Talk:Eritrea/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Please Fix The official designation of State of Eritrea.

The word Tigrinya and its link page should be taken out of the official designation of Eritrea. The official emblem and designation of Eritrea does not have the word Tigrinya in it. It has Hagere Ertra on the left and Dawlat Eritrea on the right. Please take out the word TIgrignya as Tigrnya is only one of the nine languages and does not appear in the official designation of the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teweldino (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"Tigrinya" isn't part of the name, it is there in the infobox to indicate the name of the country in the Tigrinya language (i.e. ሃገረ ኤርትራ Hagere Ertra). However, I'm not sure why the same wasn't done for the Arabic name below it (دولة إرتريا Dawlat Iritriyá). furthermore I have noticed that other country articles don't specify the name of the language, they simply give the name in that language (compare for example Sudan, Central African Republic, Germany, Japan). However, the Ethiopia article is another exception to this. Not sure if there is a MOS that covers this, but the instructions for {{Infobox country}} don't specify that one should include the name of the language within |native_name=, and most other countries don't do it, so I will edit Eritrea and Ethiopia to be consistent with other country articles. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Adoption of Christianity

For the approximate time that Christianity was adopted by Eritrea, the source cited is not sufficient. It merely states that *when* Islam had conquered Egypt it came into conflict with the Christianity in Eritrea. That's all. This does not infer that that adoption was "shortly" after the 1st or 2nd centuries.Wjhonson (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture of Eritrea's ethnic groups in the demographics section

I suggest that we add pictures of all nine ethnic groups in Eritrea or remove the picture of two ethnic group pictures in the demographics section. Referring to the Tigrinya Eritrean wedding picture[1] and the saho women picture.[2] These groups don't reflects all the groups or the diversity within Eritrea. Even if the Tigrinya's make up big part of the population (55%) and the saho's make up (2-4%) there are seven group's left out. The nine ethnic groups are all treated equal in Eritrea.

For example Ethiopia got approximately 90 ethnic groups but there is not picture's referring to ethnic group. It's pretty the same with any other country page.

A option could be to replace them with a picture of notable Eritrean's in the American diaspora. [3] Or any other picture that can be suggested. However, best option would be to remove them and since it would be tricky to add nine picture's of all groups.

(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

The wedding pic is of average Eritreans, like the coffee ceremony woman. For its part, the Saho image shows one of Eritrea's main ethnolinguistic communities (the Saho, Afro-Asiatic speakers of the Cushitic branch), and in the relevant language section. Middayexpress (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The picture is of a christian-orthodox wedding, the group on the picture are from the Tigrinya group its the same with the woman in the coffee cermony picture. Its traditional tigrinya clothes that they are wearing. Saho's got their own language but there is eight more since every group has it's own language. It does not matter where on the page the picture's are shown really, demographics or language section. The main point is that instead of having picture's of only two groups its better to remove them or add picture's of all groups. That would not offence anyone from a specific group. It's the same with the church and mosque picture's, you can't just add pictures of church's, that why you got pictures of both of them. Simple as that. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

It's not that simple since obviously not all ethnic groups can be accommodated. There's also nothing strange about the (presumably) Tigrinya wedding, or for that matter the Saho women. Both are, after all, two of the nation's main Afro-Asiatic populations. Middayexpress (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's such a problem to add all we should not have anyone, since all are not shown and that would be most fair. I think you are missing the point, there is nothing wrong with the picture's. I forget to remove the coffee ceremony pic and thought of adding a jebena picture instead since that is used to serve coffe instead of the tigrinya woman picture. How about that? (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Kindly do not again remove the wedding/Saho images. As for the coffee ceremony, it (server or jebena) actually isn't particularly necessary as it clutters the section; the one Kitcha fit-fit dish is sufficient. Middayexpress (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to get advise from someone that can help us with this issue. I don't understand how your opinion matters more than those who can get annoyed or get disturbed of the fact that their groups are not shown. It would be good to respect that. Like myself, that's not from either of these group.(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

You are being quite unreasonable. The demographic and language sections can only accommodate one pic each. Images of each of Eritrea's recognized ethnic groups obviously can't be accomodated therein, nor are there even copyright free images available for most of the groups in question. Your edits also have an odd air of familiarity about them; especially your first post. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion on this matter. Left some comments on your page also. Please do not remove them as they can be used to help us reach consensus. There are several picture in Wikipedia commons that are free to use and share. So there is not reason just have the Saho picture in the language section. Simply remove that and the tigrinya pic if we can't find pictures of other groups. Since it could be offending to other groups that its only these groups that are shown.(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)).

That's nonsense. There are no copyright free images available of most of the other ethnic groups. More importantly, if the wedding pic were really a problem because the people in it are presumably Tigrinya and this would supposedly be "offending to other groups that its only these groups that are shown", you wouldn't have added the coffee ceremony woman (who you also indicated above is Tigrinya). I think it's time you revealed what you really have against those images, User:Hiyob346. By the way, you didn't leave mere "comments" on my userpage. You left a series of invalid disruptive editing templates, even after I removed them. Those are repeated violations of my userpace per WP:HUSH. Middayexpress (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you are confusing me with. I advise you to take the time too look. There are pictures of three other groups. Do you mind if i added them? The wedding and saho picture are not a problem. They are simply displaying two ethnic groups out of nine, in traditional clothes and ceremonies. I was adding the coffee woman since it showed how the serving of the coffee was made. This a common tradition among every Eritreans and not to a group. However after consideration I came to the conclusion that is not fair, that's why I added the picture of the jebena (coffee pot). (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

Sorry, but there are too many holes in your story. The same coffee woman that you suggested is Tigrinya wasn't originally a problem for you; she only apparently became one after you suggested the wedding attendees were Tigrinya too. The coffee ceremony is also mainly a Habesha tradition (not all Eritreans), and of this you are likely already aware. At any rate, what other ethnic groups are you referring to there? Let me guess; the Rashaida, right? Middayexpress (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you are writing that. I came to that conclusion after I posted the picture. I did not study the ethnicity of the woman making coffee. The coffee ceremonies may originate from the habeshas but other Eritrean groups make coffee the same way. I think there are pictures of a few other groups like tigrinya, kunama etc. As pointed out before, do you think we could add the pic of the US- diaspora picture? that you added to wikipedia commons. Since that picture of Eritreans are not tied to ethnicity. It is simply not fair to have one or two groups on there at the moment. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)).

