Talk:Eritrea

Page protection

Recently there has been a user deleting data and sources regarding religion in Eritrea. Specifically the pew forum source. The user seems to be editing different IP:s. I Will request a page protection for this page. Richard0048 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Layout

The layout was messed up contra WP:WPC. Prehistory (which is defined as the period before the advent of writing) chronologically goes before antiquity, yet it was placed under antiquity and obscured within a drop-down box. A passage on isotope analysis, which confirmed that certain ancient baboons from the Land of Punt were probably endemic to Eritrea, was also inexplicably deleted. The ancient Gash Group culture was already illustrated with a file on pre-Axumite monolithic columns in Qohaito, yet the paragraph was for some reason crammed with a second file that is little more than a map of the modern Agordat district. Paradoxically, an actual map of the D'mt kingdom was removed from the D'mt passage, as were files on the Kingdom of Aksum, the Aussa Sultanate and Habesh Eyalet under their respective areas. A map on precolonial kingdoms in Africa between 500 BCE to 1500 CE was also placed under the colonial Italian Eritrea, although the polity was established centuries later around 1890. The flag of Eritrea from 1952–1961, when the territory was still federated with Ethiopia, was also removed under the federation area.

Although the Dahlak Archipelago is part of Eritrea, a map showing its location was replaced with a generic map of the wider East Africa region. This is contrary to WP:WPC, which indicates that the geography section should show "details of the country's main geographic features and climate", not that of a broader region. A file on the African leopard that was taken in an unknown territory was also stuffed under an already packed wildlife area. Moreover, a file showing the structure of the National Assembly was removed from the relevant government and politics area. Conversely, the administrative divisions area was crammed with irrelevant files on a downtown street, village and beach, although it was already illustrated with a pertinent map showing the administrative divisions. A paragraph that begins "the regions of Eritrea are the primary geographical divisions through which Eritrea is administered" was also accidentally mirrored. Further, the cyclists officially represented Qhubeka, which is the first Professional Continental team from Africa, not a racial team as misleadingly implied ("race" is a subjective concept anyway). Two licensed demographic files were also replaced with an unlicensed one. Finally, a file on a traditional Eritrean coffee ceremony was substituted for a similar file of a traditional Ethiopian coffee ceremony - the original file page indicates that the photo was shot in Oromia [1]. The file sizes were also somewhat erratic. However per WP:THUMBSIZE, "except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width". The plain thumb scaling is therefore the default. Soupforone (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits. Your opinions are appreciated. Firstly you should not decide on your own to change the whole layout of the page. To begin with, Eritrea geograpically lies in East Africa, the same goes for Horn of Africa. The "horn of Africa" is not an indigenous term; it springs from a glance at a map rather than any perception of inhabitants of that area of northern East Africa. Therefore the correct term to describe Eritreas location is East Africa, the definition UN and African Union uses. I can agree on moving the prehistory section as you mentioned since it chronologically goes before antiquity, must have been placed there by mistake. When it comes to your selection of images in history section you have picked out exact same images used a year ago on this page. Some of the images were either removed or replaced, since they lacked quality, credibility, or simply was superfluous. For instance the image of queen of punt can be questioned to have on this page, even the claim that Eritrea was a art of Punt can be debated, since some schoolars are opposing to this. The kingdom of D'mot is a home made work from a user and can be questioned, these kind of images cannot be used to describe and define a countries history. The Aussa sultane, did not rule the whole part of Eritrea it ruled in some areas of the lowland. It is mentioned in an section. It is a small part of the Eritrean history, therefore it should not be highlited like it ruled the whole region. Secondly it does not show anything else than flag painted in red. The ottman empire picture can also be questioned, since the ottmans never ruled the whole Eritrea, althoug they did have control over the port town of Massawa for a long time. However yet again the image is an home made work by a user, showing that the whole of Eritrea belonging to the ottmans. This is wrong. The text decribing that certain ancient baboons from the Land of Punt were probably endemic to Eritrea should be put back to place. The history section devoured the whole page, so it was placed under expansion section. You also added old images to the demograpics section that have been debated here before, and that are of poor quality. I can get the sence you are trying uphold and promote an old structure to this page, used a year ago back. But you seem to have cerated your account recently, does not make any sence. Are you an old user with a new account perhaps? Richard0048 (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. To clarify, the page appeared at first glance to have been vandalized since it was badly formated, jammed with unlicensed files, and especially an unwarranted and misplaced drop-down box that obscured most of the prehistory text; so being a conscientious longtime user, I tried to tidy it up using files from an earlier page iteration. This is presumably why Materialscientist rolled to it too. With that said, Eritrea is immediately located in the Horn of Africa. This is the area that its native inhabitants have the most in common with in terms of spoken languages, culture and ancestry. The region is also actually recognized by the UN [2]. It is a distinct area from the Greater Horn of Africa, which the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), an African Union trade organization for eastern Africa, indicates is comprised of IGAD member states plus a few others nearby [3]. Regarding the demographic files, licensed files are always preferable to unlicensed ones. The infobox also indicates that the Tigrinya constitute around half the population, so they are a more felicitous representation of the local populace. Also, please note that the coffee ceremony file was shot in Oromia rather than Eritrea. It's the other one that is local and also already includes the traditional jar. Moreover, although it is debated whether Eritrea was part of ancient Punt, it is similarly wondered if Adulis was originally a part of the Kingdom of Aksum or if it was instead the capital of a separate kingdom. Actual excavations, however, suggest that the territory was part of both kingdoms, albeit during different eras. Anyway, thanks for explaining the whole kingdom situation (but note that the precolonial African kingdoms map is homemade too). The D'mt kingdom is perhaps indeed better illustrated by something from the kingdom itself, such as a late period bronze oil lamp that was excavated at Matara. Soupforone (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Kindly stop claiming that the woman in the coffee ceremony file is from Eritrea. The original file is clearly labeled as having been taken in Oromia, Ethiopia [4]. Soupforone (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot recon you being an conscientious user based on your recnt edits. The account you are using have not been active for so long and your approach to this matter seem to lack engamegement to reach consensus. You have been reverting, and replacing content without approval from other users. I have been around wiki and this page for some time now and I have not seen you paying any interest in this page in that period of time. Late me make this clear, horn of Africa is a pensilula located in East Africa and nowhere else. Eritrea lies in East Africa, period. South Africa lies in Southern Africa, and Egypt in north Africa. I do agree that it is good to also mention that Eritrea also is a part of the horn Africa but primarily located in East Africa. The image of the the coffee woman you have provided is of very poor quality and has been removed for that exact same reason before on this page. I think that it would be wize of you to bare in mind the effort other users have put to make the current page structure, instead of rolling it back to the structure and images that were on this page one or two years ago. If it comes to show that the current image of the woman is shot in oromia, Ethiopia it would be wize to remove it. That leaves us to the other image of the coffee jar, that image is of better quality and have been on this page for some time and it should stay. Yes, Tigrinyas do make up majority of the populace, and image was of good quality so that should stay. But you also decided to add an image of a very small minority group of Eritrea, also an image of poor quality, and that was also removed for that same reason a year ago. There are far better photos that can be added. The pre-colonial map was indeed home made but more correct (if compared to literature on this topic) and is of good quality. Unlike the kingdom of d'mot image. Richard0048 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please adjust your tone. If I had been less level-headed, I too easily could have yelled impropriety over the many unlicensed files that you uploaded, as well as that file of an Ethiopian (not Eritrean) woman. But see, that would only poison the discussion. You also don't seem to quite grasp the vandalism policy. As per WP:VAN, repeatedly uploading copyrighted material is a type of vandalism, and the appropriate way to respond to that is to revert to the last "clean" version of the page. That's precisely what I and Materialscientist, two conscientious longtime users, attempted to do. Yet you still tried to append those unlicensed files. Even now you're reluctant to admit that the coffee file was taken in Ethiopia rather than Eritrea. What gives? I have no particular objection to just using the jar file, but all I see here is me attempting to reach common ground and not vice versa. Also, you can't claim that the D'mt kingdom map is unreliable because it's homemade, and then insist that the African kingdoms map is somehow okay although it too is not only homemade, but clearly labeled as an "an artistic interpretation" by the designer. This is all beside the point anyway since these kingdoms predate Italian Eritrea by centuries, and thus do not belong in that area. Also, please note that while the population in the language file may comprise a small minority group, per the infobox, they are actually more numerous than the population you were championing in those unlicensed files. Anyway, with regard to the generic eastern Africa map, it is homemade too. It is also irrelevant since WP:WPC indicates that the geography area is intended for "details of the country's main geographic features and climate", not for the broader region's geography and climate. This means that the map on the Dahlak Archipelago is certainly more relevant than one on eastern Africa. The East African Rift map would perhaps work best, though, since it is government-issued and an important local geological feature [5]. As for the drop-down menu, there is no policy that indicates that such a template can be used to obscure text. Soupforone (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had to fix the Ethiopian (not Eritrean) coffee file yet again, as well as the agreed on Tigrinya file. With that said, while pointing to actual policy, please address the rest of the issues above. Also note that per WP:WHENTABLE, "tables should not be misused to resolve visual layout problems... if the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table... prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not". The prehistory text is prose and not tabular in nature. It therefore should not be obscured within a table menu. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

climate

found this in another article where it didn't belong. the climate section here looks good already, so I thought I'd post it to the talk page here just to preserve the info.

I suggest that you need a little more knowledge of military operations, particularly the affect of climate on them, before making dogmatic assertions.Keith-264 (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Eritrea has three climate zones, a coastal region, with a sandy plain and low scrub running inland for 10–20 mi (16–32 km) in the east with elevations of up to 1,650 ft (500 m), which is hot and humid for most of the year, with June, September and October the hottest months. At Massawa the average temperature is 88 °F (31 °C) and in summer can reach 120 °F (49 °C) in the shade. Most rain falls in the summer monsoon, with occasional showers in the winter. In the escarpments and valleys, the climate is temperate with only summer monsoon rains, except close to the coast, where there is some winter rain; May is the hottest month. Towards the high plateau, the elevation rises steeply to 6,000 ft (1,800 m), with some peaks 10,000 ft (3,000 m) high and the ground declines to the west. It is cooler, with the monsoon from June to September and light rain in April and May. The temperature is highest during the dry season from November to April and above 8,500 ft (2,600 m), sub-alpine temperatures are found.{{sfn|Prasad|1963|p=17}} The high ground continues into Northern Ethiopia, where the mountains and ravines make ideal defensive terrain.{{sfn|Raugh|1993|p=173}}

• Qureshi, N. A.; et al. (1963). Prasad, Bisheshwar (ed.). East African Campaign, 1940–41. Official History of the Indian Armed Forces In the Second World War (1939–1945) (online ed.). Delhi: Combined Inter-Services Historical Section (India & Pakistan). OCLC 480344871. Retrieved 23 February 2016.
• Raugh, H. E. (1993). Wavell in the Middle East, 1939–1941: A Study in Generalship. London: Brassey's UK. ISBN 0-08-040983-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2854.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute

Soupforone has asked me to look at the use of the drop down menu in this article. On looking into the history I note:

1) that this article is the subject of inappropriate and offensive edits, which can go unchallenged for long periods, even when experienced editors are active on the article;

2) that there has been a content dispute since June 24.

I will semi-protect against inappropriate IP edits.

I will also consider fully protecting the article unless User:Richard0048 and User:Soupforone agree to engage more fully in discussion as to the best way forward for this article. You both want the same thing - to improve the article; but reverting is not the best way to achieve that. Discussion and getting agreement is the best way forward - then you can be sure that the article is actually improving and becoming secure. In order for discussion to be successful you both need to agree that neither of you will edit the article until you both agree on an edit. If you cannot reach an agreement you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. My time on Wikipedia is very limited at the moment so I cannot fully assist on this matter, however I will help when I can, but be aware that my responses may be quite slow at times. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The use of the table template to enfold an entire section is not appropriate so I have removed that. The other matters I feel are open for editorial discussion, such as should Eritrea be described as being in the Horn of Africa or in East Africa. Looking at sources, I see that both are used, and a solution could be found that mentions both. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources also use Northeast Africa quite a lot! To add to the difficulty, according to our own article, there appear to be some uses of East Africa which do not include Eritrea. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. The vandalism and usage of the table template were certainly inappropriate. East Africa also indeed is not necessarily inclusive of Eritrea since the toponym is fairly recent and originates with the former British East Africa and German East Africa territories, which were located in the separate African Great Lakes region to the south. Many colonial period maps and some modern ones too make this clear [6] [7] [8]. I think therefore Horn of Africa would be more appropriate for the lede, with a brief explanation that Eritrea is also often said to be located in Northeast Africa or East Africa appended to the geography area. Soupforone (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I will remain impartial on this issue and wait for User:Richard0048 to comment. In the meantime it would be helpful to find some sources which mention that Eritrea is in Horn of Africa / Northeast Africa / East Africa, and some sources which discuss the varying names for the region. It would be helpful to the general reader to know that some sources may say one region, while others ma\y say a different region, and the reasons for this. We don't actually need to make a decision on the region's name, as long as we provide readers with all the facts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool, sounds reasonable. Here is for Eritrea in the Horn of Africa [9], Northeast Africa [10], and Eastern Africa [11]. Of these, Northeast Africa is the oldest recognizable entity, as it enfolds the Barbara region of antiquity, which was located just under Berenice Troglodytica (Berenike). Soupforone (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I note that Richard0048 has not edited Wikipedia since 1 July when he reverted the Eritrea article. I also note that he is an irregular editor who can go several weeks without editing; also he does not have email enabled. His account will have alerts that this discussion is taking place, but I will additionally leave a note on his talkpage. It is frustrating when an editor engages in a dispute, reverts another editor, and is then absent from Wikipedia for a long period; in such situations they cannot reasonably expect that their preferred position will obtain permanently - however, there is no harm in waiting a few more days to allow Richard0048 an opportunity to put forward their views. If there is no response from Richard0048 by 14 July, Soupforone may start implementing the suggested edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fair. Soupforone (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

SilkTork, it's the 14th and the individual has not replied. Per your instruction above, I've therefore made the adjustments. Thanks again for the sound advice and formatting. Soupforone (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Richard0048: simply reverted your work, and has not engaged in discussion, despite alerts to this discussion and a note left on his talkpage. I have undone his revert, and left a warning on his talkpage. It is possible he has somehow missed this discussion and hasn't noticed the alerts and the note on his talkpage, so we can continue to assume good faith, and listen carefully to his point of view if he wishes to engage in discussion. However, if he reverts again without first engaging in discussion, I will block him. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly I am a regular editor. Secondly, me and soupforone agreed on the changes that were made to the page. We both compromized, now all ff a sudden soupforone is making the exakt same changes to the page that we did not agreed on. The reason for the lack off engagement from my behalf was I did not feel the page needed further changes, untill soupforone two days ago took his freedom and made changes that I objected to weeks ago, these changes were discussed before and has not been agreed on from my behalf. Now to silkTorks changes, I do agree that it was OK to remove the drop down based on your contention. It was also good to semi-proctect the page. Regarding the dispute whether to mention East Africa or horn of Africa I myself suggested to include both in the first section. Since the correct term do discribe the location of Eritreas is (primarily) East Africa, and more specfic horn of Africa (secondarily). This is based sources of UN and African Union. Northeast Africa is the least common definiton so I would suggest no to inlcude this so it dont confuse the readers. Richard0048 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we did not agree on much of the formatting and other edits, nor did you make any sincere effort to reach common ground. This can easily be seen in the discussion above, where I pointed out specific problems with the text, which you simply ignored and never bothered replying to. And the few times that you did respond, your arguments weren't always coherent either, nor are they really now. Take your East Africa explanation above: you claim that "Eritreas is (primarily) East Africa, and more specfic horn of Africa (secondarily)", and that "this is based sources of UN and African Union". However, in reality, neither the UN nor the African Union geographically prioritize an East Africa location over the Horn of Africa. They simply indicate one or the other, but not in any sort of hierarchy. Moreover, the UN subregion for Eastern Africa isn't even the same as that regional map you were championing for the geography area, which only further underscores that map's pointlessness.

You also have not explained why: (1) the administrative regions map is positioned to the left of the bullets (contrary to MOS:SANDWICHING), the area is stuffed with irrelevant files, and the paragraph that begins "the regions of Eritrea are the primary geographical divisions through which Eritrea is administered" is doubled; (2) it is misleadingly implied that the cyclists officially represented some local "racial" team rather than Qhubeka, the first Professional Continental team from Africa; (3) a generic file of an African leopard (which does not appear to have been taken in Eritrea) is necessary when there are already three other wildlife files; (4) or rather what is this mysterious 14-member environmental constituency that Eritrea is apparently a part of; (5) the isotope analysis on the ancient baboons from Punt was obscured, although you indicated above that it was okay; (6) there is a map of precolonial kingdoms in Africa as a whole (dated to 500 BCE to 1500 CE) under Italian Eritrea, although the latter colonial territory was instead established centuries later (in 1890).

SilkTork instructed above that "in order for discussion to be successful you both need to agree that neither of you will edit the article until you both agree on an edit". This was sensible advice; but since you seemed reluctant to reply at all, he was obliged to put forth a July 14th deadline. The 14th has now passed, yet you still reverted (twice). This is unhelpful. Answer the questions above fairly and logically, and we can hopefully reach an understanding. Soupforone (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear @SilkTork:it amazes me that you made it clear that you wanted to act impartial in the disupte between me and @Soupforone:and then

went on to accept all of the disputed contributes soupforone made by reverting it back the last version of soupforone.

Have you looked to my earlier arguments and comments regarding the edits made by soupforone? Have you taken in consideration soupforones behaviour? soupforones has been reverting content multiples times, many times without discussing them. Have you taken in consideration that the content that soupforone has contributed with in many cases is reproduced material? old content that existed on the Eritrea page more than a year ago.

We did not agree on everything, but we did agree on some areas. I agreed to remove the image of the woman pouring coffee after you suggested it might been taken in Ethiopia. I did agree to remove the drop down after both you and silktork suggested it should be removed. I agreed to the image of the dancing Eritrean Tigrinya women. Since it was of high resolution and it was an image of majority tigrinya populace as you mentioned. I objected to the second image with saho women since this image was disputed on the talk page a couple of years ago on this talk page I observed, for being of poor quality and of showing the smallest ethnic group in Eritrea and orinically you choose to post the exact same photo. Same goes for the woman pouring coffee. Both of the images have been disputed over here before. Images that you have been reposting three times now with no regard to why they were removed in the first place. This what happens when you copy old content and try to paste it to current structure without a dialogue.

I cant even belive that your are questioning if Eritrea lies in East Africa. Horn of Africa is a pensilula that is a part of East Africa whether you want it or not. There exists an hierarchy, since all of the countries that are part of horn of Africa are considered part of East Africa. East Africa can be devided in horn of Africa and the east african community. Both of them whom are part of East Africa. This has to do with location and colonial history of these two areas. For ex. Somalia and Eritrea was part of Italian East Africa, Tanzania and Burundi were part of german east africa...and so on.."Eastern Africa, part of sub-Saharan Africa comprising two traditionally recognized regions: East Africa, made up of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda; and the Horn of Africa, made up of Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.".

