Talk:Eritrea/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Subcat

The categorization was quite convoluted. WP:SUBCAT indicates that "apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." However, the Horn African countries category was instead juxtaposed by the East African countries category, although the former was subcategorized under the latter. The Eritrea category was likewise a subcategory of the HOA one. I asked several category specialists whether the subcat policy was indeed that the categorization should follow the standard parent-child format and whether Eritrea would therefore be the correct category since it is the most specific/downstream [1] [2]. They concurred, so I've adjusted the categories accordingly. Soupforone (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The categorization works find as it is, since Horn of Africa is not redundant to East Africa, they point to two completely different articles, also it helps the readers of Wikipedia to link to Eastern Africa fot further information. There is no need for removal. You are engaging in disruptive editing, and the dispute about the location has not been settled so you should not engage in edit content in relation to this topic. Richard0048 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting since it's actually Good Olfactory who fixed the subcats. Soupforone (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - grammar.

One line in the article (Ctrl+F) says "These group...". It should be changed to "This group" or "These people". 8.40.151.110 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Soupforone (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eritrea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413211753/http://www.ferroviaeritrea.it:80/contenuti.htm to http://www.ferroviaeritrea.it/contenuti.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dankalia.com/history/04503.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101209234758/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=35993
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ywEZKW1R?url=http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/eritre12307.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://allafrica.com/stories/201506100911.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://utdailybeacon.com/news/2014/nov/19/professor-lecture-african-refugees-eritrea/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of languages in lead/infobox

The lack of non-English languages in the lead/infobox for a non-English speaking country is alarming. Although Eritrea doesn't seem to have official languages, it's still the convention to have the name of the country in predominant/de facto languages in the lead and/or infobox. Previously this was provided here in Tigrinya and Arabic; I'm going to restore both unless there's a case for only Tigrinya. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 17:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Eritrea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012032531/http://www.ferroviaeritrea.it/la_ferrovia_massauasaati.htm to http://www.ferroviaeritrea.it/la_ferrovia_massauasaati.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115022039/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/059/88/IMG/NR005988.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/059/88/IMG/NR005988.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130129230548/http://inewp.com/?p=11290 to http://inewp.com/?p=11290
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grassrootsonline.org/what-we-do/partnerships/where-we-work/eritrea
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214000000/http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php to https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2014
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811054501/http://en.rsf.org/report-eritrea%2C15.html to http://en.rsf.org/report-eritrea,15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Very old archived source

In at least two places in the text an archived "Human Rights Watch" report from 2006 is provided as source in support of statements in the present tense about human rights in Eritrea. Either a newer source should be provided, or the statements should be qualified to show the source is over a decade old.FatAssAlice (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Soupforone (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eritrea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816065505/http://beta.thegef.org/country/eritrea to http://beta.thegef.org/country/eritrea
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911212032/http://american.edu/ted/ice/eritrea.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/eritrea.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004094605/http://www.networkafricaonline.com/eritrea-coffee-cere.htm to http://www.networkafricaonline.com/eritrea-coffee-cere.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Government

Shouldn't the government section of the infobox mention that Eritrea is a totalitarian dictatorship? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC))

NO, a Country can not be a "Totalitarian Dictatorship", I think what you mean is the Government is a "_(Fill in the Blank)_____" Authorityofwiki (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What I meant was for the government section of the infobox to say "Unitary one-party presidential republic under a totalitarian dictatorship". Additionally, if a country can not be a "totalitarian dictatorship", then why is the Vargas Era of the United States of Brazil described as such? (24.205.83.199 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC))

After reading the wikipedia links to all of those definitions. The sources don't lead to the conclusion that you have made ie "Eritrean government = Totalitarian dictatorship" Even in Eritrea, political power is not completely dominated by the central government.Authorityofwiki (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Really? Then why is Eritrea called the "North Korea of East Africa"? (104.33.76.108 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC))

By whom? Smear campaigns against countries is clearly propaganda. But can you answer these questions: What's the origin of that label "North Korea of East Africa" or other variations, "North Korea of Africa"? Provide a reliable source that is the originator of that label? Obviously the claim of "North Korea of Africa" is a Non-neutral point of view, biased heavily negative against Eritrea. Ethiopian government/US/NGOs all have a negative smear campaign in addition to illegal military targeting and attacks of Eritrea. Go read the History of Eritrea and actually see what Eritrea as country has Suffered by Ethiopia, US, UK, and the UN. Authorityofwiki (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So what's your argument here? That the fact that Eritrea has suffered at the hands of Ethiopia and its western allies disproves the notion that Eritrea is totalitarian? Are you kidding me? I mean by all means, show us that North Korea is not totalitarian because of the western world calls North Korea totalitarian and yet has a history of oppressing them. Look, just because Ethiopia calls Eritrea totalitarian doesn't make that notion invalid. By your logic, North Korea is not totalitarian because it suffers under UN sanctions. This emotional appeal of "look how that country's suffered, that proves their actions aren't totalitarian". You want to use emotions with me? Fine. Then I'll use that type of argument with you. Look up Eritrean defectors, and tell me what you've found. (24.205.83.199 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

You still haven't provided the origin of the weasel worded label "North korea of Africa".Authorityofwiki (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eritrea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112050502/http://explore-eritrea.com/Wildlife.htm to http://www.explore-eritrea.com/Wildlife.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151023043119/http://www.freeourparents-eritrea.com/who-are-the-eritrean-g15-and-where-are-they-now/ to http://www.freeourparents-eritrea.com/who-are-the-eritrean-g15-and-where-are-they-now/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609211448/http://www.raimoq.com/eritrean-cycling-team-wins-the-2015-african-continental-cycling-championships-ttt/ to http://www.raimoq.com/eritrean-cycling-team-wins-the-2015-african-continental-cycling-championships-ttt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609210517/http://www.raimoq.com/eritrean-national-teams-rank-first-at-the-african-cycling-championship-time-race/ to http://www.raimoq.com/eritrean-national-teams-rank-first-at-the-african-cycling-championship-time-race/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

Request that in "government_type", change "Unitary one-party presidential republic" to " Unitary one-party presidential republic under a totalitarian dictatorship". 104.33.76.108 (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The cited source is an opinion piece. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018

I want to edit 2601:C4:C201:1066:2D21:A655:A2FB:B863 (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail

As Moxy has explained already, the content just added was inappropriately formatted and included wildly excessive detail, and a lot of it was not verifiable. I have removed it and protected the page. Please discuss the content here before attempting to add it again. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Status of Italian in Eritrea

In response to these continued edits [3] [4]. The citations used are clear and do not support the claims that "Italian is used in administration, business and education" in Eritrea (remember, the Italian government was removed by the British over 75 years ago ). While I support the inclusion of a mention to the Italian-government run school in Asmara within the article, to use it's existence to make the above claims is misleading. Are there any citations to justify the above claims? The UNICEF citation covers Eritrea's language issues well while omitting all mention of Italian. How is using this, as a citation for Italian, appropriate? Mesfin (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not seeing the refs saying this either. Let get those wishing to include this in the lead to find a real source.--Moxy (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

References

There is no need of historical demonyms

There is no need of historical demonyms because the articles are about the current countries, and not about the historical. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Aksumi kuningriik.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV for Relations with Ethiopia?

The Relations with Ethiopia section has several phrases which sound like they're written from a pro-Eritrea point of view, e.g. "Even until today, Ethiopia has not accepted the decision and remains in violation of the EEBC decision and has not withdrawn its troops from sovereign Eritrean territory." (This sounds non-neutral to me, since Ethiopia probably maintains it is in compliance with the decision.) It looks like some or all of this content has been sourced from U.S. congressional testimony of a representative of the Atlantic Council think tank (citation 116).

Could someone review this section for Neutral Point of View, and possibly add additional references regarding the dispute?

Flwyd (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flwyd: Yes, agreed; like this: Up to this point authorities of Ethiopia showed no willingness to revise stance and adopt legally binding EEBC decision. For now, I've tagged the section, and linked it to this discussion. Hopefully that will help generate more eyeballs on this. Mathglot (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Good spot. This section was rewritten along with other similarly problematic sections in this edit. Some has already been reverted, and I have now removed the rest. CMD (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Eritrean Balilla.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The current audio file providing a pronunciation for Eritrea does not match the corresponding IPA. It appears to be the pronunciation for Eritrea in the North Frisian language, which is spoken in Eritrea. It is referenced in an appropriate manner on the North Frisian page for this article. However, the placement on the English page makes it appear to be the English pronunciation for Eritrea, which it is not. Altay8 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Urheimat

Since the writer of the text has provided a perfectly good English version in brackets, why not simply use that ? The use of a German term does not automatically make something intellectually more respectable or more precise(Pamour (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)).

"Distorted history"

67.1.121.52, please elaborate in detail why you deem that content to be worthy of removal. El_C 04:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Eritrea: outdated

According to the ACS-Italia, around Muslims, 51.6%; Christians, 46.4%; Agnostic, 1.3%; Others, 0.7%. https://acs-italia.org/wp-content/uploads/Eritrea.pdf this is much more recent then the 2010 or the 2011 reports. Malek A-Z (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

Consider changing the current flag to his corrected version. In the current flag, the leaves in the wreath do not have the correct shape and number (their number has meaning). The green and blue colors used are also slightly off from the official flag (For example, see this site from the Eritrean government news agency or this photo from a recent event showing the official flag in the background). My suggested version has the correct wreath-olive branch emblem, and the green and the blue colors are more consistent with the official flag colors. SamuelA29 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

​Done, thank you for the improvement. You can also see commons:Special:GlobalUsage/Flag_of_Eritrea.svg for other locations where the worse version is being used. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Eritrean beverages

Older version:

Alongside sowa, people in Eritrea also tend to drink coffee. Mies is another popular local alcoholic beverage, made out of honey.