I'm afraid that's still not particularly believable. It took you awhile to identify the coffee serving woman as Tigrinya, yet somehow had no problem claiming right off the bat that the wedding attendees -- who are dressed in similar traditional attire -- are Tigrinya. Nay... something tells me this has little if anything to do with "fairness". Call it deja vu. Middayexpress (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of cooperativeness since my questions are not getting any response. I think it is better to leave this for others to make a decision. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Eritrea and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

(Disagreement that only two pictures of Eritrea's ethnic groups (with traditional costumes) are represented in the article in language & demographics section. Since Eritrea has nine ethnic groups with different languages, traditions, religions.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that template didn't work as advertised - or maybe I did something wrong. Anyway, this is my response to your 3rd opinion request: While it would be preferable to have photos representative of each ethnic group, I know of no policy that says photos should be withheld until all groups can be represented pictorially. Do suggest, if it's verifiable, that the caption for the "wedding in Eritrea" be expanded to include that group's ethnicity. Also, suggest you visit Wikimedia Commons and possibly reach out to photographer there, Dawit Rezenè. Perhaps he/she could help you? Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; that's what I had figured. Middayexpress (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The person with the third opinion writes that it is preferable to add pictures of all ethnic groups. Sure there is no policy that states that pictures should be withheld until all groups can be represented. However since there is not pictures of all ethnic groups at the moment as mentioned, it is most fair and makes most sense to add a picture that is not related to an specific ethnic group. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

That's not what the editor said, of course. And with me there are now 3 editors disagreeing with you, so you clearly don't have consensus to keep images off the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:Dougweller You have been involved in this conflict by expressing you opinion at an earlier stage. Your opinion in this matter does not count since you also reverted my edit and have been communicating with the person I am in conflict with before. The person that gave the third opinion has clearly wrote that it would be good to add pictures of all groups but not to remove the existing ones. So he agreed to add more pictures. So for now it is still 1 against 1. So it is not in favour for anybody at this moment. Since my second option was to add more pictures. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)).

Actually, User:Dougweller is quite right. You wrote above that "instead of having picture's of only two groups its better to remove them or add picture's of all groups", while Lightbreather indicated the exact opposite of that ("I know of no policy that says photos should be withheld until all groups can be represented pictorially"). As for your so-called second option, it was actually to "add a picture that is not related to an specific ethnic group". That too is obviously precluded by the foregoing. Middayexpress (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wp:not a wp:gallery. Images should add to an article, they are not the focus of it. We have a manual of style, WP:MOSIMAGES and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which shows how they should be used. Some pictures not being in the article is not a reason for existing ones to be removed. Nor is existing images being in the article a reason to add others. That such reasoning is based on inter-ethnic rivalry is just another reason to avoid them. It is not 'fair' or 'unfair' to have pictures of certain ethnic groups. It's just what it is, a particular snapshot. That's what a photo is. CMD (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To user:Middayexpress, I gave you several options days ago with no reply. All listed in the first conversation above. But you are free to make your own assumptions of what I have been writing/doing. 1.The first option I suggested was to remove the existing two pictures if we could not add pictures of all groups.2.Second option was to add pictures of more ethnic groups that are available in wcommons. 3.Third option was to add a picture of famous Eritreans in the US Diaspora that did not have ethnicity ties. I've accepted and come to an understanding that option one and three are not possible at the moment. However, option two is most certainly possible. To user:Chipmunkdavis some of the things that you write are illogical. There is no rule that stops users to add more pictures to this article, if they are free to use, if they could add value and bring more understanding to the article for the reader. You are basically writing that we could never post a new picture in this article. Of course it is possible to add more pictures, if there's not any bad motives behind it that could cause an ethnicity conflict etc. I have acted in good faith and have not had any bad intentions. I will look up images that could be used from commons but also contact some photographers. I will not add pictures in order to be fair. I will simply try to add more ethnic group pictures that are free, available and that could contribute to this article. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC))

The number of images any article can have is limited by the text. Images should not squeeze text between them,and they should be staggered left and right. This limits the number of possible image inclusions, usually to one or two a section/subsection. CMD (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes nobody is questioning that. The pictures that will be added will fit the text and format of the article. There also exist a possibility to expanding the demographics section with text/format so they could be added in section/subsections that does not have pictures. I have found three pictures of different groups, these are of the kunama group[4], rashaida group[5] and one of these picture of the Tigrinya group [6], [7](Vetrisimino0 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)).

Vetrisimino0, I don't know why you think my opinion doesn't count. I don't want to be rude to someone as new as you are, but of course my opinion counts. That's the way it works. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vetrisimino0: As can be seen above, I have replied to all of your various claims, so there's no point in suggesting othwerise. At any rate, you now appear to be contradicting your original position that images of only a few groups would "offence anyone from a specific group". This is apparently not true since you've just proposed images from roughly the same number of ethnic groups. It's also evident that you have something against the wedding image in particular that you are not divulging since you just suggested replacing it with one of two others of people that you indicated were from the same Tigrinya ethnic group (including one copyright violation, btw). It would have been best if you had been upfront about these personal reservations from the start so that they could be assessed on their own merits. Middayexpress (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

user:Dougweller As I pointed out before you did revert my edits. Since I wanted a neutral view I asked for an opinion from a third person that was not involved in the issue. Your opinion does count but I did not ask you for your opinion since I could not see how your opinion could be neutral in this matter. No offence. To Middayexpress, you did respond but did not specifically respond to the questions to add more pictures instead you questioned my motives, and still are. I think I have made my point clear at this point. I have nothing against the wedding picture, the other pictures of the Tigrinya group was just suggestions and a matter of taste from my side to replace it. I am just suggesting more picture that are available wcommons. I suggest we move forward with this issue. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

Your proposal was rejected, including by the third opinion you sought. It also looks like one of your linked Tigrinya images has since been deleted as a copyright violation. By the way, kindly stop removing the cultural ties between Eritrea and other Northeast African territories from the culture of Eritrea page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have agreed to that should we should not remove the existing pictures. If pictures are added there will only be pictures that are OK to use and fits format and text. When it comes to the culture of Eritrea page I have left a reply on that talk page. Just a reminder, please add source's to the text you are adding. Also don't draw conclusions and interpret sources the way you want, please use common sense & be rational/logical.(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

What User:Dougweller explained with regard to obtaining prior agreement applies regardless. As for the culture of Eritrea page, I did attribute the historical ties. You nonetheless still removed the phrase for what, based on your edit summaries and talk page comments (e.g. [8]), appear to be personal reasons. Middayexpress (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes as he/she wrote "you clearly don't have consensus to keep images off the article.". So nothings is goin to be romeved. But that dont exlcude anything from being added if its done in the right manner. From what I know this discussion about this issue is over. Regarding the culture page, You did not attribute the ties between the two countries, instead you interpreted the source the way you wanted. For some reason, possibly personal or idelogical. It has been explained in that pages's talk section. If you want to discuss regarding that matter use the talk section on that page. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Not quite. What Lightbreather was alluding to there was your assertion that "instead of having picture's of only two groups its better to remove them or add picture's of all groups". He indicated the exact opposite of that ("I know of no policy that says photos should be withheld until all groups can be represented pictorially"). In any event, prior agreement is still required for any images, as Dougweller explained in an edit summary. As for the culture of Eritrea page, the passage was now quoted directly so as to avoid any ambiguity (not interpreted). You nonetheless still removed the phrase for what, based on your edit summaries and talk page comments (e.g. [9]), indeed appear to be personal reasons. Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not objected, and yes its been agreed if pictures are added it should follow prior argreement. Regarding culture page, yes its the direct qoute. Its used in a way that is not relevant, and its very broad qoute that can be interpreted in many ways. And you used it before to draw conslusion regarding historical ties between two specific countries that do not exist. Nothing has been agreed about what should be put up there and keep the discussion on that talk page, its wrong to discuss it here since many things becomes left out and this is the wrong page to have that disussion.(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