The term "horn of Africa" is not an indigenous term; it springs from a glance at a map rather than any perception of inhabitants of that area of northern East Africa. The rerm has no long history attached to it whatsoever and it was not used until recently, unlike the term East Africa. This is not rocket science. One does not need to look far to realise that Eritrea is part of East africa. There are five regions of Africa. African Union uses five regions, North, East, West, South, Central. Can you tell us which Eritera is part of? I myself suggest to mention both east africa and horn of africa as silktork suggested. I find this to be the best solution.

My responsen to your questions below: You also have not explained why: (1) the administrative regions map is positioned to the left of the bullets (contrary to MOS:SANDWICHING), the area is stuffed with irrelevant files, and the paragraph that begins "the regions of Eritrea are the primary geographical divisions through which Eritrea is administered" is doubled;

• If you feel to position it to the right I can agree on this. However you did not have to remove two images of the village houses and the street photo of asmara. These should be placed back in another section. Perhaps in a new "urbanization" section.

(2) it is misleadingly implied that the cyclists officially represented some local "racial" team rather than Qhubeka, the first Professional Continental team from Africa;

• What is your solution to this?

(3) a generic file of an African leopard (which does not appear to have been taken in Eritrea) is necessary when there are already three other wildlife files;

• The image was taken in filfil forest in Eritrea.

(4) or rather what is this mysterious 14-member environmental constituency that Eritrea is apparently a part of;

• "Global environmental facility" is organization called. And you decided to remove the whole section. This should be put back to place.

(5) the isotope analysis on the ancient baboons from Punt was obscured, although you indicated above that it was okay;

• It is still Ok, I have not disagreed on this.

(6) there is a map of precolonial kingdoms in Africa as a whole (dated to 500 BCE to 1500 CE) under Italian Eritrea, although the latter colonial territory was instead established centuries later (in 1890).

• The image is portraying the various kingdoms of Africa prior to colonalazation of Africa. If you feel that it is misplaced it should be moved up an earlier section, since this is important part of African and Eritrean history.

My sugesstions. The image of the punt queen does not fit in this page since it can be debated if Eritrea was even a part of punt. Its even stranger to put an image of the kings wife as if she had anythng to do with Eritrea. The saho women and woman pouring coffee should be removed since they have been disputed on here before, and from what I can see they are not of decent quality. There are better ones. The image of the village houses ,the asmara street, the image of the pre-colonial map, the image of the leopard that soupforone removed should be put back to place. Finally, I did responded to your edits and I did revert since you decided to add ALL of your disputed content on this page without reaching consensus, content that at the moment are on the page. Richard0048 (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in the discussion Richard0048. Could you please write out your suggestions on improvements to the article without using any personal comments. I understand that you may be feeling a little frustrated and heated right now, but it is a hindrance to progress when a user is making personal comments as editors may respond to your personal comments rather than your content suggestions. See our policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and in particular WP:AVOIDYOU. Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Richard, please address the content and desist from making personal remarks. It was already explained to you that per WP:VAN, repeatedly uploading copyrighted material is a type of vandalism, and the appropriate way to handle that is to roll to the last clean version of the page. This is what I did with those many unlicensed files that previously littered the page. You also can't claim that I did not engage in discussion when not only did I initiate it, many times I was basically talking to myself here since you seemed reluctant to reply. That is why I was obliged to contact SilkTork in the first place (i.e., to encourage a fruitful dialogue). With that said:

• Your[The] rationale for removing the Saho woman file is contradictory. The infobox indicates that they constitute the third largest ethnic group in the country. You also repeatedly included several unlicensed (and now deleted) files of the Kunama population, which the infobox indicates is the fourth largest ethnic group. Thus, the population's relative size does not appear to have been the issue.
• You have not explained what, if anything, is actually wrong with the file of the Eritrean woman pouring coffee. It has virtually the same content as the other coffee file that you were insisting on, except that it was taken in Eritrea rather than Ethiopia. But fine, the coffee pot file works too I guess.
• As regards the East Africa vs. Horn of Africa location, the Eritrea area was obviously inhabited prior to the colonial period. So with respect, pointing to Italian East Africa as the be all end all makes no sense. It ignores the Barbaria region in Northeast Africa, which Eritrea was a part of in antiquity [12]. It also ignores the fact that Eritrea is certainly not always subsumed under East Africa, which instead often denotes (especially in the older literature) the Swahili nations to the south in the former British East Africa [13] [14] [15] [16]. Also, the claim in your link that the Horn of Africa isn't an indigenous term because "the concept of the Horn has grown from an early concern about Somalia's relations with Ethiopia" is inaccurate. The toponym was actually already extant by at least the 19th century [17]. Your own link above acknowledges all of this since it explains that "East Africa, made up of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda; and the Horn of Africa, made up of Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia", but subsumes these "two traditionally recognized regions" under a broader "Eastern Africa". This isn't the same as the African Union's Eastern Africa subregion either, which extends all the way to Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean islands. That established, I think Horn of Africa would thus be more appropriate for the lede, with, as SilkTork suggests, a brief explanation that Eritrea is also located in Northeast Africa and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa subregion appended to the geography area.
• The default positioning of the administrative regions map to the right of the bullets is per MOS:SANDWICHING. There is no room for the other files, nor are they even relevant as they have nothing to do with the administrative divisions. Village huts are also not an example of urbanization.
• That the Qhubeka team is officially a continental team is already noted.
• The original description link does not indicate that the leopard file was taken in Eritrea, much less in the local Filfil forest [18].
• The other sentence under environment was actually not removed, but rather integrated into the relevant habitat area. Thank you, however, for the link on the environmental organization; I've appended it there.
• You indicate that the isotope analysis on the ancient baboons from Punt -- which establishes that they were exported from the Eritrea vicinity, and thus that Eritrea was likely part of Punt [19] -- is okay, yet object to a file on the Queen of Punt. I do not follow this reasoning.
• The only areas where the precolonial African kingdoms map would perhaps be relevant given its 500 BCE to 1500 CE timeframe would be under either the Kingdom of Aksum or Medri Bahri. However, the former kingdom's realm is already illustrated and the latter polity isn't even on the map.

These are my suggestions. Soupforone (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You are still editing without reaching consensus. Might be good if the same rules applied by you. Regarding the question if Eritrea is part of East Africa I do feel we need other opinions other than yours. Eritrea is part of and located in East Africa despite your objective opinion. Im still favourimg siilktorks suggestion to include both. Northeast africa wont do either since it is the least common term to describe Eritreas location.

When it comes to the saho image, I have informed you that the image has been disputed on here before. Then why do you feel that you need to repost it? Im suggesting to replace it with an image of higher resolution, of an image showing an individual of the kunama ethnic group. They are about the same population size of saho based on various sources and they are the first indegious people of Eritrea.

Regarding the image of the leopard, I know it was taken in Eritrea based on information given to me. I will send a PM to the author asking for a locaation on Flickr.

Regarding the images of the village houses and asmara street image. They can be added to another section? Can you explain why they do not fit in this page?

As I explained, to mention that Eritrea was a part of punt can be debated. Since there exists many uncertainties it would be prefarable to stick to the text and not post an image of the punt queen as to show she was an important part of Eritrean history. The level of her influence is not exactly certain, so therefore it would be wize to not include the image of her.

As you mention the medri bahri section would be a prefarable section to include the pre-colonial kimgdom image Richard0048 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as demonstrated, it's certainly not conjecture that East Africa (which is not necessarily synonymous with the broader Eastern Africa) is often restricted to the Swahili nations in the former British East Africa. Like SilkTork pointed out, Eritrea is also frequently located in Northeast Africa. There's a good reason for that too. According to the Eritrean Ministry of Information, it's because one of Eritrea's three main population divisions actually originated in the north ("during 2000 BC Kushites migrated to Eritrea from North Africa" [20]). With that established, there is no valid reason to jettison the Saho file. Rather, a Kunama/Nara file can go alongside it and the Tigrinya file so as to represent the Nilotic population. As for the street and village files, they have little to do with the administrative divisions. The latter are already illustrated anyway with a numbered administrative divisions map. Per MOS:IRELEV, all files must be contextually pertinent, and too many at that can be distracting. Since the precolonial map doesn't even acknowledge the Medri Bahri kingdom, it is therefore irrelevant as well. The Punt queen is, on the other hand, obviously relevant to that particular ancient kingdom. Soupforone (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Richard0048: I have viewed Soupforone's editing, and I have found it positive and productive. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to continue to restrict him from editing the article while he awaits your opinion given that you are absent from Wikipedia for long periods, and when you do return you revert rather than engage in discussion. As the admin who is overseeing this dispute I have given him permission to edit the article. As your own editing and attitude has been problematic and given me cause for concern, I would prefer you confine yourself to making editorial comments on the talkpage, and working it through with Soupforone. I would ask you both, quite firmly this time, to cease making personal comments. To underline that, I will go through the last two postings by both of you, and strike through unnecessary personal comments so what is left is editorial comment. In my experience, if editors concentrate only on content then matters get resolved quickly and with little resentment and emotion. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - to improve the Eritrea article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary personal comments stricken through as examples of what to avoid. I would suggest to both of you that if either of you have personal issues or complaints to raise about the other person, please bring them to my talkpage rather than here. Keep this page purely for editorial discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Soupforone (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable @SilkTork: Suggesting to add this image to the article instead of the saho image that was uploaded.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunama_people#/media/File:Kunama_Eritrea.JPG .The leopard image could be put on hold untill we get an location. Then we can lift the discussion if its appropriate to add it to the article again. The village houses and the street image can also put on hold untill we find an appropriate section to add it. The pre-colonian map should be put under the medri bahri section as Spoupforone suggested. The image of the punt Queen should be removed as suggested in the discussion above. Lastly include that "Eritrea is located in East Afric and part of horn Africa". Then we would have an agreement I suppose. Richard0048 (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my assertions. I clearly indicated that since the precolonial map doesn't even acknowledge the Medri Bahri kingdom, it is therefore irrelevant as well. Kindly address any further remarks in their appropriate context above, pointing to actual policy. Soupforone (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the Horn of Africa / East Africa / Northeast Africa wording has not yet been settled. Sources mention all three, so it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to be taking a stance on this, yet currently we have "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa." with no mention of East Africa or Northeast Africa, though one of the sources is "Frontiers of violence in north-east Africa" by Richard Reid, and "It is estimated that there are around 100 African bush elephant left in Eritrea, the most northerly of East Africa's elephants." and "The country is virtually bisected by a branch of the East African Rift." Please folks resolve this as soon as possible. The discussion should be about the wording that includes mention of all three terminologies, with reference to sources can throw some light on why we have three different terms to describe one country's location. Starting points for discussion: A) "Eritrea ... is a country in Northeast Africa which is variously described as being in East Africa or the Horn of Africa depending on sources." B) "Eritrea ... is a country which is variously described as being in East Africa, the Horn of Africa or Northeast Africa depending on sources." C) "Eritrea ... is a country in the Northeast of Africa which is variously described as being in East Africa, the Horn of Africa or Northeast Africa depending on sources." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Those are pretty good suggestions, SilkTork. The location issue can perhaps be made even less ambiguous by linking directly to the UN subregion. So maybe something along the lines of: "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa, which is located in Northeast Africa and part of the Eastern Africa subregion."? Soupforone (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If User:Richard0048 agrees, then do it. Please supply references for each usage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this does seem to be the best option for all parties. I do, however, agree with Soupforone in regards to the disinclined between East Africa, Eastern Africa, and the Horn of Africa. AcidSnow (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestion silkTork. Soupforone I would rather prefer "Eritrea is a country in East Africa, located in Horn of Africa, sometimes referred

to as North East Africa. See my sources belowRichard0048 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not too bad. However, the problem is that it erroneously insinuates that East Africa is a more frequent location than the Horn. Soupforone (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay SilkTork and AcidSnow, I suggest the following wording: "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa, which is located in Northeast Africa and is part of the Eastern Africa subregion." Soupforone (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree to that, since East Africa is more common to describe Eritreas location and etablished term.. Northeast Africa is least common and therefore should included last. I would go as far as change it to "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in East Africa. Sometimes describe as northeast africa". Thats a good compromize and includes all three terms. Sources belowRichard0048 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It would make more sense if it pointed instead to the Eastern Africa subregion since, as noted above, Eastern Africa comprises two traditionally recognized regions: East Africa, made up of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda; and the Horn of Africa, made up of Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. Also, I don't understand why Northeast Africa must be undervalued when Eritrea was actually part of an ancient territory in that region and not the lacustrine area to the south. Soupforone (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the root of the concern I've been having with "east[ern]" versus "northeast[ern]" the whole time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Having read through this, there seems to be the idea that there is a conflict between the different descriptions. However, Horn of Africa seems to be universally a subset of the other two. What would be wrong with just saying "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa", and leave the exact description of the placement of the Horn of Africa out? CMD (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

East Africa is the same as Eastern Africa. The other region besides horn of Africa in East Africa is East African community. Therefore it is logical that it should point at the region East Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Eastern Africa subregion is actually much larger than East Africa. It stretches all the way to Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean islands. Also, the East African Community consists of nations in the southern lakes region. Soupforone (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That could perhaps work too, as the Horn is indeed geographically implicit in Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa. Soupforone (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The agreed solution here was to write a description that included all three terms as admin silkTork suggested, thats quite reasonable. Eastern Africa is often referred to as East Africa. The link to the East Africa page also provides the reader with a good overview and information of whats part of East Africa and the East African UN subregion instead of linking to the UN subregion page which has information on every subregion of Africa. Eritrea is part of both East Africa and UN East African subregion. To include horn of Africa and East Africa implicit geograpically that its North East Africa region that we are talking about. However since all three should be included I suggested what I wrote above "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in East Africa". And i I also later choose to add ".Sometimes also referred to as northeast Africa" However I can agree on removing the northeast Africa part since it is implicit that we are talking about the northern part of East Africa and the term northeast Africa is not as widespread or recognized region by UN, African Union etc compared to East Africa or Horn of Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2016 (—UTC)