Newer version:

In addition to coffee, many Eritreans indulge in local alcoholic beverages. These include sowa, a bitter drink made from fermented barley, and mies, a fermented honey drink.

References

This change introduces several improvements to overall readability:

• The older version did not start a new paragraph. The content immediately prior is about Italian influence on Eritrean cuisine, while this part changes the subject to traditional Eritrean beverages, so it makes sense to start a new paragraph.
• The article does not mention sowa at all prior to (or after) this, so that reference comes out of nowhere and is meaningless to readers who don't already know what sowa is. Additionally, it's awkward to introduce coffee as if it's being mentioned for the first time, when it has already been discussed in greater detail at the top of the "Culture" section. These considerations combine to make coffee a better transition for introducing the subject of beverages.
• The older version jumps back and forth from an alcoholic drink, to a non-alcoholic one, back to an alcoholic one, with no clear pattern. The newer version creates and explains two distinct categories of beverage. (If in fact Eritrean coffee contains alcohol, or if there's some other reason for the old way of grouping the drinks, this would need to be explained.)

Another editor has disagreed, however, and repeatedly reverted to the older version. Their one criticism – that the phrase "some Eritreans" did not accurately reflect the place these drinks hold in Eritrean culture – has been taken into account, and that bit currently reads "many Eritreans". This may or may not be sufficient (alternate suggestion: "...Eritreans who drink alcohol enjoy local specialties, including..."), but given the numerous problems with the older version, it make more sense to tweak the newer version as necessary than to revert it wholesale. So in the interest of avoiding an editing war, let's discuss any additional concerns here on the talk page instead. --98.109.27.187 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Provided .ogg audio file pronunciation does not match IPA symbols

The audio file that provides the pronunciation of Eritrea doesn't match the two IPA pronunciation guides. It appears to be an audio file of one of the local short names ("Iertra" as specified in Reference 20 ("ISO 3166-1 Newsletter VI-13"), or "Ertra" according to the CIA World Factbook). Grover173 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Population??

Our figure of 6M for 2020 was from the CIA Factbook. The WHO has 5M for 2016. But the UN has only 3½M for 2020. I deleted several of our sources as duplicates of the CIA or for mis-citing UN data, leaving these three. I also blanked density and rank, as there's not much point in calculating them until we figure out what is wrong. — kwami (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sources indicates a pop. close to between 5-6 million in 2015/2016. CIA puts it at 6,081,196 for 2020. The population has increased from 2015/16 so puting at 6 million is more accurate. Using one single source (UN) that contradicts every other source available is not an alternative in this case. I restored the sources, secondly if you want to remove dead links e.g then go ahead but do not remove valid sources without a discussion. I agree with the removal of the density ranks. Leechjoel9 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Update

The following sections need to be updated:

• Eritrea#Religion - demography is 8 years old ([5])
• Eritrea#Climate - needs updated climate statistics (current are 9 years old)
• Eritrea#Transportation - 10 year old info
• Eritrea#Economy - statements and data dating back to 2013
• Eritrea#Health care - Eritrea... is one of the few countries to be on target to meet its Millennium Development Goals (MDG) for health, in particular child health. - hasn't been updated for at least five years
• Eritrea#Independence - no prose for events past the 1990s

I'll help as needed, but this needs more attention. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:32, 23 November 2019

Will take a look this weekend ...lots of cleanup here.--Moxy 🍁 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You tagged the article as needed to be updated with the reason "five to ten-year old data in several sections needs attention." Some of the data has been updated by Leechjoel9 (Thank you). Are your concerns addressed? If not, what other data needs to be updated? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the previous discussion on this got archived: Talk:Eritrea/Archive_6#Update --David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Unarchived boxed material above from Archive_6.

Pinging original discussants @MJL and Moxy:. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed/Updated the data in Eritrea#Climate, although I would really love some formatting help. The source has some important information on how each row of the data was collected. Each row was averaged from a unique number of years; the average high was taken from 4 cities over ten years, the average daily temperature was taken from 14 cities over 78 years, etc. Ideally, I'd format this by adding a footnote/reference to the header for each row, and then explaining the collection system there. This is difficult (and might even be impossible) with how Template:Weather box currently is.

-- OldGalileo (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong. Another user reverted the edit and while trying to figure out why, I realized that the numbers from the source hadn't actually changed as I had assumed. It was simply that the previous contributor had manually done the conversion from C° to F° and when converting, the F° to C° was off by 0.7 and so I thought they had in fact changed. Damn.

-- OldGalileo (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

There has recently been alot of changes to this article with alot of content removal. I suggest that the users willing to do all of these changes motivate why content of Eritrea history (e.g Bahta Hagos) , images, text and sources should be removed. Thanks. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of that, you are not allowed to violate the 3 revert rule. Please acknowledge. El_C 06:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

What has been removed is the additions of a sock puppet and recent image spamming.--Moxy 🍁 12:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I added more text and sources to the UNESCO section in the article and also removed two of the images in the the gallery in order to balance the section to resolve the issue. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Languages of Eritra

The current copy reads: "Eritrea has nine national languages which are Tigrinya language, Tigre, Afar, Beja, Bilen, Kunama, Nara, and Saho". That's 8, not 9. Which one is missing? Mezigue (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

AWB reversion

@Leechjoel9: Is there a reason you reverted my AutoWikiBrowser edit here? Doing so reintroduced several errors (e.g. the missing space in "December 16,2010" and the incorrect name for The Washington Post). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Odd revert...but it's a bot causing overlinks?--Moxy 🍁 21:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tigray War

Who is going to write the section on Eritrea's involvement in the Tigray War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastakwere (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've put a brief referenced cross-link to Tigray War. This article is not the place to put a big section on Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, it seems to me. We should put content in the main article where people expect to find it, and just brief cross-links (including references) at other related articles. People who wish to update or NPOV Wikipedia documentation of a piece of knowledge should be able to do the main update in the most obvious place. At the moment, I'm not sure we have enough sources for a systematic overview of Eritrean involvement in the Tigray War, especially since a lot of the reports are ambiguous about whether the ENDF or EDF are responsible for a particular rape or other war crime (the TPLF war crimes are mostly separated from ENDF/EDF crimes in the sources), and from a totalitarian state, the media say even less than currently rather "restrained" non-Tigrayan Ethiopian media, who seem frightened of mentioning the Eritrean forces' atrocities. Boud (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly other useful work to be done on this article, such as the factor of two debate in the total population... See the next section here on the talk page. Boud (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing human rights violations and war crimes

This pair of edits by me inserting a minimum of sourced information updating the history section of the Eritrea article was removed in this edit. I suggest that the material be restored. Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, almost everything in that edit was incorrect. Fulani is not spoken in Eritrea and has never been. The current Tigray conflict has nothing to do with Eritrea’s independence 30 years ago. Non verified, one sided, accusations related to the Tigray War is not relevant here due to WP:NPOV and it don’t give users right context to this issue in this article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is nothing in this pair of edits by me about Fulani.
• The relation with "Independence" is that the political prisoners, torture and extrajudicial killings are an aspect of the period during which Eritrea has been independent, and the Tigray War is one epoch of the period during which Eritrea has been independent. Feel free to restore my deleted edits with a level-2 header (two = signs) instead of a level-3 header. Thanks! Boud (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No the Tigray war is not an epoch of the independence of Eritrea. They have nothing to do which each other.Leechjoel9 (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you agree that the "persistent, widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and .. crimes against humanity and ... the crimes of enslavement, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, other inhumane acts, persecution, rape and murder", as found in the 2019 Universal Periodic Review of Eritrea are part of the epoch of Eritrea being independent? If not, then we can include them as a new phase of Eritrean history. Or should they be whitewashed? Boud (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC) (replaced temporary URL by better URL) Boud (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your approach to making edits to this article is by no means constructive. You switch subjects whenever it’s suits you, from questioning the population size, Tigray conflict, and now human rights abuses. These issues besides population has nothing to do with the history of the country and no new section is needed for this. Leechjoel9 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The population size is an independent question in an independent section. Please modularise and focus on specific issues. This talk page section refers to the two edits that I specifically pointed to, which say nothing about Fulani, and nothing about population size. The two edits in this talk page section clearly refer to human rights violations. Your suggestion that "persistent, widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and .. crimes against humanity and ... the crimes of enslavement, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, other inhumane acts, persecution, rape and murder" have nothing to do with the modern history of Eritrea does not make sense according to the usual notions of history. How can they be omitted from an overview of modern Eritrean history? Boud (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Population size has been addressed per above. I provided you with the COMESA, African development bank and two government sources that the population is approximately around six million to compliment the CIA source and the other existing once’s. The Fulani edits might not be yours, the population and Tigray content was yours. You went from first bringing up how to incorporate accusations in the Tigray war in this article also wrongfully claiming that it has something to do with Eritrea’s independence 30 years ago. Then you brought up population figures. Now your trying to trying to incorporating other issue not relevant to the history section. There is information in this article that brings up issues relating to accusations against the country, but also responses to these. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not so familiar with Eritrea. But Hmmmm I agree here with editor Leechjoel9. Editors can't forget that this is not a personal blog, a place for propaganda or advocacy of any kind. If someone came here to fight some personal fights even with some noble intentions, this is not a place for that as per wp:nop. Cheers. 109.92.1.243 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To 109.92.1.243: We agree on those generalities, that is not disputed. However, here, in this talk page section, the issue is this pair of edits inserting a minimum of sourced information updating the history section of the Eritrea article. Please let us focus on this particular question. We cannot converge if we just talk in generalities. (Welcome to your first edit on Wikipedia!)

Clarification: the fact that I made those two edits is irrelevant: alternative equivalent edits that provide the same general, sourced information would be just as good.