With respect, it's quite a stretch to claim that "Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan have significant similarities emanating not only from culture, religion, traditions, history and aspirations but also from being in comparable levels of income and economic development" is not an indication of cultural and other commonalities among these states. At any rate, I've left a reply there. Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes more pictures, pictures bring more readers. There is no reason why all ethnic groups cannot be represented in this article with pictures. The text should not present a limiting factor in that decision. Or perhaps let us start a *new* article specifically titled Ethnic Groups of Eritrea and expand the topic in that article. That new article could then be linked back to the sub section here on Ethnic Groups.Wjhonson (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Per MOS:IMAGES, images should not compromise the page's overall layout. They should also not be used to express textual information in place of real text. So there is indeed a finite number of images that can be accommodated. That said, a main page already exists for the nation's various recognized ethnic groups; it's linked to here as well. Middayexpress (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but that don't keep pictures from being added. As long it dont move around around text and is done correctly. There could be added a table of the different ethnic groups as in the dempgrapics section with stats. After that it could be possible to add two or three small pictures of the kunama, rashaida for example. Or simply add more text in the dempgrapics section to fit the pages format so it can accommodate more pictures. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC))

It's ironic that you are now arguing that pictures shouldn't be withheld, when that is basically what you originally proposed vis-a-vis the wedding and Saho women. Perhaps, then, it's only certain images that are really the issue? At any rate, as explained above, images should complement the text per WP:MOSIMAGES, not the other way around. That hypothetical table would also be non-standard and pretty large at that. It theoretically could be structured along ethnolinguistic lines (Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan), and perhaps accommodate an image of the Rashida and one of the Kunama alongside the Saho women and Tigrinya wedding. However, this still wouldn't jibe with your argument that images of only a few groups would offend anyone from a specific group. It too would likewise necessarily be limited by space and copyright. Middayexpress (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave three suggestions. Seems that you have not ready my suggestions once again. You can make up any theory of what my motives are. One of the suggestion I offerd would be possible and that is adding a couple of pictures, period. Will come up with a solution so it fits the page. For example a small table is possible. (Vetrisimino0 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)).

You proposed an ultimatum to the effect that "instead of having picture's of only two groups its better to remove them or add picture's of all groups". Your justification for this was that "it could be offending to other groups that its only these groups that are shown". Now you are suggesting "to add two or three small pictures of the kunama, rashaida for example", which directly contradicts that stated justification. Anyway, why don't you play around a little in your sandbox; link from here to that draft table so that we get an idea what you mean. Also, try and structure it along ethnolinguistic lines (Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan) so that this doesn't have to be adjusted later, and bear in mind the size and copyright constraints. Middayexpress (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I will play around in the sandbox a bit, I will link to that draft as you mentioned so you can see what im thinking.(Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

Wildlife file

The author has granted the permission to use this photo [10] on wikipedia.org. The phtot will be relicensed according to the Commons licensing policy. So it is not necessary to redelete it all the time user:middayexpress. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no indication that the file is copyright free or that permission was granted for its reuse. The original file page indicates that it is copyrighted, with All Rights Reserved by one Christian Vigna [11]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The photo have now been given an commons licence. The photo is free for resuse according to the author. The copyright tag on the original page indicates that it belongs to the author. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked about that at [12]. Please don't restore it until that is settled as the copyright tag says "all rights reserved", which seems to be incompatible with using it here. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I will wait on your answer. It may be possible to use them eaven if they have a copyright tag. But Im also in contact with the author at the moment and have aseked for changes in the orginal panoramio regarding the copyright in the webpage so it will also include text that shows that the photos are free to use, redistribute as long as the author is credited. This will be done for these three pictures. Im currently waiting for the author to change it. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the picture have been removed from commons. Still in talk with the authour and common's permission team in order to get a proper license for the pictures. After that I will re-upload.Vetrisimino0 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the Tour of Eritrea file. The cycling team image has a non-commercial and no derivatives license incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy [13]. Please stop removing files without discussion and adding copyrighted or otherwise incompatible files to the page. Middayexpress (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Stats way off... FGM rates have actually plummeted in Eritrea?

Thought folks editing this page would find this discussion of interest: Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Prevalence_stats_way_off--04:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tour, kitcha etc.

I have restored the Tour of Eritrea and kitcha files that were removed with no explanation, as well as a sentence on the cultural similarities between Eritrea and other nations in the Horn region. I also removed a large file on one Faytinga that was added in their place, due to file clutter and since her brand of Nilotic Kunama traditional music is not charateristic of that of Eritrea's majority Afro-Asiatic communities. Additionally, I replaced a low resolution file of the jebena pot with one of an Eritrean woman using it in a traditional coffee ceremony. Again, please stop removing files without discussion and adding incompatible or otherwise inappropriate files to the page. Middayexpress (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And I have restoerd the pics and text I added. There was no text or line removed on similarities with other horn countries. New contributions, with new sport section, and music was added. The faytinga picture, jebena picture are new pictures to this page that has not changed in many years. You could embrace some new changes/photos and be opened minded to change them. These are not bad images in any way. You just seem to have other personal opinions. You seems to object everytime I add new material. You start to contribute when I write stuff. You do not seem to have interest in change the page otherwise. By the way, Faytinga is a big artist in Eritrea and outsise Eritrea and has been for over a decade. She is half Tigrinya half Kunama and sings in both Tigrinya and Kunama therefore her music is charesteristic of the Eritrean community ,she does represent a majority. And a photo of her can be used since a new music section has been added that mentions her. So it is very relevant to use it on this page. What an strange arguement, are you writing that she is not Eritrean enough? Vetrisimino0 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am basically repeating to you what I and others have told you several times now above. Don't remove content without prior discussion and agreement. You didn't merely add files. You removed several existing ones to make room for those new files, and in the process also deleted the text described above. There's no point in denying this since it's right there in the dif [14]. You're continued usage of ips has also been noted. Middayexpress (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you mention what text i removed? Nothing that was discussed in earlier posts has to do with this. I added new sections, but I did not remove text. I have only replaced two photos that has been here for ages. I replaced it with two pics thas relevant to the new sections I have added, and they are of good quality. Do every change need to be discussed? I have discussed other issues before, but how are the new changes bad? I dont see anyone disliking it besides you. Could you please explain? If you do dislike the changes I have done please feel free to discuss them. My continued use of ip? Second time you go of topic and discuss things thats not relevant. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You will need consensus to change the picture and remove all the other stuff you want. Anyways, I don't see the point in denying removal of content. As this diff shows, you also removed content regarding the cusines of Eritera. You have yet to give a reponce as to why you did this other than denying it. As for your IPs, you have used them several times before. Mentioning this is not off topic nor do I see how it could be so. AcidSnow (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Two images was replaced, the text you are referring to that has been removed are the text in the old pictures text boxes. So by replacing the picures, the text was removed with the picture, since this information was used to explain the pictures. This you could see on the dif. Which other information are you referring too? Thats the explanation. And as mentioned these two images was replaced with two new ones with new text. My motivation for adding new pics was that new sections was added to the page (music, sports section) so new pictures for the section was relevant. The new images are also of high quality. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Restored old picture that had text. So now nothing has been deleted. Only replaced, I have given explanation on why Faytinga, and pic of jebena is relevant. are you Ok with that? Vetrisimino0 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"the text you are refering to that has been removed are the text in the old pictures text boxes", they are not part of it. As anyone can see from this diff they are two separate things:

Besides convergent culinary tastes, Eritreans share an appreciation for similar music and lyrics, jewelry and fragrances, and tapestry and fabrics as other populations in the Horn region.

I still don't see why your trying to deny this. Nor why you claim to have removed two images when you actually removed three. All your doing is simply wasting everyone's time. The images you moved/removed were relevant to their corresponding areas. If they aren't, do you mind explaining why you moved Sembel down to the Kingdom of Axum and why you removed the Tour of Eritrea from the sports section? AcidSnow (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It must have been deleted perhaps, I dont recall it being deleted but I dont have a reason to delete that line. And from what I know, If you go down to the last rows in the cuisine section it says "Besides convergent culinary tastes, Eritreans share an appreciation for similar music and lyrics, jewelry and fragrances, and tapestry and fabrics as other populations in the Horn region." Two images was replaced, see section again, I have added the food image. The new pictures are also relevant to the corresponding areas. And the Axum pic was just adjusted days ago, however it is now where you want it to be. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Files should complement text, not the other way around. And yeah, that's the culinary paragraph in question. Middayexpress (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is exactly what my images did, they complimented the sections and text I added. The culinary paragraph in question is restored as I can see, I did not touch that and did not have reason too (not the cuisine image). Obviously when it comes to Faytinga you dont know what you are talking about. Faytinga is half Tigrinya and half Kunama, her father is Kunama and mother is Tigrinya. [15] If you even cared or would of to listen to her songs and albums you would know that half of her songs are in Tigrinya. So that argument does not last. The second image I added was the one of the coffe pot I added which middayexpress wrote was not of good quality, which is also not true since it was of better quality and clearer than the one that user replaced mine with. So that argument does not last either. The third argument was that the pics I added was clustering the page which anyone can tell is not true, the pictures were insert in a manner to prevent this from happening. My images are taking exactly the same space as yours. So that argument does not last either. Thats three poor arguments. Everything now is restored exactly in the way you reverted it to. The only dispute now are of the images. My suggestion is that the jebena coffee pot picture I added should be uploaded instead of the middayexpress added in the last version, it is of better quality and shows the jebena (a traditional/cultural object of Eritera, instead of the woman making coffee). The faytinga picture should be added, since I added a new music section that mentions her and Eritreas modern popular music. It should be there instead of the tour photo since it has been there for many years and is not such a high quality photograph. The cuisine picture can stay. I think thats a fair comprimize from my side. If we agree on that I will not replace, remove anything else regarding this issiue. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The grainy, cropped jebena file is certainly not of better quality or more informative than that of the Eritrean woman using one during a traditional coffee ceremony. For the rest, User:AcidSnow pretty much already covered it all on your talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No I dont agree. User:AcidSnow has made commets regarding the images. However my source showed that user is wrong when it comes to Faytinga. She is 100 % Eritrean and represent both cultures (Tigrinya, Kunama). Is this information hard too understand? One of your arguments is that she is Kunama and you start writing about that they are not part of the afro-asiatic family? That has nothing to do with this. Kunama ethinic groups are a recognized group of Eritrea and 100 % eritreans. Plus as I mentioned she is half tigrinya and half Kunama. She represent the majority of Eritreans so that pokes a hole in your argument and she sings in both tigriya and kunama. This is also basic information that Eritreans knows especially if you like Eritrean music. That site is not a blog, it is a trustworthy Eritrean news page. And your suggestion that the coffe image (on the woman) you added is of better is just your personal oppinion, there is no truth behind this. We still have not reached no consensus on this one. Vetrisimino0 (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is indeed a blog, and powered by Blogger at that. Middayexpress (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That does not matter since there are more sites confirming she is is half Tigrinya, and that site is a serious site indeed and that article is serious and have sources linked to it. Her mother is still Tigrinya and her father is Kunama. I have mentioned eight times I think, also in my talk section. Its pointless discussing with you. I will ask other users for their opinions regarding this. Her homepage also confrims her mother is from the Eritrean highland. Here are more sources confirming she is half tigrinya. [16], [17], [18].

"While her father was of the Kunama people, her mother grew up in the highlands and was of Tigray descent with grandparents from the Blen tribe. So Faytinga represents three of Eritrea's nine tribes."

"Her first CD album drew upon her father's Kunama heritage while also melding it with her mother's Tigrinya and Bilen heritage."

Here she sings as I mentioned in Tigrinya which many of her songs and albums are written in.

[19] , [20] Besides being half tigrinya, half kunama, and singing in both languages she also fought in the Eritrean war of independence, both she and her father. And you are claiming she is not respresenting Eritrea? What are you basing your facts on? What reasons do I have to lie to you? .Vetrisimino0 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tingrinya is the most widely spoken language in Eritrea. It serves as a local lingua franca, including for many Kunama individuals like her. That said, all of your links above are blogs, wikis and wiki mirrors, not reliable sources (see here). Her official website also makes it clear that she is Kunama and that her father was a hero among their kinsmen ("Faytinga -- born Dahab Faid Tinga and also known as Dehab Faytinga -- comes from the Kunama people[...] her father was a revered figure among the Kunama people" [21]). It's pretty certain that she knows her own family's ethnic group better than the bloggers you link to. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Third-party opinions

I've been asked to provide a third opinion on recent disputes. Here goes:

1. Do you understand why File:Grand Kudu, Eritrea.jpg was deleted, Vetrisimino0? I'd like to hear that you do; you should after a read of [22]. It seems the deletion was appropriate. (And, it's reversible with permission logged via an [[Commons:OTRS| OTRS ticket].)
2. As for the suggestion to add pictures of all nine ethnic groups in Eritrea or remove the picture of two ethnic group pictures in the demographics section: From just reading this page, it looked like this had been settled, and the photos are to be left in and photos of members of other groups can be added over time (and there have been multiple other editors providing opinions already). Good. I would add that images should be shrunk or (better yet) merged, as at [:File:Eriamercol.jpg], so that this can happen. However, I see File:Traditional_Eritrean_dance.jpg has replaced Tigrinya Eritrean wedding picture File:Eritrea_Eritrean_wedding.jpg. Is this a problem? I don't know the ethnicities of the photographed parties. I haven't looked through the article's edit history and don't plan do.
   