I don't feel that adding East Africa helps the reader very much, but if you feel it does I agree the North-East part is clunky. "Northern East Africa" may be another solution if you want to imply all three. CMD (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ethiopia, Somalia, Djbouti all say Horn of Africa, why is there a special need to place Eritrea in East Africa? When Horn of Africa is more specific and helpful in figuring out the location of Eritrea. I disagree with generalizing Eritrea's location as it will be unhelpful in determining location. Also Horn of Africa, East African Community, Northeast Africa all feed into the larger East Africa article which makes sense. The grouping of the countries is based on their proximity to each other. Eritrea is nowhere near the East African Community, Ethiopia and Somalia are closer. Eritrea is within the Northeast Africa and Horn of Africa. I think it should remain in the Horn of Africa to keep it consistent with the other countries. Otherwise, this is an unnecessary deviation.Otakrem (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It was not disputed on the Ethiopia, Somalia, or Djibouti page but on this page. Actually what is written on those pages are not relevant for this dispute if you have followed this disput. The comments and opinion are not so helpful at the moment since we were about to resolve this issue. Again, The suggestion from admin was to include all three terms since atleast East Africa and horn of Africa are mentioned serveral times in the article as admin silkTork mentioned. This is simple to resolve by adding what I suggested since it is very helpful for the reader to get an idea of what recognized region Eritrea is a part of besides horn of Africa.I really have tried on this one, by compromizing to include both horn of Africa and East Africa. It explains both explain the location and region Eritrea is part of. Perhaps its time make admin silkTork look at this again. I do not feel this is moving forward. Richard0048 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also would be good to get an agreement on the other disputed issues.I did agree to put on hold with the images of the village house, asmara street, and leopard image. I suggested to replace the old dispute saho image, and I suggested to remove the punt Queen. If Ok I will go forward with this changes.Richard0048 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As Otakrem and CMD pointed out, the problem with that suggested wording is that it is redundant since it is already geographically implicit that the Horn is located in Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa. Note that the country policy also stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular, not locations in the plural. With that said, how do you feel about Horn in the lede and one of SilkTork's three-region compromise phrasings in the geography area? Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Selecting one regional name without mentioning the others is likely to lead to future conflict. If this is an issue which is worth fighting over, it's an issue worth explaining so others can resolve their own disputes by referring to the Wikipedia article. Think of it like this: Three people are in a pub discussing Eritrea. One says it's in the Horn of Africa, another says it's in East Africa, the third says it's in North East Africa. If they come here and all the article says is that Eritrea is in the Horn of Africa without mentioning the other two places, then one of the three in the pub will say "I told you so" while the other two will say, "Wikipedia is wrong", and the three of them will carry on arguing. But if you folks give them the actual neutral, sourced facts, and they can check out the sources for themselves, then the matter will be resolved. That is after all the aim of Wikipedia. Give people the neutral, balanced and sourced facts. So, agree a wording to appear in the lead which mentions the three most commonly used terms, and then explain with citations to reliable sources, the rationale behind that wording. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's best to avoid potential controversy. I'm not so sure, however, that there's much contention over the location of Eritrea. The Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that the territory is situated in the Horn [21]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [22], but apparently not with North East Africa [23], and it doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. With that said, perhaps the three-region wording can go in the geography area. How about this: "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa, which is located in Northeast Africa and is part of the Eastern Africa subregion."? Soupforone (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No one has opposed that Eritrea is part of horn of Africa. Besides horn of Africa Eritrea is mostly described by international organisations such as UN African Union , African devolopment bank , and so on to be a part of East Africa and Eastern Africa. Doesnt these organisations definitions weight more in this dispute? Eritrea is part of the horn and East Africa. Northeast Africa is not mentioned by these organisations, however horn of Africa does implicit that it is northeast Africa were discussing, secondly its good to mention the other major region Eritrea is part of which is East AfricaRichard0048 (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with that rationale SilkTork. For a start, people in a pub can be wrong. Secondly, omitting something is not the same as saying it's not true. Northeast Africa and East Africa are essentially arbitrary terms of convenience, whereas the Horn of Africa is a specific place. CMD (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The Horn is indeed a precise location. Since the Eastern Africa UN subregion is also specific, perhaps as a compromise it can be linked to in the geography area. Maybe something there like: "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa. It is part of the Eastern Africa UN subregion."? Soupforone (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Horn of Africa already feeds into the Eastern Africa article. I am still puzzled why countries like Ethiopia, Djbouti, and Somalia have no contention having only the Horn of Africa in their lead, whereas Eritrea is getting a special need to have all mention of every region it is considered a part of? Ethiopia is closer to the East African Community as it borders Uganda, Kenya whereas Eritrea is further north but still a part of the Horn of Africa. If this will be done with Eritrea, then Ethiopia, Somalia and Djbouti, Sudan, Egypt need to have this added as well as the Eastern Africa covers them as well. Consistency is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otakrem (talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem kinda superfluous. Another possibility is simply noting in the government area that Eritrea is a member-state in the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development. Soupforone (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not been given a good reason why Eritrea requires a deviation from what Ethiopia, Djbouti, Somalia have, when all these countries in the Horn of Africa? Why does Eritrea need this extra addition of East Africa while the others don't? Otakrem (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed geographically redundant. Soupforone (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Again this dispute was not about Ethiopias location, Djibouti,Somalia or Sudan but Eritreas. Secondly Egypt is not located in Eastern Africa or East Africa The dispute on this page does not need to effect the content on those other pages. silkTork have provided good neutral options to resolvera this issue which were constructive. Thats not bad, I would suggest "Eritrea is a country in horn of Africa located in Eastern Africa" and letting it point at the page for East Africa or maybe the UN subregion for Eastern Africa. However it would be better to link to the East Africa page since its described there what is part of Eastern Africa, what is part of UN subregion for Eastern Africa, and what is part of East African community etc since the page for Africa subregion is not specific in terms of describing what is part of Eastern Africa/East Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the special deviation you propose for Eritrea does impact Ethiopia, Djbouti, Somalia as well. All of these countries belong in Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa I just don't understand why the deviation for Eritrea only? What is your reason for Eritrea only but not Ethiopia/Somalia/Djbouti? Either do it for all of them or don't do it for Eritrea.Otakrem (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As the Eastern Africa UN subregion is a precise geographical entity, it would indeed have to be done for all of its constituent territories. However, this is quite cumbersome, as they stretch all the way to Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean islands. Soupforone (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems best to leave the geographic location as it stands. AcidSnow (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It could effect those pages indeed but not necessarily, it should be debated on those page to come to that conclusion. I would not oppose in adding it those pages aswell. Admins should look at this once again If we do not come to a solution. What is wrong with my proposed solution? Richard0048 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It will definitely affect those other country articles as well. Infact, if it is to apply to Eritrea, then it should apply to every country which is a part of a subset of a subset of regions. It seems the Horn of Africa is a subset of East Africa and these articles which link to each other already lead a reader to go further investigate. Adding the Horn of Africa link in the Eritrea lead is a good reference point which leads to other Regions that it is a part of. Trying to add every "region" or "grouping" it belongs to means, a cluttering and redundancy in the case of "East Africa".Otakrem (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And for good measure, it would then have to be done for the constituent territories in all of the other UN subregions. That's way too cumbersome for a geographically implicit entity. Soupforone (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not need to effect those other pages. I will further this issues to other admins and users to get their opinions. Richard0048 (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard, SilkTork asked you above to please confine yourself to making editorial comments on the talkpage, and working it through with me. That Kunama file was therefore inappropriate (it was also apparently not properly licensed). Anyway, Otakrem, AcidSnow, CMD and myself feel that linking to Eastern Africa after the Horn, at least in the lede, is unnecessary since the former is geographically implicit in the latter and since few other country ledes appear to have two regional locations. However, in the geography area, this three-region phrasing can perhaps work: "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa. It is part of the Eastern Africa UN subregion."? It links to the precise UN subregion rather than to ambiguous geographical entities. Soupforone (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That suggestion does not describe Eritreas location correctly. And many country pages does have two regional locations, which one who is most appropriate must be evaluated since Eritrea is per definition by UN, African Union and African development bank part of East Africa/Eastern Africa this is being overlooked. It is not only purely geograpically but also in other meanings. This will be forwarded to other users and admins for suggestions in resolving this issue as I mentioned before. Ive tried resolving it with you and I provided suggestions with the help of admin. And for the image another will be suggested. Richard0048 (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is that phrasing incorrect? According to the Eritrean government, Eritrea is located in the Horn. It is also one of the nations in the UN's Eastern Africa subregion. This UN Eastern Africa subregion is not, however, the same as the African Union's East Africa region or the African Development Bank's East Africa region. The constituent territories are instead different. Given this, what is your proposed more accurate wording? Also, what are these other country ledes that have two locations, and in a similar geographical context at that? Please link to these anomalies. Soupforone (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Eritrea and Horn of Africa is located in Eastern Africa. Eritrea is also part UN subregion for East Africa, but also considered to be part of East Africa by African devolopment bank and African Unions region for Eastern Africa. Therefore it would not be controversial to write that "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in Eastern Africa" , pointing at the East Africa, with that line the reader can get a quick understanding of Eritreas location and Horn of Africas without making it to complicated. East Africa is more commonly used to describe Eritreas geograpic location so with that logic we could aswell use Eastern Africa or East Africa in the lede if we were to choose one. However it would not be bad to include both. Further on it would be prefarable to write in the dispute resolution board where I have opened a discussion about this issue. Richard0048 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's the same redundant phrasing. Nevermind. Soupforone (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No I suggested to write Eastern Africa instead of East Africa. Anyway hopefully we can resolve the dispute resolution notice board. Regarding the other disputed content im suggesting to replace the saho image and remove the punt Queen image as discussed before. The saho image can be replaced with the an ethno-demographics map of Eritrea [[24]] until an another appropriate image can be suggested. Richard0048 (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard, kindly respect SilkTork's instruction to please confine yourself to making editorial comments on the talkpage, and working it through with me. This is the second time I am asking this. Also note that that demographic file's percentages are inconsistent with the CIA estimates in the infobox. Anyway, as CMD, Otakrem and AcidSnow, explained Eastern Africa (like Northeast Africa) is already geographically implicit in the toponym Horn of Africa, so that phrasing doesn't work. Soupforone (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I will add the figures from CIA. As mentioned before the punt Queen is not relevant to this page, therefore it should not be on this pageRichard0048 (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The present figures are from the CIA: [25]. AcidSnow (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed AcidSnow. The demographic file would also still breach WP:OI anyway over the regional partitions. Soupforone (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What are you opposing to when it comes to the removal of the punt Queen?, I have given you reasonable arguments for making the removal.in what way does it actually breach WP:OI Richard0048 (talk) 08:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the WP:OI policy stipulates that original files must not illustrate unpublished arguments. However, the inaccurate percentages and regional loci in the demographic file breach this. The Punt file doesn't since the theory that the ancient Land of Punt was situated around Eritrea is explained in the text and link-through, and also because the file isn't an original file. Thus, for the Punt file to be a sticking point, the Punt theory that it illustrates would itself first have to be one. Soupforone (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The demographic figures would be updated and with a source. You still do not have a valid argument for keeping the punt Queen image. The text about the punt theory can stay but the image of her should be removed. Are there evidence and sources of her ruling what is today known as Eritrea? Which era did she rule and where? As I have pointed out and many schoolars have pointed out it is still uncertain where punt was located.Her influence is not known, therefore it does not make sense to have an image of her on the article. Richard0048 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out, it's not just the percentages that are doubtful, but the demographic positions too. Anyway, files are meant to illustrate the text. You indicated above that the isotopic analysis establishing that Punt was situated in Eritrea is fine, yet you object to a file illustrating that very kingdom. That makes no sense. So which is it? Is ancient Punt alright or not? Soupforone (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There are sources confirming about the same positions the work are showing. The image shows her, but it is unclear if she ruled what is today known as Eritrea, therefore it would be appropriate to find another illustrating image or remove it. Richard0048 (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If Punt was at least partly in Eritrea (which isotopic analysis indicates it was) and that ruler was queen of Punt (which ancient hieroglyphics indicate she was), then she is obviously an ideal illustration of the old kingdom. Asserting otherwise is like claiming that Haile Selassie is not representative of the Solomonic dynasty (!). An alternative file therefore seems unnecessary. However, for the sake of argument, this generic file of Puntite carriers could also work [26]. Soupforone (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It is unclear if Eritrea was a part of punt. It is theory that can be questioned. There is no evidence of her ruling Eritrea. Also both suggested images are of low quality. Richard0048 (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing the Saho image since you have yet to receive support from other editors. It was also a bold move to mention the recent copyright dispute on Wiki Commons since it seems to have completely backfired. For those unaware see the sock investigation on this page. Anyways, how exactly are either of those two images of low quality? AcidSnow (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, that Punt was located in the Eritrea vicinity is no longer merely an ordinary theory. It has now been all but proven with the isotopic analysis on the old baboons. This is because these particular specimens were directly imported from Punt by the ancient Egyptians during the New Kingdom [27]. Also, per WP:HIIQ, the Punt files are actually fine since their composition (they're already cropped), color (no balance problem there obviously), brightness (not too dull or dark either), graininess (no excessive image noise), size (clear at 100% pixelation), and format (they're JPEG) are of adequate quality. Soupforone (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

AcidSnow, stick to commenting the content. The saho file is not correctly licensed, the same goes for the Kunama that recently was removed and replace by soupforone. The uploader of the file has also a long history of uploading cv files. Yet you insist on adding it.Yes Punt did exists, but there exist uncertaintie. It is far-fetched to claim that the punt Queen ruled the area what is now knows as Eritrea. Richard0048 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The other file had no associated file permission, whereas this file is apparently licensed through World66 (which has an open license policy [28]). Also, as regards ancient Punt, I should specify that the baboon isotope analysis was on bone and hair samples, so it's quite solid. Soupforone (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because it was uploaded there does not mean the intentions where good. The uploader has a history of uploading cv images. It would be wise of you to follow Wikipedia rules. A file must be correctly licensed. There also seem to exist tag-team editing. Richard0048 (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My whole reply was completely relevant, so I am not sure what you're talking about. By the way, there's no "tag-teaming" going on here. AcidSnow (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well Richard, seeing as how you uploaded several unlicensed files here, I think I'll pass on that (rather ironic) advice and instead follow actual wiki policy. Soupforone (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Admin silkTork has also adivsed you to stick to discussing content. There will be suggested a new one. ."Actual policy" that happens to breach wiki policy. The punt Queen will also be brought to discussion. Richard0048 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, SilkTork explicitly gave me permission to edit [29]. It's also unfortunately a fact that you uploaded several unlicensed files. As for the Punt files, do feel free to nominate them for deletion. That will take some doing, though, as they are from public domain works dating from the 19th century. Soupforone (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Everybody has permission to edit as long it is constructive. Again silkTork did suggested you refrain from discussing nothing else besides content. I have nominated only files that's not correct licensed. The punt files are correctly licensed, the problem is how relevant it is to this page which I have explained. They would do better on another page. Richard0048 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What SilkTork instructed was for you to "confine yourself to making editorial comments on the talkpage, and working it through with Soupforone". There's nothing ambiguous about that. Anyway, first you asserted that only the queen file was an issue and that another Punt file would be preferable, but now you write that all Punt files are problematic. So which is it, and why policy-wise? Soupforone (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

silKTork adressed it to you aswell. The punt files are correctly licensed, however im opposing to it being on this article. Saho image on the other is not correct licensed and secondly it have apparently been disputed over before, and was also removed from this article more then a year ago. Richard0048 (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

That assertion was actually addressed to you alone; the instruction to desist from personal remarks was addressed to both of us. Anyway, the Saho file's license was just cleared [30]. That leaves the Punt files, to which I ask again - what do you have against them policy-wise? Soupforone (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned two not one reason why the saho file is inappropriate image on this article, the second reason you have totally ignored by adding it without consideration to the dispute it caused in the first place, over a year ago.. The punt files are correctly licensed. However, as I have explained to you many times before there are uncertainties where punt was actually located, therefore to include a image of punt Queen as if she was the ruler of the area of what today is known as Eritrea is a strong assertion. The other image you suggested is however more appropriate, but then again where was punt located? According to alot of scholars, it was not located in what is now known as Eritrea. Therefore some caution would be neccesary on how punt is percieved in relation to the history of Eritrea. Therefore none of the punt images are appropriate. Richard0048 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see, you wrote that the Saho file was inappropriate because it was the smallest ethnic group (the infobox actually indicates that it's the third largest) and because the file was allegedly unlicensed (the license was just cleared). Those were your indicated reasons, and objectively, neither is legitimate. Anyway, the isotope analysis has established that the New Kingdom baboon specimens, which the ancient Egyptians imported directly from Punt, were endemic to the Eritrea vicinity. It's thus not merely a plausible theory anymore, but something closer to reality. Since you have a problem with the Punt queen file, though, I therefore suggest instead the Punt carriers file. Soupforone (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

No that was the third reason, however you still refuse to aknowledge that is an image that have been disputed on here before. For more reasons than I have mentioned. This was a year before you decided that it was appropriate to add it once again. So therefore it would for that reason not be appropriate ti have on here. There are other images to choose from that have not been disputed over. As mentions I will come up with another suggestion. Richard0048 (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained, WP:VAN instructs to roll to the last clean version when there are excessive unlicensed files. Also, as can clearly be seen above, those were indeed the actual reasons you indicated for objecting to the file (i.e., alleged population size and license status). However, neither turned out to be legitimate here. Anyway, according to the Eritrean Ministry of Information, there are three main population divisions in the country: two Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups (Semitic & Cushitic), and a Nilo-Saharan-speaking group [31]. Therefore, any compromise suggestion would have to take this demographic stratification into consideration. Soupforone (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Do you have any other reasons for disagreeing with the Saho women image Richard0048? AcidSnow (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

soupforeone, I will take in consideration all of the groups you mentioned. Richard0048 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The two Afro-Asiatic-speaking divisions are denoted via the Tigrinya and Saho files. That leaves the Nilo-Saharan stratum, either the Kunama or Nara. Note, however, that this would not be in proportion to their actual population size, as the Nilo-Saharan groups at most constitute around 5% of the national population per the infobox estimates. Soupforone (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Tigrinya seem to work fine, the saho does not(with its history in mind). Another image of the saho is going to be suggested. As you mentioned with the Kunama and Nara images will be suggested. Richard0048 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Saho file's license was actually just cleared, so it's fine as it is [32]. A Kunama/Nara file is alright too for the Nilo-Saharan groups, though in truth it would necessarily be very disproportionate to their small size. Soupforone (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned for you for the fourth time. It's not only a matter of license. The image has been disputed over before. Therefore another would be appropriate. This is what I am taking in consideration, since you roled back the page a year. Therefore another image of the sahos or another kushtic ethnic group could work aswell. And a nilotic one for the Kunama/nara as you mentionedRichard0048 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. However, as per MOS:IMAGES, legitimate objections to a file include image relevance/appropriateness, quality, offensiveness, and licensing. Whether a file was previously discussed is not in itself a valid argument. There are obvious reasons for this, such as that the file license was recently cleared. Given that your potentially legitimate objections (the file license status & size of population) wound up being inaccurate, the Saho file is adequate. A Kunama/Nara file can perhaps work too, though, for the Nilotic minority stratum. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

As you mention Sahos are the third largest, so a image of them would be appropriate. But not the current one, it have been disputed over in the past, therefore it should be replaced with another one if possible. Other users have already discssed the quality etc and brought up the critieria you mention in the past. Simplest would be adding a new one of the sahos and one of the kunamas/nara. Richard0048 (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that the Saho file actually passed the deletion discussion on Commons and its license was also just cleared [33], it necessarily meets the website's usability criteria (which includes quality per COM:DG). Therefore, as per MOS:IMAGES, the only plausible objection to the file one could have is to assert that it is irrelevant/inappropriate. However, this too would not be legitimate since the Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that the population is an indigenous Afro-Asiatic-speaking community (which it indeed objectively is). With that established, here is a possible Kunama/Nara file for the Nilotic minority [34]. Soupforone (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It may has passed it but not really sure if its correctly licensed, and at sometimes the linking to the file at world66 does not work. And its not sure if the user uploaded it without the approval of the author. Since that user had had a long history of uploading CV images. But the main issue about the image is that it have been subjected dispute several times in the past e.g for not being of decent quality. As suggested, it would considering the old dispute be better to upload a new image that has been not been subjected for dispute. For the sake of being impartial, It is better to upload a new image of the sahos with a criteria that it should be of better quality than the current one. Also a better one than you suggested for the Kunamas can be found. An better example of them should also be found. Ill see if better ones can be suggested. Richard0048 (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained, whether a file was previously discussed is not in itself a valid argument. Actually legitimate objections to a file per MOS:IMAGES include image relevance/appropriateness, quality, offensiveness, and licensing. The file's license was just cleared, so it's legit like Otakrem indicated. Anyway, what is this other Saho file? This seems to be the only licensed one. There are a couple of other licensed Kunama files, though. Soupforone (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, the very purpose of the Kunama file was to represent the Nilotic ethnic minority, the latter of whom constitute under 5% of the population. Therefore, please do not alter the ethnolinguistic identifications and link-throughs on the files. The layout is per the population size estimates in the infobox, with the Tigrinya at the top (as it is the largest of the three), the Saho underneath (as it is the second largest of the three), and the Kunama below that (as it is the smallest of the three). It is also per the Eritrean Ministry of Information, which indicates that there are three main population divisions in the country: two Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups (Semitic & Cushitic), and a Nilo-Saharan-speaking group [35]. Soupforone (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"Italian widely spoken in commerce" source needed

Ethnologue does not mention this, thus a better source is needed. As it stands, it seems like someone's romantic dream about Italian being used in Eritrea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.176.28 (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was an exaggeration. Italian is primarily spoken by a few monolinguals [36]. Soupforone (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Location

Eritrea is described in various geographical sources as being located in the Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa, and/or East Africa. Which wording would be most helpful to our readers, and be most in line with policy, guidelines, and best practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupforone (talk • contribs) 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of Africa. Simply stating the Horn of Africa works best. Plus, if you visit the page it mentions that it's "located in Northeast Africa". Once you vist that page too it also states that some countries can also be described as "North Eastern Africa". The UN has also used Northeast Africa and the Horn of Africa to describe the location of Eritrea (see here: [37]). Adding all three makes it very confusing. AcidSnow (talk)

• Comment. Note the discussion above, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Eritrea. Background: In its earliest years the article was worded as "is a nation/country of/in northeastern Africa", then "is a country in the Horn of Africa", and more recently as "is a country in East Africa". The current wording of "is a country in the Horn of Africa" is disputed, which is the reason for this RFC. A more helpful wording for the RFC might be:

Eritrea is described in various sources as being located in the Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa, and/or East Africa. Which wording would be most helpful to our readers, and be most in line with policy, guidelines, and best practice?