To both, or anyone else interested, let us return to the question. A reader of this article wants to know an overview of Eritrea. The history section should include some recent history, including the "persistent, widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and .. crimes against humanity and ... the crimes of enslavement, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, other inhumane acts, persecution, rape and murder" and the overwhelmingly well-sourced presence of the EDF in the Tigray Region during the Tigray War. This is not a question of "advocacy" or "noble intentions". It's a question of good encyclopedic coverage provided by good sources:

What is the objection to including the atrocious human rights situation in Eritrea, and the EDF presence in the Tigray War, as part of the history of Eritrea in this article? Please provide concrete arguments. Boud (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

A such section which such allegations is already present in this article, so that would be redundant, and it’s not part of the history of the country. Secondly the Tigray war, which at this point is allegations coming from party to the war, are not verified therefore it suits better in the article deticated to the conflict, which is Tigray War article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to the topic. While "it's not part of the history of the country" is not an argument, since progress or deterioration in the human rights situation is a fundamental part of the history of any country, this is a reasonable compromise concerning the political prisoners and liability of anyone, for any or no reason, to be arbitrarily arrested, which I've placed in the human rights section.

Tigray War (Tobby72 is interested now): saying that the EDF involvement is "just allegations from part[ies] to the war" is not correct; the sources are quite diverse, and most are not direct parties to the war; some are, to some degree, on the side of the Ethiopian federal government, which, since 2018, is closely allied to the Eritrean government. Talking about "verified" is not the point: we have a method of verifiability, but we don't claim truth; we don't claim that information "is verified". We have numerous diverse sources stating the EDF's presence in the Tigray War in the Tigray Region:

• Mesfin Hagos used to be the Minister of Defence of Eritrea; he named the specific EDF divisions that entered Tigray Region;
• Amnesty International, based on 41 witness reports, says that there is no doubt that the EDF carried out the Aksum massacre;
• Mulu Nega, head of the Transitional Government of Tigray, says that the EDF should leave Tigray Region;
• the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, a federal Ethiopian government agency, says that the presence of the EDF in the northwest and eastern zones of Tigray Region "adds to the challenge" of trying to administer the region;
• Seb Hidri, a Tigrayan NGO that the TPLF banned from observing the Sep 2020 election says that the EDF is in Tigray Region;
• United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls for the EDF to withdraw from the Tigray Region where it is participating in the Tigray War.

So we still have the question: What is the objection to including the EDF presence in the Tigray War, as part of the history of Eritrea in this article? Even if some sources, such as the Eritrean government, deny EDF presence, that does not explain why involvement in a major war (denied by the government responsible for the EDF) should be excluded from this article. Readers who come straight to this article but are not already aware of EDF involvement in the Tigray War will not know that they should also read the Tigray War article. The claim of the EDF being absent from the Tigray War is now getting close to a fringe point of view. Why should we use a fringe point of view to hide this information from the reader of this article? Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, where we want people to find rich cross-links between related information, and we respect the fact that there is some information that the reader does not yet know. Boud (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned to you on most articles that you try to involve Eritrea in Tigray conflict i.e Eritrean defence force article. This is a page of Eritrea, not view point or allegations in the ongoing events in Tigray War. All of the individuals you mention above are in some way connected to the conflict. According to some there exist accusations against Eritrea, according to others there exist no involvement for instance, see the statements made by Secretary-General of the United Nations-Antonio Guterres or former US United States Secretary of State- Mike Pompeo in a time where the conflict was as it peak. You only present one sided, non verified views allegations. Content on here should be relevant, verified and be about the topic, so it’s right place is Tigray War article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that you've provided an answer to the question: Why should we exclude the Tigray War, a part of the recent history of the country Eritrea referred to by a wide variety of groups and individuals with a variety of likely biases (some who could be expected to be more likely to deny the presence of the EDF in the Tigray War than to confirm it), on the basis of what is now a fringe point of view?

I haven't included Pompeo's statement here, because a single statement by a foreign minister of a president who has made false or misleading statements 30,500 times during his presidency is not a very strong source; moreover, the statement was made very early in the war. It's true that on 10 December 2020, Guterres stated that he had no proof of the EDF's presence in the Tigray War. But that's also quite out-of-date; many survivors and witnesses have obtained telephone access or escaped to safer regions since December. Boud (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve mentioned to you before. This is not the right place for non verified, one sided accusation or claims in ongoing events in the Tigray War. If a reader would like to read about the Tigray War, they can look into that article which give them an better overview. And as for the accusations they are only one sided coming from the Tigray side. Neutral parties like UN and US has per official statement denied such involvement as you found out above, accusation appeared as early as November. The denying by US and UN came at a much later point judging by the sources and was when the conflict was at its peak. Besides that Ethiopia and Eritrea have denied involvement. Since the issue is complex a reader will need to go to the relevant article to understand it. Leechjoel9 (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Population uncertain by a factor of two?

The sources we have (see this edit if you want to see the removed WHO source, which gave a 2016 estimate, and the removed 'index mundi' source, which states that it just repeats the CIA Factbook estimate) disagree between two sources giving 3.6 million for 2021, and one source giving 6.15 million. Given the totalitarian nature of Eritrea, it's unsurprising that if official censuses are either not done or not credible, the external estimates vary so hugely. Let's see if the sources give their sources or methods:

• CIA 6.15 M - I didn't find an explanation of the method or source
• countrymeters - United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population Division - https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp, leading to this WPP file, which, after libreoffice --convert-to csv and grep Eritrea WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.csv gives for the years "2016,2017,2018,2019,2020", "3376.558,3412.894,3452.797,3497.117,3546.427". So Countrymeters has correctly read the World Population Prospects estimates: 3.5 to 3.6 million is a minor difference.
• statista - subscription required for source info

Unless we have a more serious source than the ones found so far, it seems to me that we can refer mainly to the WPP estimate and leave the CIA estimate as the least serious one. Boud (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see where your trying to go with this. There are multiple source that indicates that Eritrea has a population of about six million, since when did the CIA become a non credible source?Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

1. @Leechjoel9: If you have a second source for 6 million, then please provide that source. Mundi is sourced to the CIA source, so there is no point listing both it and the CIA source. Mundi states clearly, Source: CIA World Factbook This page was last updated on Friday, November 27, 2020
2. Please do not remove labelled references that include full details such as dates and archives of the sources. Vague undated references are close to useless. References without labels are not re-usable elsewhere in the article.
3. I did not say that the CIA Factbook is a "non credible source"; I said that it is the least serious source since it doesn't give "an explanation of the method or source". Nevertheless, the CIA is a spy agency, so "credible" is not quite the right word to describe it.
4. 6.150 million in July 2021 (the future) is not "six and a half million".
5. I am not "trying to go [somewhere] with this", whatever that means. I'm trying to make sense from the sources, as explained above.
6. I have NPOVed the infobox and lead.

I see no problem in having both the CIA and other values. NPOV-ing them makes sense for the moment, until/if we find other sources. Boud (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

1) Here is a source from COMESA which puts the population at 6.75 M. [6]

2) Even if Statista requires subscription it is a credible organisation. The organisation collects various of data with various methodologies.

3) The CIA is a highly credible source, it does not need to give you information on what methodology it uses to collect its data. Their data is credible.

4) According to African development bank the population of Eritrea was 5.5M in 2017. Which would be close to CIA’s 6M in 2020. [7]

5) The 3,5M seems to be a old figure from early 2000’s. See [8], a newer one [9]

Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

1. COMESA: There's no description of the method or source, but you're right, it claims 6.72 m for 2019.
2. Statista: "Even if Statista requires subscription it is a credible organisation." Statista states 3.6 million. It disagrees with the 6 million estimate.
3. CIA: "Believe this spy organisation because it's right" is not a good way of supporting a claim for an encyclopedia.
4. AFDB: You're correct - 5.5 m in 2017 is consistent with 6 m in 2021.
5. "old figure from early 2000's" We don't know what the Statista 3.6 million figure is based on. The WPP/UN DESA file linked above is not old. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs article currently says that Population Division: The Population Division in DESA is a world leader in demographic research but without any sources. Another case of "Believe this organisation because it's right". On the other hand, the more detail a source provides, the more falsifiable it is, i.e. the more serious it tends to be. What WPP of DESA claims in the file, apparently done in 2019, is (in thousands, for Eritrea):

2000    2292.413
2001    2374.721
2002    2481.059
2003    2600.972
2004    2719.809
2005    2826.653
2006    2918.209
2007    2996.54
2008    3062.782
2009    3119.92
2010    3170.437
2011    3213.969
2012    3250.104
2013    3281.453
2014    3311.444
2015    3342.818
2016    3376.558
2017    3412.894
2018    3452.797
2019    3497.117
2020    3546.427

So the UN DESA/WPP estimate is not based on old figures. There is a major disagreement of a factor of two between a United Nations agency highly detailed report and Statista for 3.5 million in 2021; versus CIA, COMESA, AFDB for 6.1 million in 2021. We currently don't have sources to resolve the disagreement. So we should NPOV with specific, archived, labelled references, not bare undated URLs. I did the work in making the references solid; it's not respectful of my work to delete it in favour of vague, bare URLs. Boud (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This talk page discussion section is purely about the population estimates.

• Statista agrees with the UN DESA (a highly detailed analysis) on the estimate of 3.5 million for 2021;
• CIA, COMESA, AFDB give estimates with no details at all of 6 million for 2021.