   • Flickr has lots more appropriately licensed files. I see File:Rashaida_family.png is on the french article, so there are photos available.
3. Re. Faytinga photo: I think it should stay. Re. Faytinga is half Tigrinya and half Kunama, her father is Kunama and mother is Tigrinya. [22]: The mayote site seems to be a mouthpiece for a particular set of politicial views, so I don't think it's a reliable source for much other than its own views. (My opinion would be swayed if it had a written fact-checking policy.) However, given 3 other sources Vetrisimino0 says confirm Faytinga's mother's ethnicity, it seems reasonable to belive it's true. Can you accept that, Middayexpress? If not, I still think her picture merits inclusion (without noting her mother's ethnicity) and 'clutter' is a poor argument for its removal here.
4. I do wish to point out that a blanket order to a fellow editor like Don't remove content without prior discussion and agreement. is highly inappropriate and invalid here! The WP:BOLD guideline applies to, and allows, such edits. However, so does the part of BOLD that guides one as to how to react when one's bold edits are not left in place. So, in other words, both of you should read / review WP:BOLD. (I see no argument for an exception to BOLD.)

So, hopefully both sides will accept my opinions, and move on to edit on other topics within and without Eritrea. There are points where I have agreed with each of you and points where I have disagreed with each of you (two each), and I believe I've been able to be fair and impartial. Hope that helps.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PS As for the coffee... Both photos are technically about equally poor, but good enough for use in an article. File:Coffee_ceremony.jpg is superior, subject-wise. so it should stay in. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers they are appriciated. Regarding the File:Grand Kudu, Eritrea.jpg. Yes, it was deleted since it was not under the correct license. The user owning the photographs gave consent for me too use them on wikipedia in a shape or form. Ive been discussing with the author to get them re-licenced and uploaded to commons using the right licence. This is very time consuming and tricky for the author. However its in progress and the author will hopefully upload them soon. Regarding the picture of Faytinga I also hope we can accept what Elvey has mentioned, there is no reason for not having it. I think we should upload it. And for the coffee picture, we could leave the existing one since Elvey mentioned that the one Middayexpress added was slightly better. Do we have an agreement? Vetrisimino0 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope for a positive response from Middayexpress too.

I think you should take another look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries because there's no need for the author to upload anything or edit anything on commons. All they need to do is send the appropriate email!--Elvey^(t•c) 09:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The agreement, like Vetrisimino0's warning yesterday, was not to unilaterally add or remove any files but rather to only do so with consensus. There is no consensus for the Faytinga file, nor is her traditional Kunama music representative of that of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority. Her Nilotic community makes up less than 2% of the nation's population. Vetrisimino0 insists that her mother is Tigrinya, but has provided no evidence of this other than blogs, wikis and wiki mirrors. On the other hand, her official website indicates that she is Kunama and that her father was a hero among their kinsmen [23]. An artist who is actually representative of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority is Helen Meles. Also, not nitpicking here, but several other files Vetrisimino0 uploaded besides the one above were deleted. Middayexpress (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What agreement? Diff? What warning? Diff? There are points where I have agreed with each of you, but you're not accepting my suggestion to accept them and move on. Sad to see that. You seem unwilling to acknowledge/respect the WP:BOLD guideline. Sad to see that. I see no agreement to add or remove any files to only with consensus. You claim there was one. Diff link? Also, not nitpicking here, but it seems you too have uploaded files that were deleted - File:Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg. What points I made can you accept, Middayexpress ?

Well Elvey, that logo was deleted because I in part asked for its deletion. When I referred to several other deleted files that Vetrisimino0 previously uploaded, I was also talking about copyrighted files that he claimed as his own work and attempted to add here. Again, not nickpiking, but Dougweller can confirm this. As for the warning he received yesterday to work towards consensus, it was on his actual talk page [24]. That said, I accept that instruction to not add or remove files until consensus has been established, the traditional Eritrean dance file, and the Eritrean Jebena woman file. The Faytinga file is a no go for the reasons explained above. A file of Helen Meles is instead representative of the nation's Afro-Asiatic majority [25]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that warning of Vetrisimino0 was enlightening; I see that there's been acrimony for quite some time... It doesn't exactly excuse your stance on the WP:BOLD guideline, but it does help to explain it.

Again, I (still) see no agreement to add or remove any files only with consensus. You claim there was one. on what page? Agreement by whom? Diff link? I see no support for your claim.

Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? --Elvey^(t•c) 00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Although you linked above to the WP:3O page, I see that you didn't in fact come here through the Third Opinion channel but rather because Vetrisimino0 contacted you [26]. An actual Third Opinion was already sought above, and it did not go Vetrisimino0's way. He originally tried to remove several images on invalid grounds, including the wedding file. His latest edits with the Faytinga and other files were likewise not merely attempts to add files. He actually again removed several existing ones (including the wedding file) to make room for those new files and in the process also deleted text [27]. So yes, that is indeed a breach of the instruction to first get talk page agreement on file changes [28]. And that's not even counting the day before yesterday's similar warning. At any rate, my stance with regard to the musicians remains the same for the reasons already explained. Middayexpress (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you but that's all rather non-responsive. For the third time: I (still) see no agreement to add or remove any files only with consensus. You claim there was one. on what page? Agreement by whom? Diff link? I see no support for your claim. Instead, I see some non-responsive comments. You claim, yet again, that s/he breached an agreement, however the lack of response to my two requests for evidence of such an agreement suggests one in fact does not exist. Not cool. You seem to be backing away from the claim when you say "that is indeed a breach of the instruction" - as if you don't know the difference between an instruction and an agreement. We should move forward on the basis that there is no such agreement, given the lack of evidence thereof. Another user's misbehavior doesn't mean you therefore get free rein to violate the rules by fabricating agreements or creating your own rules... [Edit: I see there is an instruction from another user to get agreement, but that's an instruction, given back in June, and that appears to be regarding specific files that had already been BOLDly added and removed, so my point stands.]