Policies and guidelines most related to the nature of this dispute are WP:OTHERNAMES, WP:PLACE, WP:LEAD, WP:COMMONTERM, and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. It is common practice when a place is variously described in reliable sources to mention all such descriptions rather than editors voting to select their personal preference. Where descriptions are important (such as where a country is located) they should be mentioned in both lead and main body. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Noting all three regions would at a glance seem like a logical compromise. However, a problem with this is that WP:COUNTRIES stipulates that the lede should indicate the "location in the world" in the singular, and this seems to be the only policy specifically on the country page locations. Another issue is actual website best practice; few if any other country pages note more than the most immediate regional location. Wales and the other constituent territories within the United Kingdom come close, but they too stop at the most immediate location. For instance, the Wales lede indicates that it "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and the island of Great Britain", instead of that it "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, located in the British Isles which are within Northwestern Europe." It thus notes the territory's immediate parent state and landmass rather than its more distant parent regions. Doing the latter would be redundant since it is geographically implicit that the British Isles are located in Northwestern Europe. Eritrea also isn't part of any larger nation; it is a sovereign state. Given this, Horn of Africa would seem to work best. Soupforone (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. My issue is if you do this for Eritrea. Will you not have to do this for other countries not only in the Horn of Africa? This will become an unnecessary exercise in redundant location identification. I am thinking that you can also add that "Eritrea is a country located in the Red Sea Region", "Eritrea is a country located in Sahel region", "Eritrea is a country located in Northeast Africa", Eritrea is a country located in the Horn of Africa", "Eritrea is a country located in East Africa", etc! My question of all these locations, which describes and helps a reader locate its specific location? Every "location" represents a different perspective for a reader depending on how each region is viewed and described. What region truly describes Eritrea's location and very similar grouping? Otakrem (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the gist of it. Only the most immediate regional location, Horn of Africa, appears to satisfy these conditions. The Eritrean Ministry of Information indicates that Eritrea is situated in the Horn [38], and draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [39], but apparently not with North East Africa [40]. It also doesn't appear to use these toponyms interchangeably. The Horn of Africa page itself is also clearly the most relevant to Eritrea. Soupforone (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of Africa as per the above. It is sufficiently descriptive and is the most immediate, common and neutral regional location for the country. Soupforone (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• East Africa. Horn of Africa is not per above the best naming. Its not neutral since it overlooks Eritreas actual regional belongings according to UN and African Union etc. And it is not the best solution according to silkTork and not according to me. I do favour East Africa over Horn of Africa, however am willing to compromize in order to include both. Oktarem has asked the question if East Africa could be added to other HOA countries, my answer is yes. My intention with opening up the case at the dispute resolution board was to get input from outside users that were not included in this dispute, outside opinions has not been provided. This is way for starting the dispute in its original form once again. Therefore best solution in solving this dispute once for all would be to open up a case in the meditation board. Richard0048 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And regarding the image you suggested for the nilotic people of Eritrea, this one is better [41]. I will uploaded it. Maybe a better can be found, however, it would be good to have one of that group for the sake of having a nilotic group on here aswell as you mentioned. Regarding the saho's I will suggest one. Richard0048 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

That file already appears to be on Commons. Anyway, this discussion is on the regional location in the lede. Please discuss other matters in the allotted area above. Soupforone (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of Africa: the common name of the region where the country is situated. Borsoka (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As noted by me and admin silkTork it would be more appropriate to add more regional naming , to avoid these conflict to appear in the feature. And it would help users to not be confused by the various namings. It has been discussed for over a month now. Therefore an issue will be created on the mediation board, I will refer to this discussion on this talk page and the issue on dispute notice board. Regarding the images, images that you cannot remove or nominativ for delition from commons will be provided. [User:Richard0048|Richard0048]] (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no mediation can take place without the approval of the other parties and while another dispute resolution process is going on (i.e., this RFC question). This is also the third such discussion, so it would likely be rejected anyway per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. At any rate, your bolded suggestion above is to link to East Africa alone, not to SilkTork's recommended three regions. Please discuss stuff not related to the regional location in the allotted area above. Soupforone (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for your consent before starting a mediation. The dispute resolution process has ended. It has taken three rounds, first in this talk page, then the dispute resolution notice board (closed) and finally the rfc. Other than that I have reached out for comments by outside users and outside admins. There is a need for invlovement by admins since the dispute has been going on for six weeks. My bolded suggestion is not to include only East Africa. I do favour it over horn of Africa, however I would not object to INCLUDING horn of Africa. This I have stated several times. This would be more helpful to the user than only having East Africa or only Horn of Africa. You still have not come with good reason to only have one naming (HOA), both could indeed be included. Also I have not rejected silkTorks suggestion.,I did myself provide a three word naming early in the dispute. Richard0048 (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, that is unfortunately not how it all works. Mediation is indeed a voluntary mechanism per WP:RFM/COMMON, and it is a final stage in Wikipedia's content-dispute resolution process after an RFC question and a Third Opinion. As regards your preferred regional location, you clearly bolded East Africa above. If you favor Horn of Africa alongside it, then please indicate this in the bolded area. Soupforone (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of Africa since it's more specific and less open to interpretation/dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  Plus other terms later ni lead (see "#Compromise proposal below).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I can still favour East Africa, and still suggest both. RFC has not provided much anlyses of the dispute. I cannot see how third part opinion would differ from silkTorks opinion for e.g. So therefore meditation would be next step. So what is the reason for not having both? I still have not got an good answer. Just that you favour Horn of Africa. I have provided many sources, from UN, African Union e.g which is completely being overlooked in favour for HOA. The most used naming for the geographical location of the country is East Africa.Richard0048 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, you can favor whatever you like. However, you can't call it SilkTork's recommendation since he actually suggested three regional locations (Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and East Africa), whereas you have vacillated between one (East Africa) and two (Horn of Africa and East Africa) regional locations. Soupforone (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And this "I'm not getting the answer I want so we have to have dispute resolution" attitude is nonsense. The entire purpose of WP:RFC is for the community to mediate and provide a collective answer. To respond to Richard0048's question to me, the reason to not use both is that it's redundant. We already know the Horn of Africa is in Africa, and it's a more specific identifier than "east" or "northeast". There is no WP principle or rule requiring vague compass directions for everything, especially when the definitions of what constitutes these areas is hardly clear. I guess I don't have any strenuous objection to something like "is an East African country located in the Horn of Africa" (or "is a Northeast African country in the Horn of Africa, or whatever), but I don't see that it adds anything encyclopedic to the lead. There's a reason Oakland for example, doesn't start with something like "Oakland is a somewhat inland and non-oceanic, San Francisco Bay port city in Alameda County, in the southwestern part of Northern California, a section of the state of California, on the West Coast of the United States, a country in North America, in the Western and Northern Hemispheres". The present wording at that article is perfectly adequate for a lead, and just mentioning the Horn of Africa in this case will also be sufficient. There's a link to the article the Horn, and a map right there in the Eritrea article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• In terms of the discussion above, I opted for and continue to do so for the Horn of Africa, that being a more specific area. However, similarly to SMcCandlish, I'm not objecting to the use of East Africa in the article in general. There's probably places it helps a lot. However, I see no reason for "East Africa" to be shoehorned into the opening sentence with inelegant prose. CMD (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The use of both could indeed be helpful for users and be helpful in many cases, since the naming of Eritreas location is more often referred to as East Africa in a global context. East Africa is mentioned troughout the article, it is mentioned over the whole internet basically and in huge amount literature, and Eritreas is regarded as being located in East Africa by major organizataions such as UN, Africa Union etc. So why the need to leave out East Africa? Richard0048 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said, there's no need to "leave it out". If it is mentioned throughout the article already, we are clearly not leaving it out. CMD (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is being overlooked in the lead and in the geographical section. Since this matter is regarding Eritreas geographical location, it would not hurt anyone if East Africa was mentioned, instead it would be more helpful for users, since it is the most common naming for the location of the country. Now we got three users not objecting to the use of East Africa (me, chipmunkdavies and sSMcCandiish). silkTork has suggested for adding all three namings. So the ones objecting to the use of East Africa, please provide valid arguments on why East Africa cannot be mentioned in the lead. Richard0048 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the one, two and three regional locations are separate wording choices (as noted in the op question). Per the actual bolded text above, Horn of Africa is clearly the overwhelming preference. This perhaps is to be expected since the Horn is the regional location that the Eritrean Ministry of Information specifies for the country [42]. Soupforone (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has objected to the use of Horn of Africa,not even myself. I do however think, the most important and common geographical naming is being left out, which is East Africa. Do not forget that Horn of Africa is a pensilula within East Africa, therefore not controversial to mention that e.g "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, located in East Africa". You have not provided any valid arguments for leaving East Africa out. Basically ignoring the sources by UN, African Union, African devolopment bank etc and other major international organizations, and huge amount of literature and internet sources. Once again, why? Richard0048 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I'm not going to explain ad infinitum why East Africa is geographically redundant; I and the others have already done so above ample times. Anyway, if you're truly sincere about the "Horn of Africa" regional location, then you should amend your bolded phrase above to reflect this. Because as it is, it just indicates "East Africa". Soupforone (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of African or Horn of Africa in eastern Africa Per SMcCandlish ☺ comments above. "Horn of Africa" refers to a specific area, whereas descriptions that use "east" or "northeast" are vague. "Horn of Africa" is also common and broadly used, especially in historical sources. "Horn of Africa" also suggests a shared history with other nearby countries, which is indeed true (Eritrea being one of the continent's newer recognized countries). "Eastern Africa" is unnecessary but it does gives people a rough idea where the Horn of Africa is, if the are unfamiliar with the term (and if don't click through or look at the mpa), without getting confused with the British East Africa Protectorate. "Northeast Africa" just seems to confuse matters. First, this non-Afican have never heard anyone use the phrase. It's meaningless to me. Second, "Northeast Africa" seems to lump Eritrea in with Egypt, putting it in the Middle East, which it is not in (though it is part of the periphery). Third, the Wikipedia articles on Northeast Africa and East Africa clearly indicate that Northeast is not wholly contained within East Africa. We are talking about a brief description to give people an idea where it is. When we talk about ecology or geology then we can use different, specifically defined terms. Regions like "Northeast Africa", "East Africa", "the Midwest", "South Asia", "the Middle East", "Western Europe", etc., are not scientific terms. They are vague but helpful descriptions. There will always be areas that are in the gray zone between them.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Both "Northeast Africa" and "East Africa" are indeed somewhat vague. Eritrea is certainly not always subsumed under East Africa, which instead often denotes (especially in the older literature) the Swahili nations to the south in the former East Africa Protectorate [43] [44] [45] [46]. For its part, "Northeast Africa" does imply that Eritrea had ties with the Egypt/Sudan area, which it actually did beginning with the ancient Land of Punt, and later the Kingdom of Aksum (which conquered Nubia) and eventually the Ottoman Habesh Eyalet encompassing areas in both the Horn and Nile Valley. Given this, SMcCandlish's proposal below appears to be most sensible. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• East or North East, "horn of africa" dosn't align with encyclopedic tone, so pick east or north east based on reliable sources. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Horn of Africa, as anyone with common geographical knowledge knows that the horn is in the east. "Eritrea"+"Horn of Africa" (286) versus "Eritrea"+"Eastern Africa" (207), "Eritrea"+"Northeastern Africa" (151). The geography section could need some expansion, perhaps also with UN's designation (Eastern Africa).--Zoupan 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Let's use common sense. See the lead of WP:MOS: Try to rewrite to avoid disputes. The now-obvious solution to this, given that some editors here are convinced that the terms East Africa (or Eastern Africa?) and Northeast Africa are terms of art of global significance or at least special meaning (and they may well be correct about that), would be to keep the lead sentence simple, just stating the location as the Horn of Africa (which the majority of respondents here so far want to see), then close the lead section (the last paragraph of which is all about this global context anyway) with a statement that Eritrea is variously defined by these multinational organizations as being part of East[ern] Africa or of Northeast[ern] Africa (whichever exact spellings the sources use). This would be factual, sourceable, helpful to readers, non-confusing, and totally devoid of any PoV pushing. Pinging previous commenters: @AcidSnow, SilkTork, Soupforone, Richard0048, Chipmunkdavis, and Iloilo Wanderer:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Clarified about "East" vs. "Eastern".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This is one of those disputes where if we follow guidelines and common practise and good common sense then we don't have a dispute. SMcCandlish offers a solution which covers guidelines and common practise and good common sense so I would urge folks to follow it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I have no issues with including the names if there's good reasons to, although they are less terms of art than terms of convenience. I'd prefer a more elegant formulation, of course, but it's better than the first sentence proposals in discussions above. CMD (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposed suggestion above which mentions horn of Africa in Eastern Africa is accepted by me. So it would read e.g "Eritrea is a country in horn of Africa located in Eastern Africa". It is simple yet informative. User Iloilo Wanderer also points out why it is incorrect to use NE Africa, which I have pointed out before, the term is very difuse and confusing. I do not think we need to explain more the mentioned suggestion since it would be even more confusing for the readers. There is a broad consensus by international organization, common users, literature and other sources that Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa which is located in East Africa/Eastern Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's suggestion makes sense. Since it is generally acknowledged here that it is geographically implicit that the Horn of Africa is located in Eastern Africa, "Horn of Africa" is indeed a sufficiently descriptive regional location for the lede sentence. However, it could probably be noted further down, where the UN and other intergovernmental memberships are enumerated, that Eritrea is part of the UN's Eastern Africa subregion. Something like-- "Eritrea is a member of the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion. It is also an observer in the Arab League." Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, soupforone that's a bold proposal as a whole and nowhere near simple. Secondly the UN Eastern Africa subregion that you are refering to is East Africa/Eastern Africa. So it would be better to refer to East/Eastern Africa. Again, what do you have against the usage of the East Africa? In the lead sentence it should mention both Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa as proposed by user lloilo Wanderer and myself, and there are other users who have not objected to the usage of East Africa. East Africa is the more correct in every aspect, only Horn of Africa wont do it.. The term Horn of Africa is not an indegious term, it has no long historical ties to the Eritrean history or the history of East Africa, it is a newly invented term. East Africa in relation to Eritrea has a long history and is indeed more relevant in present time. And please stop mentioning Northeast Africa, this is not even a region.. For a user who wants to get a quick understanding of the location of Eritrea and who's never heard of Horn of Africa, it would indeed be helpful to mention that Eritrea and the Horn of Africa is situated in East Africa. If common sense would be applied we would turn to credible sources, like definitions by the UN, African Union, World bank and literature on Eritrea, all of whom mostly favour East Africa over Horn of Africa, this logic could be applied in this case. However from a user perspective we could mention both. Richard0048 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

International organisations do not "favour" East Africa over the Horn of Africa, they use East Africa because it's convenient for them to subdivide their areas of competence administratively and statistically, and cardinal directions provide a simple and intuitive way to do this. CMD (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

East Africa is indeed more frequently used by these organizations and it is simply not because of lazyness. The same goes for literature which I also pointed out, where Eritrea is more described as being part of Eastern Africa. This is because East Africa is a much more established term and a more recognized region than Horn of Africa. This does not take away the fact that Eritrea is also a part of Horn of Africa.Richard0048 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, all of the actual bolded topographs above favor "Horn of Africa" as the regional location for the lede sentence, including that of Iloilo Wanderer. He did, though, offer as a secondary alternative "Horn of Africa in eastern Africa", but noted that "Horn of Africa" is preferable because it refers to a specific area unlike the vague "east" or "northeast" topographs, it's common and broadly used, and suggests a shared history with other nearby countries. He also wrote that "Eastern Africa" is unnecessary, but that at least it gives a rough idea where the Horn is without confusing the location with the "East Africa Protectorate" (unlike "East Africa"). The last bit is key since the UN geographical subregion is Eastern Africa (not East Africa), and it stretches all the way to Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean islands. Therefore, as per SMcCandlish's compromise proposal above, either the actual "Eastern Africa" UN geographical subregion is appended to the relevant phrase on the UN and other intergovernmental memberships or this is superfluous and "Horn of Africa" is topographically sufficient. Soupforone (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Having just added myself to the robo-RFC form, I received a request for comment. I think the phrasing suggested by SMcCandlish, "'is an East African country located in the Horn of Africa' (or 'is a Northeast African country in the Horn of Africa...')," is a good pithy description for the lede that usefully offers an instantly understandable and completely non-technical term, "east" (or "northeast"), along with the slightly more formal term, "Horn of Africa". Using "northeast Africa" (rather than "east") and "Horn of Africa" in the same sentence might be considered redundant, I'll grant, but they are not absolutely synonomous. I don't have a problem including both terms (Horn and east or northeast) in the sentence. I consider my knowledge of geography above average and probably would have said Eritrea is within the Horn, but when I look at the map, it actually seems too far north to be in what I considered the Horn. Using both terms in the lede allows geography-challenged readers to have an instant idea where the country is, while also confirming the country's status as a 'member' of the Horn. DonFB (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, SMcCandlish's compromise suggestion above is actually to simplify the lead sentence per WP:MOS by just stating the location as the Horn of Africa. It would then be indicated in the last paragraph of the lead section, where the intergovernmental memberships are noted, that Eritrea is variously defined by these multinational organizations as being part of East Africa or of Northeast Africa. Does this work for you? It seems pretty straightforward and is per actual policy. Soupforone (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that SMcCandlish favors a simpler sentence, but I mentioned his comment because it's generally the way I would write the description. I agree with the following comment by Richard0048, which reflects both my thinking and the SMcCandlish wording that I quoted, even if it's not what McCandlish actually desires: "For a user who wants to get a quick understanding of the location of Eritrea and who's never heard of Horn of Africa, it would indeed be helpful to mention that Eritrea and the Horn of Africa is situated in East Africa." My preference, with the reader in mind, would be to associate the compass direction and HOA closely, rather than separating them by several paragraphs. Of course, I won't oppose any eventual solution; am just offering input in response to the RFC. DonFB (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Note we should pay attention to capitalization. There is a difference between Horn of Africa in eastern Africa and Horn of Africa in Eastern Africa. The latter is capitalized and is a proper noun. I would suggest the former small-caps to avoid implying that it is an alternative name of "East Afica" as in "British East Africa".--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that lower case appears to be correct usage (and would be my choice). MOS:COMPASS#Compass points gives relevant guidance. DonFB (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what User:DonFB mentions above..and lower case works fine. That makes us total four users (Me, user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer, user:SMcCandlish who belives that East Africa can be added alongside Horn of Africa, and other users who do not mind adding it. Therefore I think we have indeed reached consensus by majority. As mentioned before NE Africa is not a possibility which other users have pointed out since it is not a region, its a difuse, confusing, and its sometimes refered to as Horn of Africa.. So the lead should read e.g "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in east africa", or "Eritrea is a country in east africa located in Horn of Africa". This gives the user an understanding of the location of the country with one sentence. Richard0048 (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was replacing my original "is an eastern African nation in the Horn of Africa" sort of proposal with moving any East[ern]/Northeast[ern] to the end of the lead, but I would be fine with either result. What I'm trying to avoid is a) further disputation about East vs. Eastern vs. Northeast vs. Northeastern vs. Horn of Africa being included in the lead at all or not, and b) a grotesque lead sentence that tries to shoehorn all that into one sentence. PS: I agree that if we include "eastern Africa" in the lead as a compass direction, not as a UN (or whatever) term of art, it should not be capitalized [apart from "Africa"], per MOS:COMPASS. The proposals are not even mutually exclusive; we could have something like "eastern African country in the Horn of Africa" (or "country in the Horn of Africa in eastern Africa" or whatever) in the lead sentence, and still close the lead section with UN, etc., classifications like East Africa and Northeastern Africa and whatever, as linked proper names in the geopolitical context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, user:DonFB or user:Iloilo Wanderer would one of you change it then as mentions above. This seems the best approach, so it would read "Eritrea is an east african country in Horn of Africa". Or having East Africa in the end of the line would result in "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in east africa". Richard0048 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll confine my activity to my RFC response and let one of the article editors make the change. Quick notes on capitalization and grammar: "Africa"/"African" must be upper case in every instance; wording should include the definite article "the", as in "the Horn of Africa." DonFB (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

So it will read "Eritrea is an east African country located in the Horn of Africa", its slightly easier than "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa in east Africa", but this suggestion does also work. I will proceed with making these changes then, based on the discussions above. Richard0048 (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, three editors in favor of Horn of Africa in the lede sentence (myself, AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis), three in favor of Horn of Africa and eastern Africa in the lede sentence (you, DonFB, Ilolio Wanderer), one in favor of Horn of Africa and either eastern Africa or northeastern Africa in the lede sentence (SMcCandlish), and one in favor of Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and East Africa in the lede sentence (SilkTork) does not a consensus make. Also, as per WP:RFCEND, contentious changes are to be implemented only after an RFC question has been officially closed, which this one certainly has not. Soupforone (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, besides Horn of Africa, I think your suggested "country in the Horn of Africa in northeastern Africa" in the lede sentence is perhaps workable. The "eastern Africa" encompasses a much broader & less precise area and is therefore not all that geographically informative. Alternatively, SilkTork's original three regional location suggestion could still work as long as it's worded concisely. Per MOS:COMPASS, the topographs would also have to be capitalized, since, like Western Europe, they "have attained the status of proper names." How, then, about this-- "Eritrea ... is a country in the Horn of Africa, which is located in Northeast Africa and is part of the Eastern Africa subregion."? Soupforone (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Three at once in the lead sentence is brow-beating the readers. I prefer just the Horn mentioned in the lead sentence, and the geopolitical regional classification terms at the end of the lead section. We could use something like "is an eastern African nation in the Horn of Africa" or "is a country in the Horn of Africa in northeastern Africa" in the lead sentence if there's no other way to get consensus. but I think as capitalized terms of art, linked as such, East or Eastern Africa and Northeast or Northeastern Africa should be in the last paragraph of the lead section, since the classifications are somewhat in conflict and mean different particular things in different contexts (contexts provided by that paragraph) and are matters that do not simply help locate where Eritrea is, a purpose arguably served well enough by just "the Horn of Africa", maybe with a thrown-in "eastern" or "northeastern", in the first sentence.