Are there any arguments against presenting both estimates, using archived, dated references? Boud (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I was invited to give my opinion here, and I agree with Boud. In cases like these one should report both estimates, referencing them.Alex2006 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are involved in a edit dispute with me in another article, your view cannot be considered neutral. You forgot the two government sources that estimates the country population to be around six million. So that is total of five sources against one UN source. Those sources are more credible all togheter then one source. The six million estimate is legitime and should stay and only that. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

An edit dispute in another article is irrelevant to this issue, which is focussed and specific. Leechjoel9: you misunderstood Alessandro57's statement. When he said "both estimates", he meant that there are two numbers: 3.5 million and 6 million (apart from small variations). We do not judge the reality of sources purely by voting, especially in a situation where we don't know how independent the various sources are. It's quite likely that there are only two real (original) sources, though currently we don't know that. Most give no information on their method or sources. You cannot count people by magic.

We do not have 5 sources for 6 million and 1 source for 3.5 million. We have 3 sources for 6 million and 2 sources for 3.5 million:

• 2 sources: Statista agrees with the UN DESA (a highly detailed analysis) on the estimate of 3.5 million for 2021;
• 3 sources: CIA Factbook, COMESA, AFDB give estimates with no details at all of 6 million for 2021.

Mundi states that it uses CIA Factbook data, so it's clearly not an independent source.

So returning to the question: Are there any arguments against presenting both estimates (3.5 million with 2 sources and 6 million with 3 sources), using archived, dated references? Boud (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose we first sort this out step-by-step at Talk:Demographics of Eritrea#Population update. Over there, there is sufficient space to understand what sources we have and which sources we should use, and whether or not we should exclude any sources. Boud (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Updating population figures for 2021 & refs/sources-proposal

The new population estimates for 2021 should be updated along with some refs and sources. Proposal is they should be added here also. I think CIA estimate of 6,1M is quite accurate and up to date so that figure should be used. Here are some of sources and references that should be added or updated.

1. CIA (2021 estimates), 6,14M [10]
2. COMESA (2019 estimates), 6,75M [11]
3. African Development Bank (2017 estimates), 5,5M [12]
4. WHO (2016 estimates), 5,2M [13]
5. Government source (2020), 6M [14]
6. Government source (2002), 3,5M to show consistency with other sources. [15]

The sources are all independent of each other and provides different estimates close to 6M and they are also consistent with the then 3,5M (2002) government estimates.Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Eritrean troops in Ethiopia's Tigray region

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Per discussion on talk page". I think it is relevant and should be included.

In 2020, Eritrean troops intervened in Ethiopia's Tigray War on the side of Ethiopia's central government.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It was restored since there is an ongoing discussion on the relevance of Tigray war in this article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Problematic edit

Last May someone drastically edited this article. I don't think it was much of an improvement. If someone else can go over it and partially restore what was there before, it would be appreciated. I don't have time. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Languages

The current source, [16], lists the languages as: "Working languages: Tigrinya, English, Arab (all Eri- trean languages are equal), Other languages: Afar, Bilen, Hedareb, Kunama, Nara, Saho, Tigre". The constitution merely states "The equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed". Looking online, I can't find a list of Eritrean "national languages", and the term appears used to refer to Amharic as much as it does to any other language. CMD (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fractions by religious denomination

I have not tried to sort out the sources and validity of the fractions of population by religion, but it is clear that here and at Demographics of Eritrea there are ongoing slow edit wars on these numbers and fractions. Someone with enough patience might wish to try solving these. Boud (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Dispute about implementing the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on this page

See Talk:Demographics of Eritrea#RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate for the recent RfC, now closed, on the population of Eritrea: 3.5 million based on UN DESA WPP 2019 research with stated sources and method, versus 6.7 million (or 5 to 6 million) based on sources that do not state sources or methods or distinguish between the date of the year of the population versus the date when the estimate was made.

There is currently a slow edit war continuing about whether or not to implement that RfC here on the Eritrea page. For example, see:

• my series of edits ending 22:38, 12 May 2021
• revert at 14:36, 13 May 2021‎ by Leechjoel9
• my restoral at 14:43, 13 May 2021‎
• second revert at 15:00, 13 May 2021‎ by Leechjoel9
• this restoral at 18:22, 18 May 2021 by BubbeJoe123456 of my edit (some other changes are included the edit);
• this revert at 07:12, 19 May 2021 by Leechjoel9.

An alternative option to specific references for the infobox would be to use {{UN Population}} together with {{COMESA Population}} or {{CIA Population}} so that Eritrea: {{UN Population|Eritrea}} gives Eritrea: 3,620,312, which will automatically be updated based on consensus discussion at the template page. However, the Wikipedia community has not so far judged the COMESA or CIA estimates to be serious enough to create these templates.

Boud (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We reached a consensus on the Demographics article, we should implement that same consensus here. Say there's a range, and that no census has ever been carried out.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of objection here, I'm going to go ahead and implement the consensus from the Demographics RfC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Didnt get a ping to discuss this. I’m for adding the UN DESA source along with the other sources as discussed. The consensus in Demopgraphics article don’t apply here as mentioned in AE but should work as a guidance. These are the things to sort out.

1. By adding a both the estimates in info box we are basically saying that the estimates range from 3,5M to 6-7 M. This might be true, but one of the estimates are more accurate than the other, therefore (a)the majority view should apply on how it is presented, or (b) we should remove the estimates in the info box and (c) give a all the explanation in the lead and in the demographics section of the article as BubbaJ did in the Demographics article. For instance we can write the following:“Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, most sources and the majority view supports an estimate in the 6 Million (followed by sources). One source, the UN DESA puts the estimates in the 3,5 (followed by year and source). Eritrea has never conducted an official government census”. As for the latest changes they are confusing and damaging the article more than improving it, if we can’t reach a conclusion we might need more input on how to implement this in the article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9, why should we use a different methodology here than in the Demographics of Eritrea article, where the RFC came out with a consensus to use the phrasing stating that there is a range from 3.5-6.7M? Also, what basis is there to say that "one of the estimates are more accurate than the other"? I'd note that the IMF estimates Eritrea's population at 3.55M and the World Bank gives an estimate of 3.2M as of 2011, so, if we're going to be more specific than the language used in the Demographics of Eritrea article, there's at least as good an argument for saying that the majority view supports a population <4M.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: The summary of the RfC states: ... suggests that the uncertainty and discrepancy involved in Eritrean population estimates needs to be discussed in the article. That does not mean that we invent a "majority" of non-demographic sources for this demographic information. Only the UN DESA sources describe their sources+method+detailed-results. Only the UN DESA 2019 source gives an explanation for a major part of the discrepancy. If we accept Vaticidalprophet's closing summary, then referring to the UN DESA 2019 release note that explains a drop of 1.8 million would be consistent with that summary. Adding a "majority of sources for 6 million" statement would not be consistent with the summary, and would not be respecting the arguments of other editors (such as BubbaJoe123456 immediately above). If you read the RfC properly, then you should also think about Louis P. Boog's point: Do we have any reason to believe that any other reputable NGO or any other body has done research to get a population estimate? If not, it seems reasonable to conclude those sources are drawing from the earlier UN DESA estimate(s) (mostly or most likely 2017) that the UN DESA now believes is defective. Am I right?, even though it was not a formal !vote. Boud (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: I propose we handle the population question in this article in the same way it was handled in the Demographics article.

• Add a sentence at the start of the Population subsection, reading: "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million[2] and others as high as 6.7 million.[3] Eritrea has never conducted an official government census." I'll use the same sources for the cites as in the Demographics article.
• Fill in the "Population Estimate" field in the infobox with "3.6-6.7M", citing the same sources as in the infobox in the Demographics article.

This would show that there's a wide range of estimates (about which there clearly is consensus), without stating in Wikivoice which of those estimates is more or less credible (about which there doesn't appear to be consensus). If this isn't acceptable, then I think we're going to need another RfC, unfortunately. Pinging Leechjoel9, Boud. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. (For reference, here's the ARE archive, from which I'll quote Johnuniq: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable).) Boud (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there was no objection, I implemented the proposal. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out in this discussion, and in the archive, and in the RFC, and in the demographics article, and in the ANI and in the AE. The whole discussion regarding the population estimate was regarding the body section and lead in the demographics article, not the info box of this article. Also, to present that Eritrea have an estimate between 3,5-6M in the info box is problematic since this text box is not enough to present the full picture of the estimate issue, this needs to be presented in the body section. I supported your removal of the population in the info box. Most credible sources out there (majority view) supports estimate close to 6 million, there is nothing wrong with describing that this is the case in the demographic section. I have also objected to your proposal if you look above. I have supported everything besides adding the lengthy and confusing description in the info box, which no country article is subjected to besides this one. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so the debate is really just around the infobox. For the moment, I'll remove the population from the infobox, and used the agreed-upon phrasing of "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million[2] and others as high as 6.7 million.[3] Eritrea has never conducted an official government census.", which comes directly from the Demographics article, in the body of this article. Then, we can discuss how to handle the infobox.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As to the claim that "most credible sources out there (majority view) supports estimate close to 6 million", that statement simply isn't well-supported. UNICEF, the IMF, UN DESA, and the World Bank all use population estimates below 4 million. The Eritrean National Statistics Office estimated the population at 3.2M in 2010. If we look at the average of all the estimates we have for population in 2020 or 2021, we get three at 3.5-3.6M, one (insurance executive, with no methodology cited) of 5.8M, and the CIA at 6.15M. The median of those is 3.6M, and the mean is 4.5M. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've summarized the data points we have for Eritrean population below:

Source	POP (M)	Year	Cite
Eritrea Ministry of Information	3.56	2002	https://shabait.com/amp/2009/10/01/eritrea-at-a-glance/
Eritrea Nat'l Statistics Office	3.20	2010	https://web.archive.org/web/20210303222650/https://www.unicef.org/eritrea/ECO_resources_populationhealthsurvey2010.pdf
World Bank	3.21	2011	https://data.worldbank.org/country/eritrea
WHO	4.96	2016	https://www.who.int/countries/eri/
ADB	5.50	2017	https://www.afdb.org/en/countries/east-africa/eritrea
COMESA	6.72	2019	https://comstat.comesa.int/lqpaqnf/comesa-in-figures-2019?tsId=1000510
COMESA	5.06	2018	https://comstat.comesa.int/ujkzete/population-and-refugee-stock?region=Eritrea
UNICEF	3.55	2020	https://data.unicef.org/country/eri/
IMF	3.55	2020	https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/ERI
Insurance Exec	5.80	2020	https://shabait.com/amp/2020/11/04/the-role-of-insurance-in-a-developing-society-a-perspective-from-the-eritrean-insurance-profession/
UN DESA	3.60	2021	https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/
CIA	6.15	2021	https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/eritrea/#people-and-society

BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Horn of Africa

Eritrea had been described in the lead as being "a country in the Horn of Africa" since 2009, until it was changed last year to Eastern Africa. Eritrea is unquestionably in the Horn of Africa (along with Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia), and the article leads for the the three other countries in that region all describe them as being "countr[ies] in the Horn of Africa," as Eritrea's lead used to. There have been several recent efforts to change the lead description back to "country in the Horn of Africa," but all were reverted. Leechjoel9 can you clarify why you believe that the lead shouldn't describe Eritrea in this way? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

These articles i.e Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia have many time been described as being countries in Eastern Africa, East Africa, Horn of Africa from time to time, of course these explanations and edits by users varies throughout time and to say that there exist a single definition of the location is incorrect. All of these definition are correct depending in which context they are used. You made the edit and replaced “Eastern Africa” with “Horn of Africa” and described your edit as this is the geographical location of the country. Eastern Africa is the geographical location of the country, Horn of Africa is a geopolitical region. The lead should describe where the country is located geographically, so for this purposes Eastern Africa is a more correct term. Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Africa is the geographical location of the country, Horn of Africa is a geopolitical region That is something that you need to substantiate using RS. In the meantime, here are some sources that say otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The Horn of Africa is described in the Wiki article as "the easternmost peninsula of the African continent". That's clearly a geographic definition. For what it's worth, a Google search for Eritrea and Horn of Africa comes up with over 3x the results as Eritrea and Eastern Africa. Since the article said Horn of Africa for a decade up until your change last year, WP:ONUS is on you to explain why the change to Eastern Africa improves the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Per stated above, Eritrea lies in both. Horn of Africa is not exclusively a geopolitical region but also a historical region within Eastern Africa. However most often mentioned for geopolitical purposes. On the contrary Eastern Africa is not a geopolitical region but solely a geographical region. Please see the guidelines examples on how Wikipedia country articles should be written WP:WPCTEMPLATE. For instance three examples are given for the lead section for country articles but also geographical location. All of them mentions geographical regions and not historical or geopolitical regions. Example 1) France (pronounced /fʀɑ̃s/ in French), officially the French Republic (French: République française, pronounced /ʀepyblik fʀɑ̃sɛz/), is a country in western Europe...., Example 2) The United States of America is a federal republic situated primarily in North America. or, Example 3) Romania (Romanian: România /ro.mɨ'ni.a/) is a country in central Europe. This article was in a need of improvement and tagged with a template that said it had ten year old content on it and that it needed improvements when it was changed. One of those adjustments was updating the location which now is written according Wikipedia guidelines. Prior to that the location in these articles has not been constant but changed over time, I’ve seen i.e Ethiopia article in past and recently as mentioned as being located in East Africa, just because it has been described as being located in Horn of Africa for the longest period doesn’t make more correct or favourable. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are both right. The problem with the Horn of Africa is that it is a geographical definition, but one has to know in advance what it means. Eastern Africa, on the other hand, is a definition that uses only cardinal points, and therefore requires no further knowledge on the part of the reader. When Mussolini conquered Ethiopia, in his infinite wisdom ;-) named all Italian colonies there A.O.I. (Italian East Africa) and not C.A.I. (Italian Horn of Africa). :-) However, since the Horn of Africa is a sub-region of East Africa, there is nothing to prevent us from using both definitions, writing that Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region belonging to Eastern Africa. We do the same for Armenia, where both Caucasus and West Asia are used to define its geographical position. Alex2006 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good suggestion Alessandro57 - I'm thinking "is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa" Thoughts?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it lies in both, there is no reason not to mention the more precise of the two. M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Horn of Africa is a geographic region, that's just the point. As I noted above, it's "the easternmost peninsula of the African continent." It's a part of the Eastern Africa region, which is a part of Africa. Why would we use the less precise and descriptive "Eastern Africa" when we can use the more specific geographic region of "Horn of Africa"? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

A geopolitical region most often encompasses several countries such as the example with Horn of Africa, thus Eritrea can be considered placed or affiliated with this region. That is not the same as the geographical location eastern Africa. On Wikipedia the geographical location of the country should be mentioned, so to be accurate per the policy is to mention the geographical region which is Eastern Africa and not Horn of Africa. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are both right. The problem with the Horn of Africa is that it is a geographical definition, but one has to know in advance what it means. Eastern Africa, on the other hand, is a definition that uses only cardinal points, and therefore requires no further knowledge on the part of the reader. When Mussolini conquered Ethiopia, in his infinite wisdom ;-) named all Italian colonies there A.O.I. (Italian East Africa) and not C.A.I. (Italian Horn of Africa). :-) However, since the Horn of Africa is a sub-region of Eastern Africa, there is nothing to prevent us from using both definitions, writing that Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region belonging to Eastern Africa. We do the same for Armenia, where both Caucasus and Western Asia are used to define its geographical position. Alex2006 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mussolini is really a poor reference. he used AOI because he wanted to compete to British East Africa. Horn = Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea.Rastakwere (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW Eritrea is also part of Arab league while they have 5% Arab speakers, hence an ideological choice. Then shall we say in the description, "Eritrea is a country of the Arab League..."

Rastakwere, I think you missed Alessandro57s point, he is not using Mussolini as a cited reference but giving you a simple example. Another good point and argument is that its beneficial to readers who doesn’t know this information (horn of africa) in advance i.e what this region encompasses and what it is in the first place, so using eastern Africa requires no further reading. One definition is sufficient which is the geographical region of Eastern Africa but theres no issue mentioning Horn of Africa in a second sentence. If you look at the Wikipedia guideline examples they mention cardinal points. To follow this policy and guideline would be to write: First line “Eritrea is a country in eastern Africa...” dot or comma or a second line, in which the second line could mention something about the Horn of Africa. Eritrea is not a member of Arab league, but holds an observing status in the Arab league which is two completely different things and thats mentioned in the article. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please propose something else if you're not happy with the recent change. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton Please provide some arguments instead, this page is for article content discussions and not opinions. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I take it you have nothing to propose. For anything else, I suggest WP:ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Using both definitions could work if put in context to the wikipedia guidelines. Per above guideline examples, “Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa, located within the Horn of Africa region.” That includes , geographical region and direction first, followed by the geopolitical / subregion secondly, and not vice versa. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

 Note:} The discussion will make more sense if people followed the simple TP guidelines and stopped redacting their previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed at the idea that there is a clear distinction between geographical and geopolitical regions in this case. In the particular use cases here, both are geographical regions (contiguous) defined by politics (state borders). Both could also be used in purely geographical terms of course, but this is not the case here. Given that, I agree with going for a more precise locator, for clarity and to reduce redundancy. CMD (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I used Mussolini as example ironically, of course. :-) The real reason why "corno" was not used is that word in Italian inevitably leads to "cornuto", and to be related to this adjective is something the "duce" certainly did not want. :-) But my point is another, and that one cannot define a geographical information of a country whose location one does not know by giving a definition that is most likely also unknown to the reader. In other words: for me, who knows where Eritrea is and how the Horn of Africa is defined, that sentence is superfluous; those, on the other hand, who know neither the location of Eritrea nor what the Horn of Africa is, will not understand where the country is located anyway. Alex2006 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There’s a distinction between a geographical location and a geopolitical/historical place. Using both in some way might removes any doubts of the location. I’ve randomly looked up more examples like Ukraine, Hungary, Belarus which all follows the guideline examples. That is a geographical direction, I.e Central Europe Eastern Europe. Geopolitical or historical regions like the Baltics (I.e Poland) uses Central Europe. In the case of Eritrea a good example is: “Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The country is located in the strategically important Horn of Africa region. The northeastern and eastern parts of Eritrea have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea. The nation has a total area of approximately 117,600 km2 (45,406 sq mi), and includes the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands. The capital and largest city is Asmara.” The standard also seems to be to have captial info in the bottom of this section, judging by all of these country articles and the guideline. I’ll update the phrasing, per above if no one have any input.Leechjoel9 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9, I already added Eastern Africa to the description in the text, per the discussion above, so it reads "Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa". That provides both an accurate and specific geographic location, while providing a backup (Eastern Africa) for someone who might not be familiar with where the Horn of Africa is located. This aligns with the structure used for Sweden/Denmark/Norway, which are described as "Nordic countr[ies] in Northern Europe", and Latvia and Lithuania, which are described as being in "the Baltic region of Northern Europe". It's also shorter and simpler, and avoids value commentary like "strategically important". Let's leave it as it is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