Again, please provide a response to help improve communication and reach consensus: Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? Please respond. I find it odd that you have not responded yet to those questions. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained that in plain language, with difs. In short, Vetrisimino0 was a) told to "get agreement on the talk page" before making file changes [29], and b) "warned that if he continues to revert (prior to consensus) he may be blocked" [30]. Another user also explained above to him that "some pictures not being in the article is not a reason for existing ones to be removed[...] nor is existing images being in the article a reason to add others", so there's your answer for the Kunama. Vetrisimino0 also mentioned above a hypothetical ethnic table for the nation's various populations, but seems to have abandoned the idea after I asked him to link to a draft of it in his sandbox and to structure it along ethnolinguistic lines (Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan) so that this doesn't have to be adjusted later. With regard to the Faytinga file, it is a no go for the reasons already explained above by me and by AcidSnow on Vetrisimino0's talk page [31]. A file of Helen Meles is instead representative of the nation's Afro-Asiatic majority [32]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You can continue to imagine there was an agreement; I can't force you to open your eyes. You provided a diff to a revert from June that provides no evidence whatsoever of an AGREEMENT. You've now provided that diff twice. You've linked to where he was warned. It's sad that you are still unable to see that when you said that there was an agreement, you were saying something that again indicates you don't know the difference between an instruction and an agreement. Anyway, the points been made, and anyone can see it. I'm done pointing it out; you simply refuse to get the point. Heck, there isn't that much of a difference between an instruction and an agreement around here, when the instruction is from admins, who have a history of penalizing resistance to their power grabs.

You write, "so there's your answer for the Kunama"; you seem to think you've answered one of my two Kunama question, but I'm not seeing it. So, for the FIFTH time, the questions are: Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The point indeed has been made, as the difs and quotes above show. Both I and AcidSnow also already made it clear to Vetrisimino0 on his talk page that the Kunama are a Nilotic ethnic group who represent a tiny fraction of Eritrea's population. As such, they are not representative of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority, so they shouldn't be presented as though they are. That includes Faytinga. On the other hand, Helen Meles is ethnically Tigrinya and does thus represent the nation's Afro-Asiatic majority. Middayexpress (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You have just edit-warred to remove my first-time addition of Faytinga to the article. I'm still unable to see your reason for removing the sole(?) image of a Kunama from the article as one that prevents you from answering the simple questions, which I ask for the SIXTH time: the questions are: Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? It's edit warring because you haven't answered these reasonable questions, and you didn't address the edit summary I provided when i made the addition, which reads, "For the "music" section, prominence in music, not ethnicity, should be the deciding factor. Faytinga has 3 albums on Amazon." You insist that a Kunama such as Faytinga cannot be in the music section because "they are not representative of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority". In other words, you are insisting that any image in the music section must be a member of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority. Wow, just wow. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How many albums Faytinga has on Amazon is irrelevant. Bottom line, her small Nilotic Kunama community and culture is not representative of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority. That of the Tigrinya singer Helen Meles is instead. At any rate, it doesn't really make a difference now since Vetrisimino0 has just been blocked. Middayexpress (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter how small her community, Faytinga is part of an ensemble that has repeatedly represented Eritrea on the international stage. If Eritrean officials let her represent the country at world exhibitions, I'd say you'll need more than ethnic statistics to support the claim that Faytinga doesn't represent Eritrean music. Huon (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, she is hardly unique in that. There are many other Eritrean artists that regularly do that, notably Helen Meles. Meles actually got her start through the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, which formed her first band, Red Flowers. What Faytinga is actually unique in is in basing much of her music on her own Nilotic Kunama tradition. This cultural heritage is certainly not representative of that of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority. She is, in fact, probably the only prominent Kunama artist in the country. The other main artists virtually all hail from Eritrea's various Afro-Asiatic groups, particularly the Tigrinya like Meles [33]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how Meles is quite as much an official representative of Eritrean culture as Faytinga. Meles played on a goodwill tour in Sudan during the war, for all I can tell. Faytinga was sent on tours to Europe and to world exhibitions (and, by the way, she also fought in the war). Libération has written about Faytinga in greater detail than any of the reliable sources in the Meles article have written about her, and Libération calls Faytinga "un mythe national". She may be the only national myth of her ethinicity; that doesn't make her less of one. Huon (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

When Faytinga took part in those expos, it was as part of a collective. However, the music that she actually makes on her own and which she is most known for is her own traditional Kunama music, which is definitely not typical of Eritrean music (please see below). Her image should therefore not be used to represent Eritrean music as a whole. That said, various other Eritrean artists participated in the liberation effort as well. A number of them also served in various world festivals, and Helen Meles was likewise a member of the Eritrean People's Liberation Front [34]. The difference is that their actual art is typical of that of Eritrea's Afro-Asiatic majority, whereas Faytinga's art is not, as it is based on her own Nilotic Kunama heritage. This is noted in the column labeled "main language of arts" [35]. The Libération link above indicates this too when it points out that a) although she was born in Asmara, Faytinga is the daughter of a Kunama man originally from Barentu (the Kunama heartland), and the Kunama are one of the smallest ethnic groups in the nation ("mais, bien que née à Asmara, Faytinga est la fille d'un notable indépendantiste appartenant à l'ethnie kunama et originaire de Barentu[...] les Kunamas sont l'un des plus petits groupes ethniques d'Erythrée : ils représentent 1,5 à 2 % des 3 millions d'habitants"), b) her actual art is centered on advancing the cause of her own Kunama community ("les chansons de Faytinga (elle compose la musique, Agostino, ami journaliste, s'occupe des textes) ont beaucoup fait pour la cause kunama"), c) her popularity is also mainly focused in the foreign festival circuit, where she earns a living ("c'est dans les festivals étrangers que Faytinga s'est fait connaître depuis 1990, gagnant-là de quoi vivre confortablement"), and d) she only sometimes sings in the major national language Tigrinya in order to reach a broader Eritrean audience ("pour toucher un public plus large, Faytinga chante parfois en tigrinya, la langue majoritaire en Erythrée"). This is unlike Helen Meles, who is "Eritrea's favorite singer" [36], regularly headlines major national celebrations both locally and abroad (e.g. Eritrean Independence Day [37], [38]), has won many Eritrean awards, and whose actual main language of arts is Tigrinya, which is her mother tongue [39]. Given this, I think Meles' likeness should instead be used to represent Eritrean music. Middayexpress (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the BBC's Julian Pettifer said Meles was "Eritrea's favorite singer this year". That's useful. But, the first youtube video does not seem to prove she was the headliner for a national celebration; having viewed it, I just see her in front of a military formation, singing and dancing in the dirt, not on a stage, not in a stadium. Ah, at least there's a second video, which does show her leading what is big enough to presumably be a "major national celebration". Still, as Huon said, you'll need more than ethnic statistics to support the claim that Faytinga doesn't represent Eritrean music. What prevents you from answering the simple questions, which I ask for the SEVENTH time: the questions are: Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? --Elvey^(t•c) 20:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC) (w/minor edit for clarity)