Regardless, I agree the article shouldn't be edited pending a consensus on what it should say. It need not have a formal closure (we over-rely on WP:ANRFC and it has a huge backlog); all it requires is a cessation of disagreement or filibustering. For my part, I want to avoid awkward text, and later disputes over the lead sentence like "We have to change 'eastern' to 'Northeast' because OECD says so!", etc., etc. If consensus emerges to use something like "is a Northeastern African country located in the Horn of Africa" I could live with it, but I think this capitalized usage in this spot is asking for trouble. I would lowercase the compass point, and put an HTML comment there that it's being lowercased as a compass direction per MOS:COMPASS, and see end of lead section for capitalized version of this and "Eastern" as UN, etc., region-defining terms.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just "Horn of Africa" is more concise and sufficiently descriptive for the lead sentence. The geopolitical regional topographs could go at the end of the lead section, so that any reader who is not already familiar with the Horn's location can easily situate the nation. However, this ending phrase would have to point to the actual UN Eastern Africa subregion to differentiate it from the East Africa Protectorate (which did not include Eritrea). The phrase would then go-- "Eritrea is a member of the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion. It is also an observer in the Arab League." Soupforone (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No thats not what user user:SMcCandlish wrote.. We did come to an agreement based on what has been discussed and according to Wiki guidlines and that is simple, informative,correct and that would not lead to feature disputes. I think it's about time you accept this. The proposed suggestion to have NE Africa would not work as previously mentioned, secondly the long awful line that you suggested "UN...etc" is to long and confusing and many have objected in using that type of sentence. Just horn of Africa won't do it either. And for the record there are more users that favour adding (or not objecting) East Africa and who wants to keep it simple, these are me, user:SMcCandlish, user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer. The users favouring only Horn of Africa is you and Chipmunkdavis. The last possible option if you do not like the change I made is to have Horn of Africa first and East Africa last in the sentence as user:SMcCandlish points out. So e.g "Eritrea is an country in Horn of Africa located in east Africa". Richard0048 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree that precisely because these terms of art are particular that we should be careful to distinguish between things like "the UN Eastern Africa subregion" and "the East Africa Protectorate", and link correctly so readers are not misled. The potential for such terms as "East Africa" or "Eastern Africa" being misleading is why I suggest putting them at lead-end and associating them directly with particular organizations. I actually think "in the Horn of Africa located in east Africa" is awkward wording order, though not the end of he world, but regardless should not link to East Africa, but link the word Africa to Africa. The construction "is an eastern [or northeastern, whatever] African country [or nation, whatever] located in the Horn of Africa" is a much more natural construction. But I also think that "the Horn of Africa" by itself is actually sufficient in the lead sentence if we have the sometimes conflicting other terms at bottom of lead section, with some context. I just don't care that much if we also include either "eastern" or "northeastern" in the lead sentence somewhere, lowercase and preferably not linked, and preferably not juxtaposed too closely with Horn of Africa which just doesn't read well. Including it seems redundant to me, but no one is going to jump out a window about it. We can link East Africa later when discussing the UN, etc., specific terms at the end of the lead section. Just because the page East Africa exists does not mean we must link it prematurely in the lead sentence. The reason for maybe mentioning "eastern" or "northeastern" in the lead sentence is only to immediately provide some sense of where on the continent it is, for people who don't know where the Horn is and can't see the map.

In a very simple case we could do something like "New Jersey is a state in the northeastern United States" with no issues, because there is no conflict between how various international entities name and define that region and what it includes. Eritrea is not a simple case because these definitional conflicts clearly exist, so we should write around them. A correct and not misleading lead section is more important than jamming as many links and terms into the lead sentence as possible. With that, I think I should just let youse all hammer it out after this. I don't think I can lay out what I'm suggesting and why any more clearly, and my intent was to propose something people could just agree with and get on, not start a new debate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: as it happens there are clear differences in how "northeastern United States" is defined. Compare the maps at Northeastern United States and Category:Flora of the Northeastern United States. The relevance to the discussion is that one should not assume that terms like "eastern Africa" or indeed "Horn of Africa" have a precise meaning in the absence of a map. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Noted, but that doesn't seem to related to this sort of context; a botanical region isn't likely to be what anyone's thinking of when they want to know where Connecticut is on a map. The various "East Africa" definitions are all geopolitics matters.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but that misses my point, which is that verbal descriptions of geographical regions just don't have the precision needed to justify nitpicking about which words are better. Where are the maps supporting the words? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should indeed link it to East Africa article, since Eritrea is considered troughout history as being part of East Africa. East Africa is not just a word of art its a actual defined region by UN and African Union, these are not organizations such OECD. But Eritrea is also geographically situated in Eastern Africa. Also the article East Africa is an good article that points out the different regions within East Africa and gives the reader good information on East Africa protectorate, Horn of Africa, Africa great lake region etc.. But I absolutly agree on adding East Africa or Eastern Africa in the leda-end.. Thirdly NE is not correct to use, its sometimes confusingly refered to as Horn of Africa, its difuse, not an actual region, and as somebody pointed out it includes a country such as Egypt which is considerd north African and middle eastern country. Richard0048 (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, as SMcCandlish and Ilolio Wanderer point out, both "East Africa" and "Northeast Africa" are unscientific, terms of art (the UN subregion is also "Eastern Africa", not "East Africa"). However, the argument here against "East Africa" is objectively stronger than that against "Northeast Africa". This is because "East Africa" often denotes (especially in the older literature) the Swahili nations to the south in the former East Africa Protectorate, which did not include Eritrea. By contrast, Eritrea was part of several succeeding polities in Northeast Africa, such as the Ottoman Habesh Eyalet, which was governed from Egypt. This is not perception, but fact. Anyway, I've reexamined the bolded suggestions above, and the consensus is actually even more strongly in favor of the Horn of Africa regional location. Three users prefer Horn of Africa in the lede sentence (myself, AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis), one prefers East Africa in the lede sentence (you), one prefers Horn of Africa and eastern Africa in the lede sentence (DonFB), one prefers either Horn of Africa or Horn of Africa in eastern Africa in the lede sentence (Ilolio Wanderer), one prefers Horn of Africa and either northeastern Africa or eastern Africa in the lede sentence (SMcCandlish), and one prefers Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and East Africa in the lede sentence (SilkTork). It is unclear what exactly Otakrem's position is, but he did indicate a preference for the Horn of Africa in the lede sentence in the earlier discussion above. The main difference now is that SMcCandlish has clarified his position and indicated that he would "prefer just the Horn mentioned in the lead sentence, and the geopolitical regional classification terms at the end of the lead section". However, he did offer as an ancillary option that an unlinked "northeastern Africa" or "eastern Africa" compass location could also perhaps go alongside Horn of Africa in the lede sentence. Soupforone (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Right.

SMcCandlish, if "northeast Africa" or "east Africa" are meant as compass directions rather than as proper names, then per MOS:COMPASS, they indeed should not be linked to the topograph pages and should be rendered in small letters rather than in capital letters. However, your suggestion that Horn of Africa should go in the lead sentence and the geopolitical regional classification terms at the end of the lead section seems adequate. How about this-- "Eritrea is a member of the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion. It is also an observer in the Arab League."? Soupforone (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, Your long proposed suggestions were voted down many times.Thats not what those users has written above. Once again user SMcCandlish does not favour Horn of Africa alone. user:SMcCandlish, user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer and myself, have all mentioned that both can be included in the lead. The users favouring only Horn of Africa is you and Chipmunkdavis. Eritrea was not part of the East Africa protectorate , but it was part of Italian East Africa. Both regarded as being part of East Africa!.. All of the sudden you want to drift away in this discussion by throwing in some influnce by north Africa in the East Africa region, this is not relevant to this discussion whatsoever. Eritrea is in about every literature described and is regarded as an East African nation wether you like it or not. Also regarded as such by the highest organizations relevant to this dispute (African Union and UN). East Africa is a well defined region with a long history, with people that share cultural, historical ties and ancestry that are interconnected. It is also situated in Eastern Africa. Northeast Africa is difuse, its not a region like East Africa, its confusingly refered to as Horn of Africa, and includes north African/middle eastern country which others also pointed out. So thats out of the picture. As mentions that leaves us to East Africa/Eastern Africa. The suggestion would read "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa that is located in eastern Africa". or east Africa.. And prefarable with a link to the East African article, as mentioned the East Africa article breaks down Horn of Africa, East Africa protectorate, Africa great lake region etc. in a good way, which is benefitial to the user. I would suggest that the users involved in the rfc make a statement so we can come to an agreement based on was has been discussed. Richard0048 (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't brow-beat. That "Eritrea is a member of the African Union ..." text is wording Soupforone is proposing at the end of the lead section, not lead sentence, and it pretty much what I've been suggesting, too. It can't be that hard to sort out the distinctions between the "Eastern Africa" UN geoscheme region, and similar terms like "East AFrica Protectorate", if we take the time to do it and not berate each other impatiently. The fact that it does take some effort to do well, however, is a clear indication this should be contextually covered, carefully, in the lead-bottom explication of Eritrea's relationship to the UN, AU, etc., not crammed into the lead in ways that confuse people. It's not a simple, obvious case like "where is New Jersey?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I did not identify precisely which word form or combination I thought preferable, so I did not specifically support "eastern Africa" as Soupforone stated. I think virtually any permutation is acceptable. My response to the RfC is that the opening sentence should include both a compass direction and the HOA phrase together, as being most helpful to the reader. I think either "east/eastern" or "northeast/northeastern" is acceptable. The end of the introduction section can, as others stated, include the capitalized geopolitical terms, linked to their articles. I note that in Richard's most recent (reverted) edit, he linked "east African" in the opening sentence to East Africa, which states that Eritrea is included, so I don't see a problem using that particular link. On the other hand, I equally support using an unlinked compass direction in the first sentence. DonFB (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish, that Eritrea is part of African Union, UN, IGAD etc. is already mentioned further down in the first section of the article. I do not think that line should be moved up in order to try to shove it in after the lead sentence. Nobody objected to how that line was formulated in the past. Other facts about the country is more relevant having higher up in the section. The line after the lead was not what the orginal dispute was about. Compass direction could indeed be "eastern Africa". Also since "Eastern Africa" is the more correct term compared to Northeastern Africa, and since East/Eastern Africa is an actual region that's recognized by UN and African Union which includes Eritrea. Also it is not confusingly described being as Horn of Africa in some cases etc. Note the usage of "eastern Africa" instead of "east Africa". By changing it eastern Africa we could indeed prevent confusion with Italian East Africa and East African Protocorate etc. Lastly it would be helpful for the user to link it to the East Africa article which already describes the various regions within East Africa and the various namings/definitions, which good since this is yet another way to prevent confusion. Richard0048 (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard, my various suggested, pre-RFC compromise wordings were actually rejected by you, specifically. You also rebuffed SilkTork's three-region compromise wording, and pretty much every single alternative that either excluded "East Africa" or included "Northeast Africa". I won't go over the actual RFC question status quo again since, judging by your latest remarks, it was clearly not understood to begin with. Soupforone (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, thanks for the clarification. Alongside Horn of Africa in the lede sentence, either the "east/eastern" or "northeast/northeastern" compass direction is therefore acceptable to you. You wrote earlier that this is because using both terms in the lede allows geography-challenged readers to have an instant idea where the country is, while also confirming the country's status as a 'member' of the Horn. If this is so, then what exactly is wrong with SMcCandlish's compromise proposal? It entails linking to the UN's Eastern Africa subregion in the lede's last sentence, where the geopolitical memberships are already noted. Wouldn't this more objectively serve the same purpose rather than to deluge the reader with two redundant sets of regional locations? What reader could not possibly understand where Eritrea is located after all that? Soupforone (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the regional location is indeed best discussed in its appropriate geopolitical context at the lede-bottom. MOS:COMPASS's clause on regions also indicates that-- "doubts frequently arise when referring to regions, such as eastern Spain and Southern California. If these have attained the status of proper names (as with North Korea, Southern California or Western Europe), then the direction word is capitalized. Otherwise it is not, as with eastern Spain or southwest Poland." Since both Northeast Africa and Eastern Africa have attained proper name status (like their parallel Western Europe), they would have to be capitalized anyway. This only further underscores the redundancy at hand. Soupforone (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I do agree with SMcCandlish, who appears to be willing to accept an uncapitalized compass direction in the first sentence of the article, a proposal I support. I see no harm in also linking a lower case compass term in the first sentence, but unlinked is ok by me. I don't have enough knowledge to offer an opinion whether "eastern Africa" and/or "northeastern Africa" now have proper name status, but I note that those phrases redirect to articles using the simpler "East" and "Northeast" in their titles. I think a quick compass mention to supplement HOA in the first sentence, followed by the more detailed geopolitical phrasing later, will not "deluge the reader." Again, my idea in responding to the RfC is that the article--and readers--will benefit from the brief inclusion of a compass direction in addition to HOA in the first sentence. DonFB (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll just add (as one of MoS's longest-term and most prolific and persnickety editors) that MOS:COMPASS is a bit simplistic on this matter. Whether something "has attained the status of [a] proper name" (which is a rather silly phrase) is actually highly context-sensitive in many cases, including this one, because things like "East Africa" are only proper names as concepts with certain definitions, not as locations per se (similarly the Southern United States, a.k.a. "the South" or "the Old South", does not correspond to the 50% of the US states that are the most southerly, nor with the southernmost half of the US landmass, thus it is entirely possible to be in the southern United States without being in the Southern United States as socio-politically defined). For the Africa situation, as in many other cases, the definitions are moving targets over time. This is why I suggested "eastern Africa" in the lead sentence – not a compound proper name, but a descriptive adjective modifying a one-word proper name – then linking to more specific, discrete regionality concepts (which might be more capitalized as compound proper names), tied directly to specific organizational contexts, at the end of the lead. But it's not a point I'll press any further. You all can take it or leave it as you like; I just wanted to clarify that I'm bringing a contextual and meaning-based, not robotic and style-based, rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on whats been discussed its fair to state that "easternAfrica" or eastern Africa is the choise to go for, with or without a link. However as user:DonFB and me points out it does not cause any harm in linking it to East Africa article since Eritrea is conidered as being part of Eastern Africa by UN and African Union and the Horn of Africa, Great lake region, East Africa protectorate etc. are all explained in that article, which is beneficial to the users. Richard0048 (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your "eastern Africa" proposal for the lede sentence is certainly preferable to "eastern Africa". It at least complies with MOS:COMPASS since it doesn't insinuate that the region being referred to is a proper name like the eastern Africa link-thru does. However, I think your other "northeast African country" suggestion would work even better for the same reason. DonFB indicated above that he was indifferent to whether the compass direction in the lede sentence pointed to "northeastern" or "eastern". Therefore, "northeast African" would work better in the lede sentence since the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion would already be linked to at the lede-bottom. This would also satisfy SilkTork's compromise suggestion. Soupforone (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No, as mentioned Northeast Africa is not correct to use in the lead sentence, for obvious reasons mentioned for you about ten times. Northeast Africa is not a recognized region, it is sometimes confusingly refered to as being Horn of Africa, it' s difuse and it puts Eritrea in another region that include north african/middle eastern country. For the mentioned reasons it should not be used as a compass direction either. Instead the usage of the "eastern Africa" is more correct since its a recognized region that Eritrea is part of according to the African Union and UN, it has always been regarded as an East/Eastern African nation in literature and still is. The people of East/Eastern Africa are interconnected through ties when it comes to history, culture and ancestry, therefore this should not even be an issue. Eastern Africa is a well defined region and it's not only defined as an UN's Eastern African subregion, the way you are trying to portray it. And the bottom lead issue we will discuss when this matter is over. The way I see it the line that currently exist further down describes Eritrea geo-politically in a perfect way. So it makes your proposed suggestions long, confusing and unnecessary. The issue now is regarding the link to the East Africa article in the lead the way I see it. Me and user:DonFB have not objected to the linking, Iloilo Wanderer perhaps won't mind since the user favoured solutions that instantly helped the users, user:SMcCandlish perhaps wont mind based on what you wrote above. Then after these users's statements we might have an agreement. Richard0048 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting larger geographic locations defined by compass directions into the lead sentence is long and unnecessary. What is now Eritrea has been connected to every area historically, but if were to use the first sentence for that purpose it would be a very unwieldy first sentence. CMD (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard, it's actually the other way around. Eritrea has never had any significant historical ties with the Swahili majority nations in the African Great Lakes. It was not a part of the East Africa Protectorate. By contrast, Eritrea was a part of the Ottoman Habesh Eyalet, which was governed from Egypt. Thus, Northeast Africa objectively has chronological precedence. You also mention the UN's Eastern Africa subregion in relation to culture and ancestry, but this is strictly a geographical grouping, not an ethnocultural one. The local Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations are in fact part of the Circum-Mediterranean region in the Standard cross-cultural sample of world cultures, and the Afroasiatic Urheimat is believed by most linguists to have been in the Egypt/Sudan area. Anyway, this is all pointless repetition. You prefer "eastern Africa" over "northeastern Africa". I get it. However, I'm not going to waste anymore time pointing out the fundamental errors in this rationale. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, how about this wording for the lede-bottom-- "Eritrea is a member of the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion. It is also an observer in the Arab League."? Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I verge on "opinion-free" in this regard; other people know more about the organizationally nuanced meanings of these terms, though the general approach looks good. My goal has just been to have a lean lead sentence and details that require context in paragraph at lead-end that can provide them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, stop trying to put Eritrea in a region where it does not belong, and that do not exist. And "By contrast", Eritrea was part of Italian East Africa! Eritrea Inter-connected with the rest of Eastern Africa, both culturaly and historically and trough ancestry. Secondly swahili does not have patent on Eastern Africa. Your analysis of the linguistic herritage of the Afro-asiatic speaking– people of Eastern Africa is wrong..The languages spoken are indegious to Horn of Africa and East Africa and does not exists anywhere else. Indeed Eastern Africa is prefered. The line you suggested at lead bottom already exist, and do don't need to be moved up. Richard0048 (talk) 09:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I oppose putting East Africa into the UN sentence as well. The geographical divisions of UN countries are absolutely meaningless. The UN just uses them to organise data. There's some importance to 'continental' groupings, but not enough to merit mention in the article, let alone the lead. CMD (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis even if you do oppose this has been discussed heavily by involved parties and we have pretty much reached consensus that it should be included in the lead. That you objected to the usage of East Africa or Eastern Africa was already known by all parties. I would recommend on implementing the changes based on the outcome of this discussion.. As mentioned the likning to the East Africa article in lead is the issue now and from what I can see there are more users that do not mind on linking it to that article. Richard0048 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Alright, to summarize the discussion:

Three users prefer Horn of Africa in the lede sentence (myself, AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis), one prefers East Africa in the lede sentence (Richard0048), one prefers Horn of Africa plus an eastern Africa or northeastern Africa compass direction in the lede sentence (DonFB), one prefers either Horn of Africa or Horn of Africa in eastern Africa in the lede sentence (Ilolio Wanderer), one prefers Horn of Africa or possibly Horn of Africa plus a northeastern or eastern compass direction in the lede sentence (SMcCandlish), and one prefers Horn of Africa, Northeast Africa and East Africa in the lede sentence (SilkTork).