See the Balkans countries. To have both horn and Eastern Africa in the same sentence is not as neat and make it chunky, the strategically can be left out so it reads: “Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The country is located in the Horn of Africa region...” This follows the standard template and incorporates both the geographical location and the geopolitical/ historical region. Don’t see this as an issue since Wikipedia best practise is being used. Leechjoel9 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not best practice to have two separate and redundant sentences. CMD (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the Wikipedia template guideline for country articles. How is it redundant? One is describing the geographic direction and location of the country and the other geopolitical / historical subregion of the country. According to the template it should describe the geographic location (direction) at first hand. For example if a one sentence is preferred this should be a more correct one since it’s also coma separated and easier to read: “Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa, located within the Horn of Africa region.”? Leechjoel9 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's redundant to place location twice in two sentences. The template does not mention "direction", it asks for "location in the world". CMD (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia’s own definition of location: “In geography, location or place are used to denote a region (point, line, or area) on Earth’s surface or elsewhere. The term location generally implies a higher degree of certainty than place, the latter often indicating an entity with an ambiguous boundary, relying more on human or social attributes of place identity and sense of place than on geometry.”. Horn of Africa would class more as an place by that standard, whereas Eastern Africa would class as more of a location. So wouldn’t it be a high possibility that the “location in the world” of a country would be a geometric location? There are articles using two sentences to describe location, in some cases it might be necessary? Leechjoel9 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"Horn of Africa" has a much "higher degree of certainty" than "Eastern Africa", being more precise, so by that standard it is a location. But no, there is not a high possibility that the template writers decided to go with one particular semantic use, and especially true given "geometric location" is not really something readily determined on irregularly shaped objects. CMD (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding both is not wrong it seems then, the template guidelines says nothing about “higher degree of certainty” of a location, using only this term (Horn of Africa) would raise doubt or questions by users not knowing this in advance as users here wrote. Most similar articles on Wikipedia use “Baltics, “Balkans”, “Nordic”, “Great lake region”, “Arabian Peninsula” along their cardinal direction, none of them uses only the geopolitical/ historical subregion for describing their locations, on the contrary on all Wikipedia where there’s no need of describing geopolitical historical region, cardinal location and direction is the only location that’s used making it standard to include. A Comma separated sentence or dot with a new second sentence makes neater and less repetitive, example: “Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa, located within the Horn of Africa region. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. ”, or “ Eritrea is a country in Eastern Africa. It lies within the Horn of Africa region. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast.”Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article currently reads "Eritrea...is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa, with its capital (and largest city) at Asmara." This flows well, and provides the reader with both the more precise location (Horn of Africa) and context (region of Eastern Africa) in case the reader isn't familiar with the location of the Horn of Africa. Let's leave it as it is. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is not the same and it isn’t better than the standard examples and the Wikipedia examples brought up in the discussion above. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe's sentence is more concise, while not lacking any information present in the longer version. CMD (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this just about opinion? The common practise per most articles and the guidlines says otherwise. Rationale and logic would put direction and main region first and not the subregion. For instance, look at these three simple sentences to demonstrate this. 1 “Tanzania is a country in East Africa within the African Great Lakes region” (in use) or 2 “Tanzania is a country in the African Great Lakes region of East Africa. 1 “Saudi Arabia is a country in Western Asia. It spans the vast majority of the Arabian Peninsula” (in use) or 2 “Saudi Arabia is a country in Arabian peninsula region of “Western Asia”. 1 “Montenegro is a country in Southeastern Europe. It is located on the Adriatic Sea and is a part of the Balkans” (in use) or 2 “Montenegro is a country in the Balkans region of Southeastern Europe.” The number twos aren’t smooth as the number ones. I’ll ping users that dropped comments in the talk page in past. Proposed suggestion is to use similar sentence as the number ones.Leechjoel9 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The articles for the other Horn of Africa countries (Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia) just refer to them as being in the Horn of Africa, so, if the desire is for consistency, then we should just use that. That said, there seems to be consensus here that providing the additional context of "Eastern Africa" (for readers who might not be familiar with the location of the Horn of Africa), is valuable, and I agree. I have therefore added the Eastern Africa element to the lede of the other Horn of Africa countries. In the context of Eritrea's location in the Horn of Africa, and the goal of making sure that readers not familiar with the Horn's location know where it is from just the lede, what's currently in the article is more concise and flows better than what you're suggesting. See the comparison below:

• Current Eritrea...is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa, with its capital (and largest city) at Asmara. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The northeastern and eastern parts of Eritrea have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea. The nation has a total area of approximately 117,600 km2 (45,406 sq mi), and includes the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands.
• Leechjoel9 Proposal Eritrea...is a country in Eastern African. It is located within the Horn of Africa region. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The northeastern and eastern parts of Eritrea have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea. The nation has a total area of approximately 117,600 km2 (45,406 sq mi), and includes the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands. The capital and largest city of Eritrea is Asmara. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on how to include population in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is Option 1, to include the population estimates in the infobox in the same manner as the Demographics of Eritrea infobox.

Main considerations in this RfC were:

There were previous discussions and RfCs regarding how to represent these population figures.

How should an infobox be used when the data is unstable?

What is the purpose of an infobox?

Some (but not all) arguments for Option 1:

Based on previous consensus

Infobox summarizes what’s in the body and is properly sourced

Matches Demographics of Eritrea article

Some (but not all) arguments for Option 2:

Infobox should contain only exact facts. If there is dispute, it should be presented in the article body and left out of the infobox

No info is better than info that’s potentially misleading or oversimplified

Single figures are preferred over ranges

Head count

Option 1: 8

Option 2: 4

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

---

How should the infobox report Eritrea's population, given the lack of an official census? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: Use the same statement as in Demographics of Eritrea:Estimates range between 3.6 million and 6.7 million Eritrea has never conducted an official government census.
• Option 2: Don't include anything about population in the infobox, just in the body of the article, where it is stated as Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million. Eritrea has never conducted an official government census.

Option 1 would match the result of a lengthy RfC at Demographics of Eritrea. Option 2 is the status quo. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I created this RfC given the lack of consensus in the talk page discussion above. Pinging Boud, Leechjoel9, power~enwiki, Sea Ane, Idealigic, Louis P. Boog, A loose necktie, Vaticidalprophet, all the unblocked users who participated in the Demographics of Eritrea RfC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Both options are fine, assuming that you can put all of that into the infobox If so, putting that into the info box is slightly preferred. The thing to NOT do is put a single number into the info box, or put a single number anywhere without attribution in the text. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 1: Including this info in the infobox is justified by the sources and NPOV, and by it being reasonable to include summary information in this article. No new information or arguments have come up as far as I can see since the previous RfC. Boud (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 1: This option gives a range of the population and also explains why the number varies. This also conforms with WP:NPOV and is also sourced properly. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 2: However A third option (Option 3) is more preferable. We have MOI of Eritrea sources that cites 5,8M (2020), that is the closest we have to a government census/estimate. That is also consistent with CIA 6,1M in 2021, COMESA, ADB and others. Its only one source that have the low 3,5M estimate (revised UN DESA). The preferred option is to put estimate around what the majority view (sources) supports, per undue weight WP:RSUW, which is ~6M. This option would have the MOI cited source of 5,8 Million (estimate) in the info box, and a text for the census, which would explain that Eritrea never conducted an official census. Besides, no other country article on Wikipedia have range estimate on their articles, so why should this article? Practically every country article have single number estimates on Wikipedia, so should this one. Leechjoel9 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 1, based on the reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Option 1, per Jurisdicta's reasoning. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Infoboxes should be for quick, uncontroversial, relatively stable, factual information. In a case like this where the facts are substantially in dispute, that should be appropriately contextualized in article text. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 25 September 2021
• Option 2 per Seraphimblade's reasoning. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 This solution worked for the Demographics of Eritrea article, and, while it's not perfect, it's better than just having no population info in the infobox at all. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Not having any information about population in the infobox would create confusion and waste the time of anyone who arrived to the article looking for that exact information. The wording is brief enough not to seem unseemly in the infobox. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 as a wide range is better than no data at all. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Seraphimblade. Just because an infobox field exists does not mean it should be filled. No information is better than a potentially misleading simplification, which it sounds like this may be. Perhaps some other wording might work, but if wording has to be as long as it is in option 1, it does not belong in the infobox. CMD (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Jurisdicta. Rexh17 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

References for this RfC

References

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.

Pinging @BubbaJoe123456: Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC about the text of the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion was mostly between emphasizing Eastern Africa or Horn of Africa, and which one of these would be more useful to the reader. Several participants agreed Horn of Africa is the most relevant piece of information, and how the region is mostly known, resulting in a lot of support for option 5. Still, most editors also saw the importance of highlighting Eastern Africa to the readers, which resulted in a consensus for option 3, which is also the status quo of the article at this time. Isabelle ^🔔 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Which of these should be used in the lead:

• Option 1 “is a country in Eastern Africa within the Horn of Africa region,”
• Option 2 “is a country in Eastern Africa. It is part of the Horn of Africa region,”
• Option 3 “is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa,”
• Option 4 “is a country in Eastern Africa”
• Option 5 “is a country in the Horn of Africa”

Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Option 1, 2, 4 Option 1, 2, 4 emphasis on the first location in the lead as being a geometric direction which is region (Eastern Africa) and follows the Wikipedia template for country articles WP:WPC and WP:WPCTEMPLATE. It is also the most common practise among countries in the same geopolitical context. The countries (Tanzania, Saudi Arabia and Montenegro) are part of different regions but are located within similar types of geopolitical/historical subregions as Eritrea (African Great Lake, Balkans and Arabian Peninsula) and uses similar phrasing as option 1 and 2. Option 2 also provide pause, space (dot) and better flow instead of throwing it all in one sentence. Favour option 4 since it follows Wikipedia guidelines fully. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 4 and 5 My first choice is option 5 because all the other HOA country articles use it for their lead. If not, option 4 is my second choice since there is no need to both include them.--Ue3lman (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa." - clear, compact, NPOV and elegant. Boud (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarification To bypass the ambiguity in what is being proposed, I support the current version of the first sentence in the lead, which in the source form is: ... officially the '''State of Eritrea''', is a country in the [[Horn of Africa]] region of [[East Africa|Eastern Africa]], with its capital ... Boud (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• None. None of the above sentences match the current first sentence. They lack even the formal name. CMD (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The RfC question has been changed a few times since my comment. As it currently stands, I lean towards the concept of option 5 for concision, followed by 3 if both are needed. CMD (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, then Option 5 Eritrea's in the Horn of Africa, and the lead should say so. I see the value in including "Eastern Africa" in case readers aren't immediately familiar with the location of the Horn, hence my support for Option 3. To clarify, I support the first sentence in the article as it currently stands, per Boud. If we're just going with one location, it should be Horn of Africa. Per Boud's vote above, the full first sentence under option 3 would read "Eritrea...is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa, with its capital (and largest city) at Asmara." Under Option 5, it would read "Eritrea...is a country in the Horn of Africa, with its capital (and largest city) at Asmara." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3, per Boud. Also, per Boud, the current sentence in the article is good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Seems the most concise and informative. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer 3, though I also support 1 and 4. I only oppose option 5, many readers will not know where the Horn of Africa is. 2 seems like a strictly worse version of 1, but isn't bad. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 This option seems to be the most concise and accurate of the choices. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 Horn of Africa, that's how this part of the continent is commonly known. And for a reason. More to the north there is Northeast Africa and more to the south we have East Africa. I further do not see the reason for arguing, unless there is a hidden (geopolitical) agenda.Rastakwere (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 5 Horn of Africa, that's how this part of the continent is commonly known it's concise and informative. I see some value to adding "Eastern African region", for some readers, but equally, for older UK readers, this is actually misleading. East Africa, to older UK people actually means the much smaller area including Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda and Uganda. "Eastern African region" appears to be a modern UN designation and I'm not sure how clear and recognisable it is, and to which readers. As others say, the 'official' name should also be included. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 It is clear, concise, and correct. A simple internal WP hyperlink to the "Horn of Africa" WP page can detail further geographic details, if needed.Writethisway (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 3 The lead sentence should at least state which continent/region of the continent this country is in, which options 1 and 3 do. Some readers might not know where Horn of Africa is and they shouldn't have to click the Horn of Africa link to find out. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 per Boud, Some1, Jurisdicta -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer randomly selected by Wikipedia:Feedback request service)
• Support Option 4 This option seems concise and adequate information for explaining the geographic location. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 is the most balanced one. I would also suggest to use word "located". AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 1, then 3; Oppose 5 - The location of the Horn of Africa needs to be specified, as this is not necessarily pervasive knowledge. Fieari (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Option 3 - This wording supports current usage but also is broad enough to facilitate broad understanding among readers used to differing geographical idiom. KJS ml343x (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment RfC descriptions should be neutral, which this one, as written, certainly is not. If you really feel a need to have an RfC on this topic, the way to do it would be to just have the relevant text included in Options 1 and 2 (which I did in the discussion above, before you created the RfC), and then, once the RfC was created, state your preference for Option 1, with your supporting case. As it stands, this RfC neither provides a neutral description of the topic under consideration, nor does it provide potential commenters with a clear statement of the options being considered. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• Recommended change to listed options: Given my comment above, I recommend the RfC be changed, to list the options as below. Any commentary about the relative worth of each option should be kept to the responses section.

  • Option 1 Eritrea...is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa, with its capital (and largest city) at Asmara. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The northeastern and eastern parts of Eritrea have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea. The nation has a total area of approximately 117,600 km2 (45,406 sq mi), and includes the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands.
  • Option 2 Eritrea...is a country in Eastern African. It is located within the Horn of Africa region. It is bordered by Ethiopia in the south, Sudan in the west, and Djibouti in the southeast. The northeastern and eastern parts of Eritrea have an extensive coastline along the Red Sea. The nation has a total area of approximately 117,600 km2 (45,406 sq mi), and includes the Dahlak Archipelago and several of the Hanish Islands. The capital and largest city of Eritrea is Asmara.

  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Leechjoel9: RfCs are supposed to be neutral and to present all of the discussed options to the community, hence the changes that I have made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Leechjoel9: Do you have a problem with presenting the community with a simple, clear and neutral choice? You also need to start communicating using something other than the edit summaries.

  Users need to follow the discussion They don't have to, they can simply cast their !vote and move on. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Leechjoel9: Why do you keep removing option 5? M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: You removed link to the talk leading to the RFC, not so constructive. Option 5 was removed early in the discussion by the participants in the discussion, not being sufficient enough and no country article uses this type of location (subregion) on its own. The cardinal & region is the common practise and is supported by WP guidelines. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  There was never any consensus to exclude option 5 and besides, if consensus means anything to you, you would have moved on by now and not started a RfC. I know of at least 3 other articles that used it until today (when they were changed). The link to the discussion can be added to the discussion section. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you would read the discussion above you would of known that users agreed on that. I meant that it’s no articles that uses only subregion, but they use Region, or Region + Subregion. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have read more than enough of your comments, so now that a RfC is underway, I no longer have to. I suggest you keep whatever you have to say to your !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  With regard to this, I suggest you read WP:REDACT. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  This tells me that you obviously have no intention of following the simple talk page guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Chipmunkdavis: I have adjusted the options and the question to alleviate any confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well that's better, but the capital is currently included. It doesn't have to be, but are we excluding it for a reason? On a broader point, this is an inefficient way to manage a dispute caused by an editor apparently not liking the term Horn of Africa. Hyperfixation on such a point does not create good prose or holistic consideration, as the capital and official name tweaks show. CMD (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree, but they started the RfC (have a look at the talk page history and what it took to get to this stage). I have adjusted it even further and also added the wikilinks to all the options so that the users see exactly what the they will look like. M.Bitton (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Stop modifying or adding stuff to the RFC. The issue was about the location. Removed the ovelinks which are not needed.Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It's not a case of overlinking, because this talk page is not an article page. It's a question of avoiding ambiguity. An ambiguous proposal will lead to ambiguous results. The links should be restored, and there should not be a redirect, there should be a pipe: [[East Africa|Eastern Africa]]. Proposals for renaming East Africa should be made at the talk page over there, not here. Boud (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Leechjoel9: I didn't "add stuff", I made it less ambiguous (it's called being helpful). Chipmunkdavis' comment[17] and Boud's clarification[18] should tell you that there is a problem with it. WP:OLINK doesn't apply to the options, as the readers need to know exactly what is being proposed, so unless you're suggesting that the other options won't have links (something that was neither discussed nor suggested previously), I suggest you restore them. M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Eritrea"

Template:Largest cities of Eritrea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

I have boldly linked "catchment basins" to Drainage basins, but the map looks to me more like Catchment areas. In either case the term needs to be clarified. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a brain twister, and since there was no citation to guide us, I just had to go digging. My initial thought was drainage basin. I poked around in Google Scholar with keywords to include "catchment", "eritrea", etc. Every single reference except one used the word "catchment" to mean a drainage area, geologically, hydrologically, etc. Only one single reference used it as a human geography area: a paper "Malaria prevalence and associated risk factors in Eritrea", Furthermore, the fact that a village is only one part of the catchment area of a health facility may have also weakened this correlation. (Search for it by title in scholar.google.com if this link doesn't work.) Also in support of it is the sentence in Anseba Region: It is named after the Anseba River around which the region is situated. The river begins in the central Eritrean highland plateau, ... It then descends northwards into the northwestern lowlands, traversing the mountains of Rora Habab and Sahel before joining the Barka River near the border with Sudan. See also Ethiopian Highlands and Afromontane. (Ethiopian montane geography covers Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan.) Platonk (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Drainage basin § Geopolitical boundaries. Platonk (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - this is all helpful. One obvious confusion is the small Central region, containing Asmara, which on the map looks very much like a political rather than geological division. Perhaps it's an exception to the drainage concept? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EricDaughtry22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nw510510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Fajar 2432 (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

Add the following text at the end of the chapter "14-3 Sport", at the end of the fifth paragraph.

In 2022, Biniam Girmay was the first black African rider to win the Gent-Wevelgem, one of the classical Belgian cobbled races, and a stage in one of the major grand Tours by winning the 10th stage of the Giro d'Italia in Iesi. However, in that occasion, he was forced to abandon the race on the next day because during the podium celebration he fired the cork of a Prosecco bottle into his own eye.

references: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2022/05/17/watch-history-making-cyclist-taken-hospital-hit-eye-cork-celebrating/ Forcolin (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: Prose has been added but I trimmed it down a bit and re-arranged it for readability. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Change "On 28 May 2021, Eritrea was admitted into the United Nations as 182nd member state." to "On 28 May 1993, Eritrea was admitted into the United Nations as 182nd member state." Structurecoding (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Change "Eritrea government" to "Eritrean government" in the human rights section. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

94.34.69.230 (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like insert the italian language in the section "working languages" because actually it is used in the economic and commercial sector.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge content from Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki

Seeing as the content in that page could all be covered just as well on this page, and especially considering that "Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki" comprises the totality of Eritrean history after independence, it seems reasonable to merge the page with this one. Adam8410 (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is meant to be a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE overview of the country, subpages are meant to exist to contain such detailed information. CMD (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Support redirecting Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki. The issue is that Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki does not have a clearly defined scope. Instead, the page is itself set up as a summary style fork of this one, with sections on History, Government, Foreign relations etc. If the content there is considered to be too detailed for this page, then it should be merged into the respective subpages given as "main articles" for the sections of Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki.