There's no point in asking if are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment when this is something you already know the answer to. It's not even particularly relevant since the content dispute with Vetrisimino0 -- which you ostensibly weighed in on to help amicably settle, not exacerbate -- was over the Faytinga file specifically. At any rate, I doubt Huon fully read that Libération link because if he had, he'd have noticed that it indicates pretty much everything I've asserted about Faytinga and more. I'm waiting to see what he has to say now that I've pointed this out. Regarding Helen Meles, those youtube videos are of her headlining various Eritrean Independence Day celebrations. The dirt pitch you allude to is actually Asmara Stadium. She performs at these national celebrations in her capacity as "Eritrea's most popular singer", including at the 17th Independence Day event in 2008 [40] (shown in the second video). This is what I mean. Middayexpress (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

For the EIGTH time: I ask you: Are there any images of Kunama in the article at the moment? Are you objecting to having even one, or to more than one? I DO NOT know the answer to either question. I ask if there any images of Kunama in the article because I don't know the answer. You have no business claiming to know that I know the answer to a question I'm asking you to answer.

Perhaps an admin such as Huon can comment as you are waiting for, as well as on whether my questions are reasonable, or if I must already know the answer, and if your refusals violate WP:CIVIL, which says "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ..., and to be responsive to good-faith questions.}} --Elvey^(t•c) 21:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know whether there are any Kunama images therein: there are none. As for your second question, I believe I already answered that when I mentioned that Vetrisimino0 was already given the opportunity to link to a hypothetical sandbox table for the nation's various ethnic groups. However, he abandoned the idea after I asked him to structure it along ethnolinguistic lines (Afro-Asiatic, Nilo-Saharan) so that this didn't have to be adjusted later. It's also Vetrisimino0 who first suggested above that Faytinga's music was representative of Eritrea's majority because of her actual ethnicity ("she is half Tigrinya half Kunama and sings in both Tigrinya and Kunama therefore her music is charesteristic of the Eritrean community ,she does represent a majority"). However, as demonstrated with the Libération link in particular, he was wrong about that: she is primarily if not entirely Kunama, the latter is a tiny ethnic minority group, Kunama is her main language of arts, and her music is largely centered on Kunama causes. At any rate, my overall point with regard to ethnicity remains the same as that which Huon himself indicated on your talk page: people chosen should roughly represent the ethnic composition of the country. As such, a group that is both an ethnic and numerical minority should not be presented as though it is neither and its portrait should not be used to symbolize all of a nation's population. That said, I'm waiting to see what Huon has to say on the Libération material. Middayexpress (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely unpersuaded by the discussion of ethnicity and language, which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. People chosen for the music section should represent not the ethnic composition, but the musical scene. The quotes from Libération are thus more relevant, though Libération says Faytinga's lack of commercial success in Eritrea is due to poverty and piracy, not due to a language barrier. So if you think Meles is more representative of Eritrean music, I wouldn't object to using her image, but Faytinga doesn't seem to be so irrelevant to Eritrean music that we're better off without an image than with hers. Huon (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, it was actually Vetrisimino0 who first suggested that Faytinga's music was representative of Eritrea's majority because of her actual ethnicity. At any rate, as you yourself pointed out on the other user's talk page, if she's just one member of a notable ensemble, or if her style of music is highly uncommon and not at all what would usually be considered "typically Eritrean" music, why should her portrait be used to symbolize all of Eritrean music? It so happens that Faytinga participated in the expos as just one member of a notable ensemble, the Sebrit. And her duty within that folkloric troupe was to represent her own Kunama people's Nilotic tradition. The Eritrean government itself indicates this ("Musicians and Artists will take part depicting Semitic, Hamitic, Cushitic and Nilotic traditions of the people of Eritrea to add into the multinational diversity and experiences of the different people coming to visit this exhibition" [41]). Also, I didn't write that her lack of commercial success in Eritrea was due to a language barrier, but rather that her popularity is mainly focused in the foreign festival circuit. In the country itself (the subject of this page), the most popular modern artist is definitely Helen Meles (e.g. "Parmi les musiciens actuels, on note Teklé Tesfa-Ezighe, Tekele Kifle Mariam (Wedi Tukul), Tesfai Mehari (Fihira), Osman Abdulrihm, Abrar Osman, Abraham Afwerki, Yemane Gebremichael, Idris Mohamed Ali, Tsehaytu Beraki, Ateweberhane Segid et Berekhet Mengisteab. Mais la chanteuse la plus populaire des années 2000, Helen Meles (dont la voix puissante monte très haut), est parvenue à enregistrer plusieurs albums de musique moderne locale à Asmara" [42]). Meles' art is thus indeed more representative of Eritrean music than that of Faytinga; particularly since the latter artist's main language of arts, Kunama, is spoken and understood by only 1.5%-2% of the population. Middayexpress (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Huon, is my edit disruptive? The following edit's summary claims so, and that edit removes Faytinga (and the only photo of Kunama, apparently) from the article. I see no participation in recent discussions. Would restoring Faytinga while leaving Meles, who was just added, be disruptive at this point? I think the answers are no and no, but I'm checking first. (Please no comments from the peanut gallery.)--Elvey^(t•c) 18:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Huon just wrote that ethnicity is irrelevant in the music area and that the actual composition of the local music scene instead matters. He also indicated that if Meles is more representative of Eritrean music (she is, as demonstrated), he doesn't object to her. There's no consensus for Faytinga over Meles. There's only for either Meles, or for an artist over no artist. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My recent edit was far from being disruptive since all of my edits have been in line with WP:CONSENSUS. However, I can't say the same about yours. Seeing how you have violated this policy once again (not the first time, see here: [43][44][45]) as well as constantly reverting, you edit was once again flat out disruptive. As anyone can see, your accusation was once again baseless. The same can be said about how Middayexpress is a possible racist as well as how I have violated WP:NPOV, poses a behavioral "problem", etc. AcidSnow (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus against having an image of Faytinga in the article. I see the repeated removals of Faytinga's image as violations of WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and WP:Revert only when necessary, which says "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." I re-added an image of Faytinga in the article after 1)I, 2)an admin, 3)User:Wtwilson3, and 4)at least one other user, had expressed support for it, when Huon wrote, above, "Faytinga doesn't seem to be so irrelevant to Eritrean music that we're better off without an image than with hers". I find the reasoning for excluding her seems to to be abhorrent, but I won't put her back in #Music unless I see further opposition to her exclusion.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. Firstly, me being an admin gives my opinion no greater weight in content disputes than everybody else's. Secondly, I'm definitely not Elvey's tame admin, here to "talk sense into" those they disagrees with. I'm not sure how the conclusion from my latest comment could be "The sensible thing is to add Faytinga". Middayexpress' summary of my position is accurate. Thirdly, while two musicians haven't yet been discussed, I'd object to that - the "culture" section already is very picture-heavy. Huon (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say you were offering more than you did, or demand more; that's why I quoted you. You said "Faytinga doesn't seem to be so irrelevant to Eritrean music that we're better off without an image than with hers". The section is without an image. We had hers available and policy-sound support from 4 users, so I added it. If I misquoted or misread you, please excuse me. I never removed Meles from the article, now did I? As I said, "I won't put [Faytinga] back in #Music unless I see further opposition to her exclusion." Have it your way guys. --Elvey^(t•c) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Huon just wrote that my summary is accurate. You also indicated on your talk page that you don't really care which of the two artists is on the page, so this shouldn't be a problem. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Elvey just tried to re-add the Faytinga file despite the consensus above for only one file, and of Helen Meles at that. Middayexpress (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