Thus, while there is no consensus for other specific regional locations or compass directions in the lede sentence, there is an overwhelming consensus for the Horn of Africa. The Horn of Africa, therefore, is clearly the way to go. Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, by my count that's 3 editors who prefer Horn of Africa only without a compass direction in the lede sentence, and 5 editors (including Richard, I believe) who are willing to support a compass direction in combination with HOA in the lede sentence. Not an overwhelming difference, but seems to lean toward consensus support for including a compass term. The issue is which particular term (taking into consideration capitalization, word order and linking) could gain consensus. A clarifying question might be: is there a compass expression you will not agree to in combination with HOA in the first sentence? As mentioned, I would support any permutation.

The four Horn of Africa country articles in Wikipedia seem to be unique: unlike other country articles (Wales excepted), they omit compass direction from the first sentence, where the country's location in the world is described, and refer only to the Horn of Africa, evidently relying on the reader's presumed familiarity with that phrase or expecting the reader to click-jump to HOA to find out where it is (of course, there's the map, but graphics may not be included in mirrors). In this discussion, some people have said, "we know where the Horn of Africa is." Many readers know also, but many may not. In an issue like this, I give priority consideration to the readers' knowledge, or lack of it, rather than knowledge possessed by editors, who by definition are likely to know a lot more about a subject than readers. Again, as an RfC responder, I'm expressing my preference and rationale, but will not oppose a different outcome. DonFB (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As user:DonFB points out there is a majority that support a compass direction, which in this case is "Eastern Africa" based on whats been explained and discussed. Therefore the issue now is whether we should link to the East Africa article.As mentioned many of those users who have accepted naming besides Horn of Africa has not objected to linking to Eastern Africa. Again the user's who visits the article would gain more if the linking is provided, since the Eastern Africa as a whole is explained in that article. To summarize it the lead sentence would read: " Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa located in eastern Africa". Richard0048 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, the choice is not between whether to have or not to have a compass direction in the lede sentence alongside the Horn of Africa. As indicated in the OP, it is on which specific regional wording is most appropriate. The "northeast Africa" compass direction that you indicated you are indifferent toward (and which actually I do not mind) is unacceptable to Richard. He prefers instead the separate "eastern Africa" regional location. Thus, the only common denominator in all of the suggestions above is indeed that the Horn of Africa belongs in the lede sentence. Horn of Africa is, therefore, objectively the consensus regional location. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I interpreted the RfC question, "Which wording would be most helpful to our readers" broadly, rather than as an either-or choice between HOA and a compass descriptor, but I understand the distinction you make. Clearly, HOA has consensus support. You mention that "northeast" is unacceptable to Richard. Is "east" or "eastern" (upper/lower case, linked/unlinked) unacceptable to you? DonFB (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It is like user:DonFB points out, secondly the more correct naming which is eastern Africa works as an compass direction also, besides being an actual recognized region. We have reached consensus which has been stated stated above.soupforones opinions cannot stand over the opinions of five other users. I now would go on and make these changes. Richard0048 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, Horn of Africa indeed clearly has consensus support. An "eastern"/"east" compass direction would require contextualization, as Eritrea was not a part of the historical East Africa Protectorate nor the current East African Community. This is why I think SMcCandlish's suggestion that this should be explained in its appropriate context in the geopolitical area at the lede-bottom makes sense. Along with HOA in the lede sentence, a lede-bottom phrase like the following could work since it would both establish an extra compass point for the territory and disambiguate its actual geopolitical memberships-- "Eritrea is a member of the African Union, the United Nations, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and is part of the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion. It is also an observer in the Arab League.". Soupforone (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone now you'r coming with same arguments as you did when this dispute all started. I have already explained to you that Eritrea was "in contrast" was a part of Italian East Africa, Its also include in the region for Eastern Africa of African Union and UN, also it has been explained to you why Eastern Africa is prefered over NE Africa many times by me and other users. Soupforone, I suggest you respect the outcome of this. user:DonFB its time to close this discussion and make the changes since we basically have reached consensus in adding "east Africa" to the lead. Richard0048 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone and Richard0048, I consider "east/ern" or "northeast/ern" (and other compass points) as simply a helpful description of map direction that could be used in the opening sentence of an article about any country, regardless of touchy questions involving political and cultural history. When I look at a map, I can see that either of those terms offers an accurate description in this case. My answer to what is "most helpful to our readers" seems simple and uncomplicated to me, as I bring no feelings about the region's politics and culture to the debate. But even if I did, I think my answer would be the same. I wish good luck to the editors of the article. DonFB (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard, with respect, the above was not addressed to you. It was directed at DonFB; I was also paraphrasing his actual words on the consensus. Anyway, I realize that you prefer "eastern Africa". That's fine, but I won't spend any more time trying to explain to you the logical errors implicit in this choice. Soupforone (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, I understand. However, don't you see how an "eastern" compass point without any qualification in the geopolitical area at the lede-bottom only causes confusion with the East African Community (which Eritrea is not a part of)? Are you also aware that these territories are scheduled to federate as an actual state, and that their constituent "East African nationals" are already eligible for a common "East African Passport" [47]? Considering all this and the colonial existence of the East African Protectorate (which Eritrea was also not a part of), why not just opt for the less problematic "northeast" direction since you indicated that you are indifferent as to which of the two, if any, is chosen? Wasn't avoiding such potential confusion the whole point of the extra compass directions? Soupforone (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

We may be at cross-purposes. I am not sure if by "lede-bottom" you mean the last paragraph of the Intro section, or the end of the first sentence. I've made one mention of the end of the intro section, but my focus and recommendations are for the article's first sentence, not the lede bottom. I think your intimate familiarity with these matters causes you to believe that using "east" or "eastern" Africa (in the opening sentence, I emphasize) will create confusion for readers who think of east Africa as the EAC or the old Protectorate. I doubt most people will bring such sophisticated knowledge when they read the article. I merely want to point readers (literally) in the correct direction at the very beginning of the article. Understand, too, I'm not suggesting eliminating HOA from the open; I think it should be supplemented. In that sense HOA is the qualification you mention. As for the choice of east/ern or northeast/ern, I think east/ern has more evidence in its favor, because the country is associated with that term in contemporary nomenclature, as seen in the AU eastern region, a UN designation, and the country's membership in Comesa. I have not seen northeast/ern in current nomenclature related to the country (but don't object to using it). DonFB (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I will now proceed in adding it to the lead, based on the outcome. As way of to make things easier for the users the link will be provided, since there the reader can get an understanding of the regions and namings within Eastern Africa e.g Horn of Africa, East Africa protectorate, great lake region etc. Richard0048 (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, no special knowledge is needed to see that an unqualified "eastern Africa" regional descriptor in the lede sentence indeed causes confusion with the East African Community. This is because the primary stipulated aim of the EAC -- which Eritrea is not a part of -- is regional unification as an "East African Federation" [48]. Therefore, the "eastern" (or "northeastern") must be discussed in its appropriate geopolitical context at the lede-bottom. As things stands, the only consensus, common denominator in all of the proposed regional wordings is clearly Horn of Africa. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The RFC has not ended nor has a consensus in favor of "in Eastern Africa" (linking to the "East Africa" article) been established. This is something that other users including myself have already pointed out. AcidSnow (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As user:DonFB has mentioned for you before there are a mojority (5 users) that supports a compass direction/naming in the lead. Why this is favourable has also been explained by user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer, user:SMcCandlish. Secondly, user:DonFB expressed his opinions to why "eastern Afrcica" was preferred over Northeast Africa, which me and user:Iloilo Wanderer also explained to you soupforone. It was already known that Chipmunkdavis, AcidSnow only favoured Horn of Africa in the lead, which was known when taking this decision to add a second naming/compass direction. Acidsnow (affiliated user of soupforone) and Chipmunkdavis you have not been engaged in this discussion. Of the users opposing only user soupforone have been engaged in the discussion, which the talk page shows. When we finally did come ta an decision you two have resort to reverting these new changes that was a result of the input and the discussion by six other users. Basically overriding the efforts put in by these users that has worked hard for solving this issue. This is a clear breach to WP:CON since you two are interfering with the consensus process that has been been ongoing for weeks. You two (AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis) are now blocking this descision. Therefore I will ask for intervention by admins with your behaviour in regard. As far as I can see a level of consensus has been reached and the outcome of this Rfc is still favouring a second naming, which is the decided one. Richard0048 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin intervention is not necessary and a request for it would likely WP:BOOMERANG. If an attempt to write a "Summary" section results in a debate almost as long and rancorous as the original discussion, then clearly the summarizing attempt hasn't worked and shouldn't be acted on, pro or con. We have WP:ANRFC for a reason, and RfCs usually proceed in a much more concise manner. But I think that ship has sailed; I doubt anyone external would close this except as "no consensus" due to the amount of noise generated. I would suggest that we continue to try to come to an actual agreement here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In banging my head against all this after being away for a while, I concur that just "eastern" or "east" is confusable with East African Community, East African Protectorate, Italian East Africa, and UN Eastern Africa (most especially if capitalized, against the instructions of MOS:COMPASS; it would not be being used as a proper name in any of the proper name senses in the lead sentence, only as a compass direction). It should be qualified in the bottom of the lead section that Eritrea is/was not part of EAC or EAP but was part of IEA and is part of the UN's EA, plus keep the other stuff ("Eritrea is a member of the ... It is also an observer in ...".) "East[ern]" Africa (which I originally favored) "being an actual recognized region" is an unusually problematic argument here (i.e., when "western South America", etc., would not be). The fact that it's "recognized" completely differently too many ways makes it problematic to use in the lead sentence; many readers will parse the first sentence, to be sure they're at the right page, then jump directly to some section that most interests them, like history or economics.

Using "northeastern" (not capitalized, per MOS:COMPASS) as a directional marker in the lead sentence would obviate the "east[ern]" problem; it is a "recognized" region (or we would have no page on it), but not "recognized" in confusingly conflicting political-baggage ways, and is also more precise as a compass direction, with no "cost" to anyone other than adding 5 characters, which is nothing in a lead of this length and substance. Also, using the -ern construction rather than just northeast makes it clearer that it's a compass point. Consider how awkward terms like "west Canada", "southeast Europe", and "north Brazil" seem, and how certain we are in our minds that East L.A., South Bronx, East Asia, Southeast Asia, East Timor, West Virginia, etc., are places with boundaries and a lot of politics, not just areas neutrally categorized on a map? While there are exceptions, like Eastern Europe, Northern Ireland, and Western Samoa, there's clearly a very strong trend to use the -ern form for inclusive directional indication and the short form in proper names. It's no accident that the -ern form is rarely used in names of international treaty organizations, countries, counties/states/departements/cantons, or cities, nor that the short form is rarely used as a neutral directional indicator in front of a proper name, only when not ("turn north", "east of the river").

So, a lead sentence of "Eritrea ... is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa.", and a lead-bottom paragraph with all the geopolitical categorization and membership details, should wrap this up neatly. What is there, really, left to argue about? Even if this result is not, in someone's view, the 100% most absolute perfect result imaginable, isn't it good enough, and isn't the goal here to get something we can all live with, that is informative-but-not-confusing for readers?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The using a direction as an adjective directly on country was suggested earlier, and while it's definitely an improvement on the clunky wording originally proposed, and a liveable result from this very strange dispute, I have reservations due to the prominence presented through its use as the initial adjective to describe the country, when other things have greater or equal import. It remains a far better option to include directionality within Africa not within the political membership sentence (where its 'status' as being in East Africa is almost meaningless), but elsewhere a sensible manner. Something about Eritrea being Northeastern could for example fit well into the sentence about the Red Sea, which runs along Northeast Africa. Eastern Africa could similarly be used for context, for example when mentioning Italian colonial ambitions. CMD (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No that suggestion is not accepted. Me, user:DonFB, user:Iloilo Wanderer have explained the fundamental errors in the usage of "Northeast Africa" (even as compass direction). It is not in any way a problem to associate Eritrea with "East Africa" or "Eastern Africa" even as an compass direction, region etc.There is not a risk that users to wrongly asume that Eritrea was part of East Africa Protectorate simply because of the usage of "Eastern Africa" since we would link it to a article that thoroughly explains the region of East Africa /Eastern Africa in great detail, also we would use "eastern Africa" instead of "east Africa". So the so called problem with confusing it with East Africa Protectorate is wiped away instantly. By contrast to the East African Protectorate Eritrea was part Italian East Africa, the EA protectorate does not have a patent on the usage of "East Africa". Eritrea is considered by African Union and UN to be part of the region "Eastern Africa". Literature on Eritrea places it in "Eastern Africa". Eritrea have ties that are deeply interconnected with people of East Africa when it comes to history, culture, ancestry. This makes the usage of Eastern Africa legitme both as an way to describe the region Eritrea belongs to, is situated in, and it works as an compass direction. Arguments to not use "Northeast Africa" in the lead is that it is occasionally is referred to as "Horn Of Africa", making it somewhat redundant. Northeast Africa is not an actual recognized region. The usage of "Northeast Africa" places Eritrea in a completely different area with North African/Middlea eastern country such as Egypt. By contrast it would be more wrong labling it as an "Northeast African" since there is a risk of people associating it with this vague and difuse area, even if the intention is to use it as an compass direction. This make the confusion comeplete when it comes to the usage of "Northeast Africa". Therefore the it is clear that the suggestion that have gained the most support is still "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in eastern Africa, and with the linking being an issue for one user. Richard0048 (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no personal objection the Chipmunkdavis's point that the "northeastern" and "eastern" could be integrated in more textual spots in the lead section, but most of the above discussion seems to suggest a desire to have it in the lead sentence somewhere. Richard0048's "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in eastern Africa" isn't grammatical, and is worded in a repetitive manner; even if the missing "the" were fixed, I have no doubt at all that someone would come along almost immediately and rearrange it to something like "is an eastern African country in the Horn of Africa", just on basic copy-editing grounds. Sheer denial that "[e|E]ast[ern]" in the lead sentence could be confusing is not a rebuttal of the arguments that it may be. We cannot presume anything at all about readers' knowledge of the difference between these different meanings of "East[ern] Africa", regardless what longer names they have. If it's redundant to say that Horn of Africa is in northeast[ern] Africa, then it's also redundant to say its in east[ern] Africa; since we seem to have at least a shaky consensus that Horn of Africa by itself isn't quite sufficient, we're agreeing that clarifying further isn't redundant, by definition. With that, I'm going to drop off again and let you all argue about it a bunch more.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I support this proposal by SMcCandlish:

"So, a lead sentence of "Eritrea ... is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa.", and a lead-bottom paragraph with all the geopolitical categorization and membership details, should wrap this up neatly."

