Kingdom, no more than to Nubia. Later accounts of foreign (European) and Abyssinian sources that mention

"Ethiopia" are slightly more specific as they usually are talking about Abyssinian kingdoms, but they are nonetheless still inaccurate in that they mention it as if it were one kingdom when in fact we know it was a fragmented region with several rival kingdoms and dynasties within the 'realm'. Needless to say the continued use of the term among Abyssinian Kings, especially those that either desired or commanded dominance in the region, backed by the church, bore political as well as religious significance since it portrayed something which was not necessarily true (the unity of the region under the rule of that one pretendent King) and the churches legitimacy as the proponent of a nation of "Biblical significance". We know today that what was represented as "Ethiopia" or even a one united "Abyssinia" was not a constantly unified political state, at best it was a cultural realm which experienced brief periods of unity, much like "Scandinavia", "Swahili Coast", "Hindustan" or "Hispanoamerica". The longest recorded and confirmed period of existance for a cohesive state under the name of "Ethiopia" which successfully unified all the rival Abyssinian Kingdoms as well as other conqered regions, is the Ethiopia between 1952 and 1991 and those were some turbulent times no? Even today, "Ethiopia" is plagued by the forces of separatism of the considerable share of the population who don't consider themselves "Ethiopians" at all nor do they share this concept of a shared trimillenial history and destiny. --->You are still not proving Ethiopia and Eritrea were not one people. You have just explained how in your views the term Ethiopia is not necessarily referring to today's Ethiopia.--4.21.108.38 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

hey buddy ethiopia didnt exist with the same name 150 years ago you took the name,you want proof?ill give you the best proof.go and visit the ancient city of ITOPIA in northern sudan then you will see what the greeks were talking about,kingdom of itopia with its capital city itopia was known at that time,you steal the name then you say we are the one the greek talking about lol thats very funny.

Relations w/ neighbors

Specifically Yom does not think that this comment in NPOV:

"The peoples of Eritrea have a long and complex shared history with the people of the region, including those of the Sudan and Ethiopia."

If you could please explain your justification. I have a feeling it deals with these sentences from NPOV:

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

But perhaps you could clarify. Merhawie 01:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by including Sudan in there, you're making it seem as if they are on the same level, which they are not. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the relevant section. I think it's far better to simply show relations through facts, rather than give any area undue weight through wording in a single sentence. Note that 80% of Eritreans speak Semitic languages, the Kunama/Nara are also found in Ethiopia, the Saho are also found in Ethiopia (Irob), and the Afar are also found in Ethiopia. Connections with Sudan are more through the Beja, which are less, and the Rasha'ida are only 19th century immigrants (from the Arabian peninsula). I would rather that the intro not state relations at all in the opening sentence, but if we do, Eritrean-Ethiopian relations should be given the status they deserve, and Eritreo-Sudanese relations not given undue status (note that I'm talking about historical ties, not foreign relations). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would the following being an adequate compromise?

"The peoples of Eritrea have a long and complex shared history with the people of the region."

I do however, think it is important to point at that this point requires further discussion as northern Eritrean was a part of Sudan when southern Eritrea was a part of Abyssinia and Aksum. Due to this I believe that they have equal weight in Eritrean history, though this may not be the case for the peoples. Furthermore you ignore the significant impact of the Beja people (Hedareb) on the culture and society of the Tigre people.

The Tigre moreso, true, but I still don't think Sudan and Ethiopia are comparable. Something like what you said is acceptable. How about "neighboring peoples," though, instead of "people of the region," as the latter sounds awkward. Note that northern Eritrea was part of Aksum, just not post-Aksumite Ethiopia like central & southern Eritrea (of course, it depends on what you define as north, but the northernmost province was generally Marya, north of Hamasien see [7], e.g). Either way, I agree on your compromise. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise reached. However, the other point in your response I was under the impression that those two regions were only under the temporary authority of Aksum [8]. Merhawie 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, that map's pretty good (e.g. wrt Yemen) but inaccurate. Aksum didn't extend that far south until the 6th or 7th century for one, and it certainly wasn't that far west. Gojjam wasn't part of Ethiopia until the Zagwe dynasty, and even then it was only partially so. It was under Amda Seyon I that Gojjam as we know it today (with the exception of some remote western areas, probably) was subject to the Emperor, and even then it was pagan for centuries afterwards. Outside of Eritrea and Tigray, it probably only controlled northern Wello and northern Gonder before the 7th century. The Aksumite cultural sphere (i.e. "heart") extended as far north as Rora in Eritrea, which is the farthest north that Aksumite culture has been found. However, even in early times, it spread pretty far north. The inscription of Sembrouthes, for instance, was found in Deqqemhare. Regarding the map again, the Beja were under the control of Aksum, as was Meroe and the Nobatae during Ezana's reign, so Wysinger's map, if purportedly Aksum's farthest extent, is inaccurate in that regard. Its control should basically extend up to the borders with Egypt, of course losly, however. The Nobatae (the greek name, in Ge'ez ኖባ, unvocalized ነበ noba) were also conquered by Ezana, which was the farthest north of Sudan. See also Makuria and Alodia for a map of the three later Christian Nubian states. Here's an excerpt of Ezana's conquests:

By the might of the Lord of All I made war upon Noba, for the peoples of Noba had rebelled and made a boast of it. The peoples had said "they [the Aksumites] will not cross the Tekezé." And they were in the habit of attacking the peoples of Mangurto and Khasa and Barya and the blacks and of making war upon the red peoples. And two or three times they had broken their solemn oaths and had killed their neighbors mercillessly, and they had stripped bare and stolen the properties of our envoys and messengers which I had sent to them to inquire into their thefts, and had stolen from them their weapons of defence. And as I have sent warnings to them, and they would not listen to me and refused to stop their [evil] deeds and heaped insults upon me and then took to flight, I made war upon them. And I rose up in the might of the Lord of the Land [Igzī'a'bihēr =Christian God], and I fought them on the Tekezé, at the ford of Kemalke. Thereupon they took to flight and would not make a stand. And I followed the fugitives for twenty-three days, killing and making prisoners and capturing booty wherever I stopped. My people who marched into the country brought back prisoners and booty. Meanwhile I burnt their towns, [both] those built of brick and those built of reeds, and [my soldiers] carried off their food, as well as copper, iron and brass; they destroyed the statues in their houses [i.e. temples], as well as their storehouses for food, and their cotton trees, casting them in the river Sida [=the Nile]. And there were many men who died in the water, their number being unknown to me. [The soldiers] sank their ships crowded with people, men and women, in the river. And I captured two chieftains, who had come as spies riding on female camels....And I captured an Angebenawi nobleman....The chieftains who died were five in number....

Then it goes on about the conquest of Kasu (i.e. Kush). Note that I don't think Tekezé refers to the modern river in this instance (even though I linked to it - Pankhurst thinks it does, but I could have sworn remembering a Tigrinya meaning like "stream"), but I do think it's a derivative from a Tigrinya word that could be used for a number of rivers (stream? rapids?). I could be wrong, but I can't find the source where I got it from. Do you think you could help clarify? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cluckbang changed the text to say "of Ethiopia." I was going to revert it completely, but would you be willing to accept the addition at the end "especially with those of Ethiopia," recognizing the connection with Ethiopia, but maintaining the connection with peoples of Sudan and Djibouti as well? I think it's still NPOV so long as it recognizes that the others exist. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe we agreed to not mention any country. If we were to recognize that of other countries then we should mention all of the substantial ones. --Merhawie 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Yom, could you take a look at this and fix (i.e. reference or clarify), these are weaseled phrases:

Although it has been contended today, Eritrean and Ethiopian civilization is thought to have been be founded by Semitic-speaking Sabaeans who crossed the Red Sea from South Arabia (modern Yemen), on the basis of close ties in the past, closely related languages and people.

->Pre-colonial history

I fixed it. I didn't see the changes until yesterday and missed the request, sorry. On a different note, I noticed you nominated Eritrea to be an FA. Are you certain about this? It seems to me as if it could use a lot more sourcing an rewriting before it gets to that level, but it certainly seems GA level to me. Also, you noted that it had 2 peer reviews. Could you direct me to them so I can read them? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The peer review's can be found here. There are changes that need to be made for this page to become an FA, if you want you can read through the recommendations and I am trying to find more help on it. Merhawie 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you take out the intro?

Merhawie, why did you take out the intro. It was so good. Im putting it back. The one before it (that you replaced right now) is too vague and makes the country look boring. Look at the Ethiopian article. Look at other countries articles? Cluckbang 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

I reverted it for two reasons:

1. It seems to be more about Eritrea's relationship with Ethiopia (instead for instance with Aksum),
2. It is far too in depth about the historical aspect, the historical context is too specific.

Basically it seems to me that it belongs in the historical section and not the lead section. I draw this conclusion from the recommendations of Wikipedia, specifically about the lead section and I would also recommend you read through the section for an actual Featured Article (the one that I have been following are People's Republic of China and Libya). If you agree, or do not respond by the end of the day, I will revert your change to the lead section. Merhawie 18:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Libya and china? Those are just 2 countries! In most articles, there is a little history info on the intro. Even if you look at the Ethiopia article. Besides what I added to the intro made the country more interesting to the reader and will cause them to want to know more about such an interesting country. I am reverting

As you can see I did discuss it and you failed to respond. Also the reason I chose PRC and Libya as opposed to the Ethiopia article is because those have qualified for "Featured Article" status very much unlike the Ethiopia article. Read through the "editing" help section and let me know if you think it still is appropriate, because as far as I can tell for the recommendations for lead sections via peer review and those recommendations the original is more appropriate. I expect a response in 24 hours, or will assume your silence means that you yield, thank you for your interest. Merhawie 21:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think people are interested to learn about a former colony in the intro? Give me a break. I am reverting.

Cluckbang 15:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang

As this page is about the country Eritrea, which was founded originally as a colony of Italy, not only would they be interested, but it is a critically important date. Your 'contribution' is at best specious and at worst irrelevant, it does not belong in the lead section, if it belonged anywhere it would be in the history section, but it may even be more appropriate in the History of Eritrea page. Furthermore, I would change your tone, it is not helpful. Merhawie 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, change my tone? Whats that supposed to mean, are you the administrator of this article? No. I told you, but you wont listen!!!

Here on Wikipedia we rule by consensus. I ask you to change your tone because it is not conducive to agreement, if anything it is counterproductive, and of course it is a violation of policy here on Wikipedia. Regardless of your tone however, we should however, come to an agreement on the lead before any further changes are made. Merhawie 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)