Talk:Eritrea

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nw510510 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EricDaughtry22 (article contribs).

Dispute about implementing the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment on how to include population in infobox

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

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

Main considerations in this RfC were:

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

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

What is the purpose of an infobox?

Some (but not all) arguments for Option 1:

Based on previous consensus

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

Matches Demographics of Eritrea article

Some (but not all) arguments for Option 2:

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

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

Single figures are preferred over ranges

Head count

Option 1: 8

Option 2: 4

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

---

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

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

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

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

References for this RfC

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Horn of Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about the text of the lead

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

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

---

Which of these should be used in the lead:

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Chipmunkdavis: I have adjusted the options and the question to alleviate any confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Well that's better, but the capital is currently included. It doesn't have to be, but are we excluding it for a reason? On a broader point, this is an inefficient way to manage a dispute caused by an editor apparently not liking the term Horn of Africa. Hyperfixation on such a point does not create good prose or holistic consideration, as the capital and official name tweaks show. CMD (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree, but they started the RfC (have a look at the talk page history and what it took to get to this stage). I have adjusted it even further and also added the wikilinks to all the options so that the users see exactly what the they will look like. M.Bitton (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Stop modifying or adding stuff to the RFC. The issue was about the location. Removed the ovelinks which are not needed.Leechjoel9 (talk) 09:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It's not a case of overlinking, because this talk page is not an article page. It's a question of avoiding ambiguity. An ambiguous proposal will lead to ambiguous results. The links should be restored, and there should not be a redirect, there should be a pipe: [[East Africa|Eastern Africa]]. Proposals for renaming East Africa should be made at the talk page over there, not here. Boud (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Leechjoel9: I didn't "add stuff", I made it less ambiguous (it's called being helpful). Chipmunkdavis' comment[1] and Boud's clarification[2] should tell you that there is a problem with it. WP:OLINK doesn't apply to the options, as the readers need to know exactly what is being proposed, so unless you're suggesting that the other options won't have links (something that was neither discussed nor suggested previously), I suggest you restore them. M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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