As I've said from the beginning, I can support either "east/ern" or "northeast/ern." I made the point that east is associated in official nomenclature with the country, giving east a potential edge, but as has always been obvious, a compass placed on a map of Africa shows the country lies to the northeast. I am not concerned that northeast may not be as well-defined culturally or politically as east. My preference, beginning with my first response, has been for an accurate description of where to find the country. DonFB (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

user:DonFB, yet you also supported suggestions to include Eastern Africa, as mentiond prior to User:SMcCandlish suggestion and above. And other's are not rejecting to the usage of "Eastern Africa". Another suggestion that could perhaps work is e.g: "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in the northerly part of eastern Africa. This makes it clear that we are not referring to the difuse and redundant area of Northeast Africa, instead the region of "Eastern Africa" and this indicates where on the map Eritrea is located. Perhaps also linking it to the East Africa article to even clarify it even more . Also the alternative "Eritrea is an eastern African country located in Horn of Africa" could indeed also work then.. Richard0048 (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard0048, yes, I have supported both east and northeast, as I've made clear from the beginning. My purpose has been to supplement HOA in the lede sentence with a clear compass descriptor. The first suggestion you make above is not wrong, but it's unneccesarily cluttered and awkward, so I would not want to use it for that reason. I could just as easily support "east African country in the HOA," but that wording does not seem likely to win consensus. I understand that you want to indicate or imply a cultural and political element in the description, but doing that has never been my concern. I have only wanted to see a clear, concise geographical description that would give anyone, including persons not familiar with HOA, an immediate understanding of the country's location without having to look it up or click away to learn the definition of a term like HOA. DonFB (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I initially leaned toward "east[ern]" for Richard0048's reason, but it's become clear to me that "to indicate or imply a cultural and political element in the description" in this unusual case is a net negative, due to the conflicting things "East[ern] Africa" implies. It's just better to explain Eritrea's "Easternness" in the "geopolitics" lead paragraph where the more specific contextual bits can help prevent any incorrect assumptions by skimming readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, the lead sentence of "Eritrea ... is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa.", and a lead-bottom paragraph with all the geopolitical categorization and membership details is acceptable given the circumstances. CMD's suggestion above also appears to be compatible with this. Soupforone (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: The one about which I said 'I have no personal objection the Chipmunkdavis's point that the "northeastern" and "eastern" could be integrated in more textual spots in the lead section'? This discussion is so long I'm not certain I'm thinking of the correct CMD suggestion. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, yes that is the CMD suggestion I was alluding to. It is compatible with your proposed wording above, as it pertains to textual areas outside of the lede sentence. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Having been invited to this discussion totally afresh, I have to say that just looking at the map, Eritrea appears to be on the coast north of the actual Horn of Africa. East Africa historically refers to the area which mainly includes Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania and is south of the Horn. The least geographically confusing description is northeastern or northeast Africa. A quick review of book sources, however, reveals the most common description is "in the Horn of Africa", but some sources also say "on the northeast coast of Africa" or "in northeastern Africa" (IMF source). It's difficult to capture both in one sentence without repeating "Africa" though. Bermicourt (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The usage of "Northeastern" or "Northeast" is incorrect based on what's been explained earlier, eg it is not is region,it is difuse/vague term, it occasionally is referred to as HOA (redundant) and the usage of it even as a compass direction would place it in a region with countries in North Africa/Middle East (is this an objective?). A sentence would clearly have to indicate that Eritrea is a country that is a part of Eastern Africa without mixing it up with this vague and difuse, "Northeas Africat" area. Therefore the definition by African Union and UN is better which defines Eritrea as an "Eastern Africa" nation. My above examples shows that it is possible to write a line that mentions that is a country that is located in the northern part of eastern Africa. However already HOA implicit that we are talking about a country that is located in the northern part of Eastern Africa. User Bermicourt, IMF is not a organisation such as African Union and UN and there are far more organizations that put Eritrea in East Africa/Eastern Africa if we go by your logic. Eritrea was also part of Italian East Africa and is interconnected with the people of Eastern Africa. Eritrea is described in literature as being located in Eastern Africa and not Horn of Africa. The term "horn of Africa" is not a indigenous term but rather a new invention. Eastern Africa does NOT only refers to the countries of the great lake region (Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya) or the East African Community. The exemples above that uses "eastern Africa" is indeed the most prefarable and correct in every aspect since it will not confuse it for "Northeast Africa" or EA protectorate etc, and with the link to East Africa that describes Eastern Africa thoroughly all of those problems is solved. Finally Eritrea is already described correctly geo-politically further down in the first section. This section does not need to be moved up or be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That northeast sometimes includes North African/Middle Eastern countries does not make it incorrect as a compass direction. That it is diffuse is an argument that applies to all compass-direction defined areas. There is no evidence that Eastern Africa is any more/less indigenous than Horn of Africa. CMD (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Italian East Africa also did not include any territories outside of the Horn region, so it can hardly be used to claim some sort of historical connection with the nations in the African Great Lakes region to the south. By contrast, Eritrea was actually part of the Ottoman Habesh Eyalet in Northeast Africa, which was governed from Egypt. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The usage of "northeastern" could indeed confuse users to belive that Eritrea as a part of this difuse/vague non recognized region. It is therefore incorrect to use. since Eritrea is considered to be an Eastern African nation therefore incorrect placing it in that "Northeastern African" area.. Yes indeed, usage of HOA is a quite new, the usage of Eastern Africa stretches further back and also has a broader mening since it interconnects the whole region of Eastern Africa trough history, ancestry and culturally, similar to HOA. But this is not about Eastern Africa vs Horn of Africa. Eastern Africa is more than just a UN region. But this is not about Eastern Africa vs Horn of Africa. user:DonFB how could we improve on the first suggestion I provided above? the suggestion: Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in the northerly part of eastern Africa. Richard0048 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I think the location description in the first sentence of a country article is intended to relate only to geography and not to history, politics or culture. The advice in WikiProject Countries says "location in the world." It doesn't say location should be based on culture, history, etc. I actually think you have given good reasons to prefer "east" instead of "northeast" in terms of history and politics, but I don't think that's what the location instruction is asking for. In this case I do think that northeast is equally as valid as east in describing the physical location of the country. The physical location of the country: I think the focus is intended to be on that concept, and I personally think that is the correct focus. That's why from the start I have been willing to compromise on either of the words. DonFB (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Bermicourt wrote that northeastern or northeast Africa is the least geographically confusing description. He also acknowledged that Horn of Africa has marked currency as a regional location for Eritrea. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your suggested wording of "Eritrea ... is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa" for the lead sentence and a lead-bottom paragraph with all the geopolitical categorization and membership details is workable for myself and DonFB. It is also compatible with CMD and Bermicourt's suggestions. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That is rejected soupforone. And Eritrea is already described geopolitically further down in the first section of the article, that section is not what the dispute is about. From what I can see the "lead-bottom" content does not need to be moved or fixed. user:DonFB the proposed suggestion to use eastern Africa could indeed be good enough for the user to get a quick understanding of where Eritrea is roughly situated on the map. It also eliminates the risk of placing Eritrea in an other region than Eastern Africa where Eritrea actually happens to be located politically, geographically and culturally. Also we avoid the redundancy issue between Horn of Africa and Northeast Africa by not using Northeast Africa. The "Eritrea is a country in eastern Africa located in the Horn of Africa." could indeed work by this logic. There are many countries that only uses one cardinal direction and not intercardinals directions to describe their geographical locations, for exemple Senegal, Cabo Verd, Mali, Gambia all at the same lattitude as Eritrea or higher and all are located in Western Africa in their respective articles. So indeed politics and culture plays a role or else we could leave out Horn of Africa since this is purely a cultural term, and Eastern Africa includes both of NE Africa and HOA. No solution will give the exact location of where a country is located without the user having to look it up, and there is a map in the article that compliments the lead sentence. Yet again the best solutution is to include "Eastern Africa" as mentioned above. It could read Eritrea is a country located in eastern Africa (leaving out HOA), or adding the word north to the sentence, Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in the northern part of eastern Africa, Or simply use the example that many have favoured and does also live up to all criteria to be in the lead. Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa located in eastern Africa or Eritrea is an eastern African country located in Horn of Africa.."Eastern" could also be capitalized so it could refer to the region Eritrea is situated within and as a geographical compass direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Those analogies makes no sense. Clearly, Eritrea's geographical situation is completely different and unique. None of those other countries above were a part of a colonial territory known as the "West African Protectorate" because no such polity existed to begin with. A "West African Community" likewise does not exist, nor is a "West African Federation" slated. On the other hand, the colonial East African Protectorate and the modern East African Community are real, and neither entity included Eritrea. Nor will the prospective East African Federation, an actual unified regional state. Soupforone (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it turns out that MOS:INTRO also indicates that the regional location in the lead should be contextualized-- "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined. The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader. For example, it is better to describe the location of a town with reference to an area or larger place than with coordinates. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." Therefore, your suggested wording of "a lead sentence of "Eritrea ... is a northeastern African country in the Horn of Africa", and a lead-bottom paragraph with all the geopolitical categorization and membership details" congrues with actual policy too. Soupforone (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Much of the latest round seems to be one party unconvincingly trying every possible angle to avoid using "northeastern", and I find it perplexing. The entire level of dispute over this is pretty weird. Even that cusp between Central and Eastern Europe doesn't see this much heel-digging.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, a party seems unalterably opposed to "east." I've stated I support the McCandlish proposal for "northeast," and that I also support use of "east." Here, I'll offer an explicitly phrased open, which I haven't previously done:

"Eritrea...officially the State of Eritrea, is a country in the Horn of Africa, a region of east Africa." DonFB (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That overall construction (with the "a region in ..." clause) s is good, since it removes any possible inference we're implying Eritrea's "membership" in something. But I would prefer the eastern form, for reasons given in detail above. I think "northestern" would be better still, for reasons also given, but if people could live with this version I wouldn't object.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No objection to using "eastern" instead. DonFB (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC

No objection on my behalf, I support the suggestion by user:DonFB, and "eastern works fine. Richard0048 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is little difference between indicating that "Eritrea is a country in the Horn of Africa located in eastern Africa" and that "Eritrea...officially the State of Eritrea, is a country in the Horn of Africa, a region of east Africa". If anything, the latter formulation is even more tortuous; the "of east Africa" rather than "in east Africa" implies regional belonging instead of a compass direction. In truth, any wording of "east" or "eastern" in the lede sentence will necessarily engender confusion with the colonial East Africa Protectorate, the modern East African Community, and the slated regional East African Federation. This is despite the fact that Eritrea was/is not a part of any of these entities. I must therefore agree with SMcCandlish that opposition to the far less confusing "northeast"/"northeastern" is puzzling. It serves no valid purpose to insinuate -- even if indirectly through a small-lettered, compass direction (a subtlety in capitalization that the average reader is unlikely to appreciate anyway) -- that Eritrea is part of a formalized "eastern" region when it is not. As CMD pointed out, the UN's Eastern Africa geographical subregion is purely for office convenience. Ironically, it is the East Africa Protectorate, the modern East African Community, and the slated regional East African Federation that have/had actual legal standing. Therefore, "northeast"/"northeastern" is clearly is the more neutral option. Per MOS:INTRO, the regional location also requires contextualization in the appropriate geopolitical area at the lede-bottom. Soupforone (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't care about of versus in, for my part.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nor do I.

@Soupforone: your unequivocal assertion that "eastern" "will necessarily engender confusion" strikes me as quite presumptuous, implying you have special knowledge of the readership that others don't. If you think the difference between "of" and "in" will make a significant difference in reader understanding of the location--well, I think that opinion illustrates an unneccesarily pedagogical approach to this discussion. On the other hand, you took the trouble to refer to "a subtlety in capitalization that the average reader is unlikely to appreciate." So is that your considered opinion: readers will notice and be confused by "of" instead of "in," but they won't notice or care about capitalization? Your opinion that confusion will arise, it must be noted, is pure speculation; the wording itself is completely clear. We can similarly speculate that "northeastern" will cause dissatisfaction and confusion, for reasons Richard has been at pains to articulate.

My preference is to add a compass direction to supplement HOA in order to create a description that "would be most helpful to our readers," to quote the RfC I responded to. We can try one or the other formulation (eastern, northeastern) without prejudice. The sky will not fall in either case, and editors can revisit if the choice causes feedback from readers/editors expressing confusion or dissatisfaction or both. Since no consensus seems to be emerging, I propose a little experiment. By agreement, one phrasing can be chosen now, a specified number of months will elapse, and the phrase will be changed, without debate, to the other candidate. After additional time elapses, editors may then assess which choice, if either, generated complaints on the Talk page or reversion/revision by different editors. My secondary suggestion is that we continue the discussion until continental drift splits east Africa into a separate landmass when we can decide what wording will be safe. DonFB (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, in and of are both prepositions, albeit with different grammatical functions: in here indicates actual location [49], whereas of indicates belonging [50]. Also, SMcCandlish and Bermicourt already pointed out above that the "eastern Africa" compass direction can be easily confused to, at the very least, mean that Eritrea was part of the East African Community. This is only logical since the territory is not a part of that regional body. Anyway, let's let the question expire as per normal. Consensus may favor the Horn of Africa location for the lede sentence, as it is the only consistency between the various suggested regional wordings. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you significantly distorted what Bermicourt said. Nor did McCandlish suggest that confusion would "easily" arise. You're clearly reading your own speculative opinion, couched as gospel ("In truth...will necessarily engender confusion")--into their comments. Regrettably, I regard your description of their statements as careless at best and deceptive at worst.

At this point, I will again wish best of luck to editors of this article. As a respondent to the RfC, I maintain my recommendation that a cardinal or ordinal compass term be added to supplement HOA in the lede sentence, providing a description that "would be most helpful to our readers," as the RfC said. Also, as I've stated, I won't argue against any eventual solution, even one that offers only HOA in the lede sentence. DonFB (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, I read Bermicourt and ScMcCandlish just fine. Bermicourt wrote that "the least geographically confusing description is northeastern or northeast Africa." SMcCandlish was even more explicit, indicating that "I concur that just "eastern" or "east" is confusable with East African Community, East African Protectorate, Italian East Africa, and UN Eastern Africa", and what's more that "sheer denial that "[e|E]ast[ern]" in the lead sentence could be confusing is not a rebuttal of the arguments that it may be." So yeah, "eastern Africa" without contextualization in the geopolitical area can certainly engender confusion with the East African Community, etc. But we can agree to disagree on this point. For my part, I prefer either Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence, or SMcCandlish's suggested compromise wording of Horn of Africa supplemented with a "northeast African" compass location in the lede sentence, plus contextualization in the geopolitical area at the lede-bottom. This, to me, is what would be most helpful to readers. Soupforone (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Soupforone, You are totally ingoring what other users have explained to you, basically you are blocking this article based on that you do not like the fact that Eritrea is part of Eastern Africa region and you do not want to see it in the lead.You cannot prevent us from coming up with a solution to solve this. I think it might be good Idea if you accept the outcome of the Rfc. If you do not conply and prevent us from implementing new improvements that's based on us reaching consensus I will ask for involvement from admins. Richard0048 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard, I just wrote above that the question should be allowed to expire as per normal. Please also heed what SMcCandlish wrote you below: "Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Simply asserting that everyone agrees with you to include "eastern" does not make it true. Not only does it not convince anyone, it is liable to turn them off from the idea, since it looks suspiciously like pushing some kind of political agenda. Please stop." With that established, the very nature of an RFC question is that people are likely to have different takes on things. That you opt for the "eastern Africa" wording and believe that Eritrea is always subsumed under an "Eastern Africa" regional location does not bother me because the former is your prerogative whereas the latter is an opinion, not fact. I still opt for Horn of Africa alone or SMcCandlish's compromise wording, as is my prerogative. Soupforone (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This applies to you soupforone. You are the one forcing people to agree with you without any regards to sources and neutrality which is a breach to wiki edit policy of WP:NPOV, WP:V. You are refusing to accept that Eritrea is part of Eastern Africa and that it could be include/restored (that you removed) to the lead and geographical section. And you do it by coming up with many exuses, the latest being what you wrote above... The WP:BLUDGEON is certainly directed to. You have made it impossible for other users to improve this article. Here is what user:DonFB wrote which pretty much sums up your behaviour. @Soupforone: your unequivocal assertion that "eastern" "will necessarily engender confusion" strikes me as quite presumptuous, implying you have special knowledge of the readership that others don't. If you think the difference between "of" and "in" will make a significant difference in reader understanding of the location--well, I think that opinion illustrates an unneccesarily pedagogical approach to this discussion. On the other hand, you took the trouble to refer to "a subtlety in capitalization that the average reader is unlikely to appreciate." So is that your considered opinion: readers will notice and be confused by "of" instead of "in," but they won't notice or care about capitalization? Your opinion that confusion will arise, it must be noted, is pure speculation; the wording itself is completely clear. We can similarly speculate that "northeastern" will cause dissatisfaction and confusion, for reasons Richard has been at pains to articulate. Also User DonFB wrote: Unfortunately, you significantly distorted what Bermicourt said. Nor did McCandlish suggest that confusion would "easily" arise. You're clearly reading your own speculative opinion, couched as gospel ("In truth...will necessarily engender confusion")--into their comments. Regrettably, I regard your description of their statements as careless at best and deceptive at worst.. This pretty much shows your approach. With your behaviour in regard I will ask for the involvment of admins.. Users that has been involved might have something to say when forwaded to admins. user:DonFB, user:McCandlish,user:Iloilo Wanderer and others. The lead sentence can be changed without your approval if others do agree on it. Please be reminded that you do not own this article. Richard0048 (talk)

Richard, I started this RFC question at the recommendation of Platypus, so it's quite weird that you should think I would be worried about differing opinions and might tank it. I certainly never indicated anywhere here that I would, otherwise you surely would have been able to quote such an assertion (instead of some out-of-context claim by another user). Obviously, me, yourself and the others here are all obliged to respect whatever the outcome of this RFC question happens to be. If the consensus is determined to be "Horn of Africa" alone in the lede sentence, then so be it; if it's instead "Horn of Africa" and a supplementary "eastern Africa" or "northeastern Africa" compass direction in the lede sentence, then so be it; or if it's SMcCandlish's suggested wording of "Horn of Africa" and a supplementary "eastern Africa" or "northeastern Africa" compass direction in the lede sentence, plus geopolitical contextualization at the lede-bottom, then so be that too. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I started the discussion here when you decided to change it to only Horn of Africa. I was the one who asked for outside opinions from admins and other outide users. I started a case in the dispute resolution board, they did recommend me to apply for Rfc, however you started it before I even got the chance to apply for it. Therfore you are not by any means the one who seaked for advice to solve this dispute. You has from the start acted in the exact same way coming up with the eaxct same arguments unwilling to comprimize or work through this matter not even relying on sources. You did not even respect the outcome of the Rfc when five users agreed to add a second naming to lead, if you did you would of accepted when most voted for adding "eastern Africa" to the lead. You were outvoted. This shows that you did not accept the wikipedia consensus process during the Rfc. Richard0048 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

SilkTork demonstrates above the actual link sequence in the lede sentence (northeastern Africa->Horn of Africa->East Africa), so there's no sense in asserting contrariwise. I also initiated this talk page discussion, and contacted an admin to moderate (SilkTork). Only when you grew dissatisfied with the proceedings did you post on DRN. However, you objected to the presence there of the volunteer moderator (who favored Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence), so the DRN discussion was eventually closed and the other moderator PlatypusofDoom instructed that the matter should be resolved through an RFC question here on this talk page. Ergo, this present discussion, which I also initiated. The RFC question is ongoing and has not expired. In fact, SMcCandlish has just indicated below that he supports "northeastern" as the supplementary compass direction to Horn of Africa in the lede sentence. Anyway, once the RFC question does eventually expire and the discussion is formally closed, all are obliged to respect whatever the outcome of this RFC question turns out to be. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

silkTork provided opinions in the begining of the disipute it has contiouned for almost two months. silkTork also in the begining suggested to use both East Africa and Horn of Africa. As user DonFB wrote: Soupforone, Unfortunately, you significantly distorted what Bermicourt said. Nor did McCandlish suggest that confusion would "easily" arise. You're clearly reading your own speculative opinion, couched as gospel ("In truth...will necessarily engender confusion")--into their comments. Regrettably, I regard your description of their statements as careless at best and deceptive at worst .. It is the same in the case of silkTork.. Still it is only you and AcidSnow denying facts and sources that Eritrea is part of and located in Eastern Africa and are doing everything to not include it in the lead. Richard0048 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, SilkTork has always favored a three-region geographical wording (Horn of Africa, Northeastern Africa and Eastern Africa), not just a two-region wording (whether Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, or Horn of Africa and Northeastern Africa). Likewise, SMcCandlish has just clarified below that he "consider[s] that confusion potential more important than the more-specific vs. less-specific issue of north[eastern] versus east[ern], and prefer the former both because it is more specific and because it is less likely still to be confused with some specialized conception of what "[E|e]st[ern] Africa" means" [51]. The actual, bolded geographical wordings above also favor Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence, including Zoupan's just yesterday. But do feel free to disagree - it really makes no difference. Only the closing moderator's ascertainment ultimately matters. Soupforone (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Again that's suggestion came from silkTork in the beging of the dispute, the Rfc led to a more deeper discussion leading to other conclusions. Basically it was not suggested that a three-region geographical phrasing were the most appropriate. With a major reason being that two geo namings would be the best for the readers of Wikipedia and that "Northeast Africa" put Eritrea in region where it does not belong and that the use was of NE Africa was redundant to Horn of Africa and that the use of NE is difuse/vague. Your still distorting information what other have written. The use of "Eastern Africa" is in no way confusing, rather it puts Eritrea in the region it actually belongs to, and not the NE Africa that you also have included in Horn of Africa article which is wrong, incorrect and yet a way to misinform users. Richard0048 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "sordins". Anyway, SilkTork has always preferred the three-region geographical phrasing, including in his suggested wording immediately above. He argues there that it is common practice when a place is variously described to note all such geographical descriptions. That's Horn of Africa, Northeastern Africa and/or Eastern Africa per the bolded text/OP. Soupforone (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Location: OR vs RS

Just to throw a fly in the ointment...