An alternative redirect target would be History of Eritrea#After independence. Felix QW (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have also notified WikiProject Countries and WikiProject Africa. Felix QW (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation from editor

In June 2016, a 500-page United Nations Human Rights Council report accused the Eritrean government of extrajudicial executions, torture, indefinitely prolonged national service (6.5 years on average), and forced labor, and it indicated that among state officials, sexual harassment, rape, and sexual servitude practices are widespread’

Do you have any sophisticated evidences for the this allegation? Or are these hear-say-reports like alleged WMD in Iraq? Killed Kuwait babies by Saddam told by amnesty international? Or the Viagra-stories from Libya??? 2003:CB:4F07:7800:FC56:6BFC:570E:E807 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited are the United Nations and The Guardian's coverage of the United Nations. Those are reputable sources on Wikipedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Part of Eritrean /Arid Baraka/Midre Bahiri Ancient History

The original people of Eritrea are Tigré who's Ancient Aristocrats also created the Ge'ez alphabet. Tigrina came from Tigré.

Kunama were freed slaves on the Red Sea route, by a horse-back worrier Tigré Princess that got a nick name "Barientu" meaning you are Innocent or you are free now in the Tigré language. She gave them land for them to live on and to be safe from those slave merchants. Barientu city was established in the then donated Kunama land in honor of the freedom's Princess.

Tigré is an ancient Tribe whom also had built an old high Teck civilization called Adolis that was swallowed by opening of the Earth following by land slides, as written by remaining Adolis Traders whom on their return from business trip found their big city and surrounding villages swallowed by earth and rocks.

The Tigré worries had invaded Arabia until Babillon and Northern Iraq and built cities and irrigation farms and continued to trade their blessings with the Eastern Asia and China. That is when they called the then nameless river of current Iraq ~Tigrite.

There are so many written history and diaries about the ancient Tigré ( Tigers) Kingdoms. 72.53.240.130 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No need from a Muslim editor from Groznya chechenya to edit Eritrea-page and add up the Muslim population

Eritrean tigrinyas are not just 50% of the population. They are 55%-60% of the population.

Tigrinya is even the most Spoken language in Eritrea. The majority in Eritrea and in the diaspora are ethnic tigrinyas.

Your sources add up the numbers off other tribes like Radhauses tribe afar tribe and Tigre tribe but reduce Tigrinya the majority from 55-60% to only 50%.

Must be associated to your agenda Mr. Grozny 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a banned user should not be able to remove breakdown of affilations.Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

Percentage of religion is wrong.we know that in our country 50% ☪️ 50%Christianity 2001:16A2:C146:F093:2:2:FE7B:9A5A (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish It seems perhaps the above account might be a socket of the socket account which changed this info one month later down below, removing the cited sources of the religious breakdowns of the religious composition of Eritrea. Another user deleted and reverted these figures to the ones of the socket. Has been explained to reverter. Since you protected the page, what do you consider to be the best option? Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Totalitarian?

There's been some back and forth about whether the article should describe Eritrea as "totalitarian," so let's bring the topic to the talk page. Pinging @Leechjoel9, @25stargeneral, @BakedGoods357. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who's been removing this well-sourced content, and you still haven't explained why. If you're going to refuse to explain your edits, it's just being disruptive. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@25stargeneral, I removed it once, in order to separate two distinct issues, as I explained at some length on your talk page. I haven't touched it since. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds like it was a misunderstanding. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Eritrean Tigrinya and Eritrean Christian population undercounted

Eritrean Christian and Eritrean Tigrinya population is undercounted on the Wikipedia page of Eritrea.

Eritrean Tigrinyas are 55%-60% of the population of Eritrea. And the Eritrean diaspora is predominantly Eritrean Tigrinya as well.

Eritrean Tigrinyas are over 90% Christian and up to 10% Muslim. Towns of the highlands like Asmara Mendefera Adu Qwala Seneafe Adi keyih Dekemhare Are majority Christian city. There even more churches than mosques in this areas.

The places in the highlands were named ether by Etnic tiginyas or Christians like Zaada Christian/ white Christian a suburb of asmara which is Tigrinya village. The people of the area of Asmara are called as Hamasien who ethnic tigrinyas and of Christian faith.

The highlands of Eritrea is the most populous region of Eritrea.

And Wikipedia claims that there 1.8 million Eritrean tigres desite the Tigre tribe is only 30% of the population of Eritrea

Besides that Christian people also exist in the other Eritrean tribes like in the kunama tribe Bilen tribe and Tigre tribe who originally were Christians as well but were converted to Islam by Arab and ottman invasions in Eritrea and East Africa 2003:CB:4F07:7800:A89E:B8F2:9E8F:8C5D (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

CIA data put the Tirginya populaiton at 55% and that consensus have been on this article for many years. This has been updated by CIA but which data it refers to is unclear. More sources needed. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, if there are other sources with different estimates, it would make sense to incorporate those as well. In regards to the CIA World Factbook, though, I see no reason not to use the most current version, which has the Tigrinya population at 50%, down from the estimates in prior editions. If we're being fair, either 50% and 55% is spurious precision in a country where the estimates of the total population vary by a factor of two. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself, on the issue of the population of Eritrea you dismissed the CIA source to lack credibility by claiming it did not present any methodology. Now you suddenly stating that it should be used for this purpose. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I said, in regards to the total population, that we should include the source as one of several, given the range of estimates. The same would apply here - if there are other estimates of the ethnic distribution, then it would make sense to include them as well. With that said, there's no reason to prefer an out-of-date version of a given source to the current version of that source. If we're sourcing something to the CIA World Factbook, it should be sourced to the most current version of it. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

When it come to the ethnic composition I don’t see why latest CIA data shouldn’t be used.There aren’t much data on this. On the religious composition issue is your giving every source each much weight as with the population. A source that breakdown the whole composition of a country’s religious affiliation by a well known organisation should be given more weight than a report with no methodology or references to where it got it’s sources from. Point is, Pew and the reports/ Eritrean statistic office data support the breakdowns of the affiliations, the contradicting sources don’t presents any breakdowns. Your excluding well usable statistics of the breakdowns in favour of giving every source each much weight and presenting them as they were the same study, they are not comparable since they use different methodology. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, understood on the ethnic point. In regards to the religious makeup, what's in the Eritrea article infobox now matches what's in the Religion in Eritrea article. If you want to change that, I'd suggest you start there, although there was a long discussion on this topic already which reached a consensus resolution, so would be best to start a discussion on that talk page, rather than just changing the article without discussion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Eritrea

In accordance with @Groznia's recommendation, I'm seeking consensus on the idea of replacing the religion data in the country infobox with a "See Religion in Eritrea" as there are many conflicting sources, with Christianity totalling anywhere between 47%-63% and Islam totalling anywhere from 37%-52%. The U.S. department of state also mentions that "There are no reliable figures on religious affiliation" (source).

To illustrate my point:

In 2021, the US department of state estimated the country to be roughly 49% Christian, 49% Muslim (source)

In 2020, the Pew Research Center estimated the country to be 63% Christian and 37% Muslim (source)

In 2020, the ARDA estimated the country to be 52% Muslim and 47% Christian (source)

There are also older estimates and surveys with varying data listed on the Religion in Eritrea page. Linking to it in the country infobox would provide more comprehensive information, given the differences in data. Unionsa1 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because there are conflicting estimates doesn't mean there should be no estimate at all in the infobox.Groznia (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of other country pages with less conflicting estimates use the "Religion in [country]" or a similar format. See Malaysia, Egypt, and Turkey as examples. And it isn't just conflicting estimates either as the latest (2021) reputable source on religion in Eritrea, U.S. department of state (source), says that there are no reliable figures on religious affiliation. In my opinion, the lack of reliability should at the very least be noted before linking to any estimate. Additionally, there would be many more estimates in the country infobox, if it was linked to the Religion in Eritrea page, as it includes a list of estimates and surveys. Unionsa1 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually the US department state cites multiple sources, the latest of which is pew research which reveals a Christian majority of 63%.Groznia (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The US department does cite a 2016 (not the latest) pew research estimate, however it also states:

"There are no reliable figures on religious affiliation.  The Pew Foundation in 2016 estimated the population to be 63 percent Christian and 37 percent Muslim.  Some government, religious, and international sources estimate the population to be 49 percent Christian and 49 percent Sunni Muslim." (source)

I don't see why the lack of reliability on religious affiliation in Eritrea should be left out. As mentioned in my previous reply, there are also other differing estimates and surveys including a recent 2020 one by the ARDA (source). Linking to the Religion in Eritrea page would provide more comprehensive information for the readers, and it's not unprecedented either. Unionsa1 (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of removing the estimate altogether, adding a simple footnote to elaborate the various estimates is a much better step.Groznia (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

That would work fine too. Do you think a footnote like "There are no reliable figures on religious affiliation. See Religion in Eritrea for more information" citing the latest 2021 US department of state source, would be OK? Unionsa1 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Done.Groznia (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The religon issue has been discussed extensively in the Religion in Eritrea article. There are various estiamtes that is presented in that article. The best option for this artcile is to show the breakdown of the affiliations, which some sources do. For that reason the option is to present these figures BubbaJoe123456, can you please explain a reaason why you reverted this data?, user Groznia is a confirmed socket puppet who made these changes, Unionsa1 could you also fill in on this matter. Also there is not an ongoing disussion on the totalitarian issue. The country is a one-party state, that is a formal and neutral description and it should be described as such on wikipedia espescially in the info-box section. Leechjoel9 (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The best option is to link to the Religion in Eritrea page to give reader more comprehensive explanation of the various estimates as Unionsa1 suggested. Range estimates is not preferable so is not one source. I’ll make that change BubbaJoe123456.Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Works for me, I went ahead and made the update to the infobox BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Tigrinya population is knowingly under counted

The Tigrinya is knowingly undercounted while the smaller tribes appears bigger although most sources claim that Tigrinyas are 55-60% of the population 2003:CB:4F22:BD00:DCE7:C2BE:F1FF:683A (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsaakatUC (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IsaakatUC (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)