I have wondered whether the choice of compass direction in a country location description can sometimes be regarded as Original Research. I have not seen anything in policy/guidelines to indicate if the choice should be based on editors' personal perceptions of a map, or on the terminology most commonly used by official organizations and reliable sources.

In this case, I believe "east" has been used more often than "northeast" in contemporary official nomenclature that relates, by name, to Eritrea. However, I remain willing to use "northeast," because my personal perception of the map is that either term is acceptable. The question is whether editors should select the compass term most commonly appearing in names and designations used by contemporary official organizations (eg: AU, UN, etc.) and reliable sources (books, etc.), or whether editors, in fact, have discretion to simply look at a map and say (for example) "looks like southwest to me, so let's use that." DonFB (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the regional locations in the allotted area above. Soupforone (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. DonFB (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE has to govern this. If we know that one term has conflicting, nuanced meanings that do not even always strictly conform to the compass-direction area of the landmass, but that the country can be measured (not just guestimated) to clearly be within a more specific one that doesn't have the former problem, it seems clear which we should use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's Horn of Africa. Soupforone (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure. But there seems to be a strong desire to go further. I would be okay with just HoA, but I think we're "out-voted" on that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No that's not what we have discussed and is referred to. An option that has been discussed is to also include "eastern Africa" since it works both as an cardinal compass direction and it refers to the region Eritrea and HOA is situated in.

. Richard0048 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is getting very tiresome Richard. Please see WP:BLUDGEON. Simply asserting that everyone agrees with you to include "eastern" does not make it true. Not only does it not convince anyone, it is liable to turn them off from the idea, since it looks suspiciously like pushing some kind of political agenda. Please stop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I have leaned back on sources, neutral point of views and provided arguments to why eastern Africa should be included/restored. You might ask the question the other way around. Dispute has followed the wiki dispute resolution process. There are several parties involved in this. Nothing is settled yet. So please see the provided suggestions below this section. Richard0048 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The "tiresomeness" need not be attributed to only one editor. Soupforone, I do not see Richard asserting in this post that everyone agrees with him. He has given credible sources that show the association of the term east/ern with the country's actual physical location; you have offered repeated personal speculation about reader confusion, an approach which itself can be construed as tiresome. DonFB (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the mistaken identity. DonFB (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's no dearth of geographical links on the country's northeast Africa regional location [52]. I'm just not going to WP:BLUDGEON this, as it's obvious. Soupforone (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Obvious of what.. Soupforone I cannot see your behaviour being any different to mine. However you have not relied on sources whatsoever. Your last claim that Eritrea was not part of Eastern Africa region, is quite obscure. This I think shows that you'r rejecting facts and sources by African, UN, literature etc. I think every users that has been involved in this should conply with the outcome of the Rfc , instead blaming involved users.. user:DonFB and others , could you give your oppinions of the provided exemple below. Richard0048 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hardly obscure that Eritrea is often not subsumed under "East Africa". I have already explained why this is and produced many links indicating as much in the protracted discussion above, ranging from academic papers to actual geographical maps. I'm not going to link them ad infinitum for no apparent reason. Anyway, please see my comment above from 02:21, 6 September 2016 on the western location example; leave a reply if any there, in its proper context. Soupforone (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's always regarded as located in Eastern Africa and Eastern Africa region so is Horn of Africa, even if you dislike it. This is fact. You do refer to the protetorate but this is not the whole region of East Africa, nor is Great lake region. Your only arguments is that its a chance for confusion when it is not. Based on whats been explained to you. Your argument are the same as when this dispute started and shows that you are not willing to compromize. user:DonFB and user:SMcCandlish I think we should go on and focus on the examples below. Richard0048 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Richard, you have not been keen on "northeastern" as a supplementary compass direction beside Horn of Africa, just as I have not been keen on the "eastern" supplementary compass direction. Your position on this regional wording in the lede is therefore as flexible as is mine. Probably even less so, since you've rejected SMcCandlish's suggested contextualization at the lede-bottom too. Anyway, that sweeping claim above is incorrect. East Africa indeed often denotes the territories in the former East Africa Protectorate and German East Africa, neither of which Eritrea was a part of [53] [54] [55]. Please also heed SMcCandlish's advice to the effect that simply asserting that everyone agrees with you does not make it true. Soupforone (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the same excuses as before. The East African Protetctorate is not the whole region of Eastern Africa! It has been explained to you over and over. Eritrea is regarded as being part of Eastern Africa by African Union, UN, literature, it was part of Italian East Africa in contrast to Kenya who was a part of East African protectorate and Tanzania and Rwanda who was part of German East Africa. Yet again, facts that you do refuse to aknowledge. Making your sources pointless. You do not rely on source but your own opinions this is a breach to WP:NPOV, WP:V. You are blocking the article from improving, forcing everyone to agree with you. User:DonFB summed up your behaviour pretty good. Let's see what admins and the other involved users have to say. Richard0048 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis, SMcCandlish and myself have all had to explain to you that there is no consensus for your preferred "eastern Africa" supplementary locale, that is highly ironic. I also clearly wrote above that "East Africa [not Eastern Africa] indeed often denotes the territories in the former East Africa Protectorate and German East Africa, neither of which Eritrea was a part of". And I wrote this because you argued that "you do refer to the protetorate but this is not the whole region of East Africa [not Eastern Africa]". That is the problem with taking things out of context. Anyway, everyone here, including me and you, is obliged to respect whatever the outcome of this RFC question turns out to be. Soupforone (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I'm advocating, since I keep getting pinged, I prefer the following (besides including HoA, which seems to be a cnosensus), in descending order, if we include a compass direction in the lead sentence at all, which strikes me as unnecessary, and the source of most dispute: northeastern, eastern, northeast, east, Northeastern, Eastern, North, East. Both the capitalisation and the truncation independently suggest that the term is a proper noun or term of art, yet in this particular usage it is neither, just a compass point. I consider that confusion potential more important than the more-specific vs. less-specific issue of north[eastern] versus east[ern], and prefer the former both because it is more specific and because it is less likely still to be confused with some specialized conception of what "[E|e]st[ern] Africa" means.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Still there are more user's favouring or not objecting to the use of Eastern Africa in the lead.. Me, user:DonFB, user:SMcCandlish, user:Iloilo Wanderer and other's. Basically there are only Soupforone and AcidSnow that do support only Horn of Africa. The "Notheasteast "could not be used for the reasons mentioned in this dispute. Which leaves us to "Eastern Africa" which is the legitime region Eritrea is part of which has been proven to you. Richard0048 (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, favoring Eastern Africa in the lede sentence is not equivalent to not objecting to it. The reason why this is so is because the users who prefer a supplementary compass direction alongside Horn of Africa are either indifferent between whether that direction is "eastern" or "northeastern", or favor one over the other (SMcCandlish prefers "northeastern", if any compass direction at all; you prefer "eastern"). As for the actual bolded topographs, only one user (you) has indicated a preference for East Africa only in the lede sentence. I, AcidSnow, Chipmunkdavis and Zoupan all favor Horn of Africa only in the lede sentence. Thus, SMcCandlish is correct when he writes above that including HoA seems to be a consensus. Soupforone (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And WP:NOTAVOTE. If anyone can successfully assess and close this discussion, which has clearly just turned circular, they would weigh the rationales, not just count heads.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Soupforone (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Richard0048 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A location example

For the consideration of editors in the location discussion, I offer the following, from Wikipedia:

"Mauritania...,officially the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, is a country in the Maghreb region of western North Africa." DonFB (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the regional locations in the allotted area above. Soupforone (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. DonFB (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

That solution could work. However I must point out that Maurtania do stretches all the way upp to the same latitudes of Egypt, Marocco etc. which are the most northely countries of the African continent, at the same it's a North African country but located to the west, so that description fits Maurutania very well. By contrast latitude of Eritrea is located more to the south if compared to Maurutania. As mentioned before, countries such as Mali, The Gambia, Cabo Verde, Burkina Faso are located on the same or higher latitude and they are all mentioned to be located in "West Africa". So I would prefer a sentence with "Eastern", but without "northern", based on what's been explained earlier, also since make it a bit clunky and simply since most relevant countries follows this logic, but it would be an ok solution. The most preferable is the suggestion by user:DonFB which I support which is "Eritrea is a country in Horn of Africa, a region in eastern Africa. But it would also be good in linking it to Eastern Africa to follow the examples of the Western African countries who links it to "West Africa" and Maurtania which links it to "North Africa". We would then have to change it to "Eastern Africa" instead of "eastern Africa".[User:Richard0048|Richard0048]] (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

DonFB, please see above. Soupforone (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

user:DonFB The proposed suggestions are provided here. Richard0048 (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Picture of Antelope

The picture showing Antelope grazing in the Wildlife section is NOT from Eritrea, it shows Impala and Topi, two species that do not occur in Eritrea and have not occured there anytime recently... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.86.224 (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It was also apparently not properly licensed. I fixed it with a local butterfly species [56]. Soupforone (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What sources do you have that it is not in Eritrea. Its taken in Eritrea.. Apperantly there is a war against the content on this article.How is it not correctly licensed? You have about removed every content that you dont like. Its correctky licensed with a source. I will add it once again if you do not provide info that its shows tht its not correctly licensed. This behaviour will be investigated. There are more than ten examples of this content removal.Richard0048 (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Richard0048 (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Commons already deleted the file since (like the other deleted files) it was not properly licensed. Soupforone (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Official languages

It is mention on the website of the Eritrean Embassy in London, United Kingdom: “Afar, Arabic, Tigre and Kunama are the national and official languages of Eritrea.”

Source: http://eritrea.embassyhomepage.com/eritrean_language_learn_eritrean_language_schools_eritrean_dictionary_online_holiday_phrases_in_eritrean_embassy_london_uk.htm

It is mention on the website of the Eritrean Embassy in Dublin, Ireland: “The people of Eritrea speak Afar. The main national and official language of Eritrea is Arabic.”

Source: http://embassydublin.com/eritrean/national-language-in-eritrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.50.32.56 (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be official embassy websites [57]. The constitution of Eritrea also doesn't specify an official language(s); it instead stipulates in its fifth clause that the equality of all Eritrean languages is guaranteed [58]. Soupforone (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, Eritrea uses "Official Working Languages" of "Tigrinya, English, and Arabic" and does not recognize a "National Language". As for the Working languages, they change with each country that they deal with ie the Language of said Country that the Eritrean Embassy is in, Chinese in China, Russian in Russia..etc. Otakrem (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It is mention on the website of the Eritrean Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden:

"Though there is no single official language Tigrinya, Arabic and English are predominantly used in commerce and government affairs."

Source: http://www.eritrean-embassy.se/about-eritrea/people-and-languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.44.128 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Punt

There is high level of uncertainties regarding the location of "The land of Punt". It is uncertain where it was actually located. Even the article of punt on wiki states: The exact location of Punt is still debated by historians. Most scholars today believe Punt was located to the southeast of Egypt, most likely in the coastal region of what is today Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, northeast Ethiopia and the Red Sea coast of Sudan.[5] However, some scholars point instead to a range of ancient inscriptions which locate Punt in the Arabian Peninsula.[6] It is also possible that the territory covered both the Horn of Africa and Southern Arabia. Puntland, the Somali administrative region situated at the extremity of the Horn of Africa, is named in reference to the Land of Punt.[7]. I have metioned this in earlier disputes and pointed out that many scholars are uncertain on where punt was located and no demarcation of the area has been made. Therefore I have suggested more credible sources that states and mentions that the area which is today known as Eritrea was part of punt, else I would suggest of removing the "then" irrelevant image of the punt queen and adapt the text so it becomes more restrictive in relation to the Eritrean history. Richard0048 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It was already explained on DRN that the ancient Land of Punt is certainly relevant to Eritrea, and thus so is the file of the Puntite queen. That Punt was located in the Eritrea vicinity is also no longer merely an ordinary theory. It has now been all but proven with the isotopic analysis on the old baboons. This is because these particular specimens were directly imported from Punt by the ancient Egyptians during the New Kingdom [59]. Soupforone (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This "get rid of the image" idea seems to be predicated on the presupposition that the sources given so far are poor, but this has not been shown. The fact that less than exactly 100% of scholars agree does not make a source unreliable (see Scientific consensus, a concept that WP works with, and on the basis of [see, in turn, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, etc.] every single day). If the archaeological and other consensuses about Punt swing to excluding all of what is now Eritrea from historical Punt, then we should probably revise (and even then retain the information, though without illustration, that Eritrea was once commonly thought to have been part of Punt). We can't go engaging in our own evaluation of which sources are probably correct (per WP:AEIS in the WP:NOR policy); we have to leave that to highly reliable secondary sources, like literature reviews of all the archaeological, historical, linguistic, and other research. If a new, clearer scientific consensus emerges on the question, we'll find out about it soon enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Although no part of the country is specifically named after the Land of Punt, the Eritrean Ministry of Information nonetheless here too indicates that Punt was located in the territory of modern Eritrea [60]. Soupforone (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

One has to beware "nationalistic pride" claims, however. What a government ministry asserts is not part of the scientific/historian consensus, but public relations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Right, could be. I was just thinking that if it were the Library of Congress or perhaps some other US governmental body indicating this about an early US polity, it would probably be regarded as authoritative. Soupforone (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. LoC doesn't really issue statements like that, so far as I've seen. There probably is an official US government "take" on the War of 1812, and from living in Canada I learned that the Canadian perspective on this conflict is markedly different from that of the typical American's, but our article on it doesn't seem to be favoring US govt. sources. I guess I'm just having a hard time thinking of an example to compare. Possibly because the non-indigenous history of North America is so short; maybe UK government assertions about the history of ancient Britain would be a richer field, though I don't have any examples in mind there, either.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand. What I meant was that there are myriad (non-Eritrean) government publications used throughout wiki to document local goings-on, and the Eritrean government is not any more or less reliable in that regard than is any other government. Nonetheless, actual Punt experts like Nathaniel Dominy are still preferable in this area [61]. Soupforone (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thumbs up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless what one expert say, many claim punt for nationalistic pride as user:SMcCandlish pointed out. Not stating that punt did not include Eritrea. However ,there are many other publucations that do suggest that there exist a high level of uncertainty regarding the exact location of punt and which areas it coverd. My suggestion is that we should be more restrective on how we portray punt in regard to the Eritrean history. Exemple could be adding or changing some parts of the punt section to make it clear that there are some uncertainties regarding the area punt covered and how/ if Eritrea was a part of it as many schoolars points out. The line in the punt article mentions this in a good way. Also we should be critical on which images we add to that section. E.g how do we know that the punt Queen was the ruler of what is today known as Eritrea? I have not sen any of those sources. Therefore making obscure to include an image of her as she was the ruler of an area that included Eritrea. Richard0048 (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish was actually referring there to the Eritrean Ministry link above. Anyway, the wiki sentence on Punt asserts that "together with Djibouti, Ethiopia, northern Somalia, and the Red Sea coast of Sudan, Eritrea is considered the most likely location of the land known to the Ancient Egyptians as Punt, whose first mention dates to the 25th century BC". This is a rather benign assertion -- Eritrea is indeed one of the main proposed locales for the ancient Land of Punt. And the reason why many Punt experts believe that the territory was likely situated in the Eritrea vicinity is because, among other things, actual epigraphs, isotope analysis and archaeological excavations suggest as much (e.g. Royal Botanical Gardens [62]). Soupforone (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. The fact that various reliable sources include Eritrea in reconstructions of where Punt was is sufficient to mention that they do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To mention it is important, but it is highly important to take in consideration what other sources e.g [63],[64], [65], [66] and scholars have pointed out. For this it requires a level of caution when you write about it. Therefore it is relevant to explain this in the punt section and also select images that depicts an correct representation of punt when it comes to Eritrean history. Again, where is the source that the punt Queen ruled the area which is today known as Etitrea?? I'd rather prefer no image at all, based on the opinions of various scholars research has shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard0048 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

All of those interpretations date from before the isotope analysis on the ancient baboons from Punt, which scientifically established that they were imported from the Eritrea vicinity [67]. Anyway, the wiki passage above is already phrased conservatively, as it notes the other main locales alongside Eritrea. If Punt is notable here (and it is), then obviously so is the kingdom's queen. The same goes for the generic Puntite carriers, which perhaps could serve as an alternative to the ruler [68]. Soupforone (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No some of those sources where after the isotope analysis on the ancient baboons from Punt, there are more of the same soruces. One analysis and one study cannot be used to draw all of the conclusion you are making. It is also obscure to have Egyptian carriers or Egyptian soldiers from Hatshepsut's from a temple at Deir el-Bahri, which is located in Egypt. And there is no proof that the "Queen Ati, wife of King Perahu of Punt" was the queen of over a area that covered Eritrea. Therefore it would be better to have no image all, but the text could stay with maybe a minor change to it, since it is for most parts conservatively described already. Richard0048 (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the final isotope analysis on the baboons from Punt was conducted in 2015, after all of those interpretations above. Also, the carriers in that file are actual Puntite men in the Land of Punt, not ancient Egyptians in Ancient Egypt. They are transporting incense trees from the Punt interior to the cargo vessels of the Pharaoh Hatshepsut expedition. Since Punt is notable here, these Puntite carriers, like the queen of Punt, are indeed as well per wiki policy. Soupforone (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

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 [69] [70]. 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)