MOS and staggered images

I moved a couple images to the left; my edits were reverted with the tees edit summary MOS. But the MOS says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." And we have featured articles with images staggered the same way.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. AcidSnow already asked you to in his previous edit summary. Attempting to repeat edits of blocked users is also against policy. As for the layout, the above refers to vertical placement, not horizontal placement. Per WP:IMAGELOCATION, "images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." Middayexpress (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hamasien Republic???

There was noting like a "Hamasien Republic" in that part of the world. That area was called Bahir Medri or Bahre Negash and was being Administered from Ethioipia, especially from Tigray. Ras Alula was one the governers before that area was occupied by Italians and renamed later as Eritrea. It then has been colonized by Italians for 50 years then administered by the British for 10 years after the end of the WWII. Now it is an independent country. However we have to keep records straight and truthful. except for those sixty years, the land has been administratively ,socially and genetically linked to the northern part of Ethiopia. History can not be corrected for it already has happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should've pointed instead to just plain Hamasien. Middayexpress (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 UN human rights report on extreme human rights abuses

Have added reference to the Guardian's description of Eritrea's human rights abuses, described by the UN as 'on a scope and scale seldom witnessed elsewhere'. [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.146 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is human rights down as 6 in the index, for the Ethiopia page it is 3 under politics, for Egypt it is 4, for DRC also. In how many country pages are human rights inferior to 'wildlife' in importance - here down as 4? Is wiki following the government's agenda here? The priority should be swapped, esp given the above. Sadly human rights abuses have come to characterise Eritrea's international reputation. Cpsoper (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What does the image of women with hijabs have to do with the UNHRC report or human rights? It only serves to obscure. I have removed it.Cpsoper (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Aksumite/Axumite Empire- Its base was the modern day North Ethiopia

There is inaccuracy regarding where the ancient Axumite empire was. In this Article, the author has mentioned it as existed in modern day Ethiopia and Eritrea The truth is that the empire was in Tigray, modern day Ethiopia. At its peak , its rule reached as far as Yemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldad8 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Official languages

The Finnish article says only Arabic and Tigrinya are official languages, as does the Italian. The German article says Tigrinisch, Arabisch; Englisch, Tigre, Afar, Saho, Kunama, Bedscha, Blin und Nara de jure gleichberechtigte Nationalsprachen The French article lists Arabic and Tigrinya, with the footnote le tigrinya et l'arabe sont les langues de travail du gouvernement. L'anglais est utilisé dans les relations internationales et l'éducation au-delà du primaire. Les habitants du pays parlent également afar, bilen, kunama, nara, rashaida, saho et tigré. L'italien et l'amharique sont parfois parlés pour des raisons historiques. Here, Italian and English are said to be official, but in the infobox it reads State of Eritrea, ሃገረ ኤርትራ Hagere Ertra, دولة إرتريا Dawlat Iritriyá, but not in Italian. K9re11 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Placing a human rights content prominently in the lead

The first paragraph of the section: Eritrea#Human_rights reads:

"Eritrea is a single-party state in which national legislative elections have been repeatedly postponed. According to Human Rights Watch, the government's human rights record is considered among the worst in the world. Some Western countries, particularly the United States, have accused the Eritrean authorities of arbitrary arrest and detentions, and of detaining an unknown number of people without charge for their political activism. However, the Eritrean government has continuously dismissed the accusations as politically motivated. In June 2015, a 500-page United Nations Human Rights Council report accused Eritrea's government of extrajudicial executions, torture, indefinitely prolonged national service and forced labour, and indicated that sexual harassment, rape and sexual servitude by state officials are also widespread."

This and following content is extremely notable and should have good representation in the lead. GregKaye 05:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this seems entirely appropriate. Cpsoper (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Many maps

There seems to be many maps, showing same information. This is misplacing some images. Does anyone disagree to remove one or two images? to make images and text align better. Richard0048 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect flag emblem.

The wreath of two olive branches that surround the upright branch should have 30 leaves. The leaves correspond to the 30 years of war which led to Eritrean independence. The olive branch emblem in the official flag also looks distinctly different from that shown in Wikipedia. Britannica has got the flag right. http://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-Eritrea SamuelN77 (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eritrea. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.tdgnews.it/en/2008/10/jehovahs-witnesses%E2%80%94eritrea-country-profile/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.shabait.com/cgi-bin/staging/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=5411
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.shabait.com/cgi-bin/staging/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=5446

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} 09:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Eritrean history between the fall of Axum in 940 AD and Italian Eritrea in 1890?

There is a 950 year gap and how should it be filled?

The state formation under every country is listed orderly without gap. For instance if you see Kenya they start from 1963 and in Somalia page all the indigenous dynasties who ruled Somali people from 10th century upto it's independence from Italy were listed without gap. Somaliland starts from 1991 while Djibouti starts from 1977.

Inorder to not leave gap, Eritrea should either start from Italian Eritrea in 1890 or list all the indigenous dynasties & states (from Daamat 980 BC upto it’s independence from Ethiopia in 1991 AD) including the foreign states that governed Eritrean People (Italia & British between 1890 upto 1952) just like listed under in Somalia. As for Ethiopia the indigenous states following the fall of Axum i.e. Zagwe dynasty 900-1270, Solomonic dynasty 1270-1706, Zemene Mesafint 1706-1855 and modern Ethiopian empire 1855-1974 were combined under Ethiopian Empire and used to fill the gap between fall of Axum and 1974.

Accepting Axum and rejecting it’s successors as part of Eritrean history is a contradiction and against Wikipedia’s objective which is to inform readers with referenced information. Please provide your opinions and suggestions as to where to begin the history of Eritrea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthiopianHabesha (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is discussed in the History of Eritrea page. You are right, it should be discussed on the country page too. Merhawie (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked Talk:History_of_Eritrea and there is no topic related to this. Besides the topic I want to be discussed is regarding the list under "formation" on Eritrea page so I think this the right page to talk about it.

I apologize, my comment may have been ambiguous. When I said discussed I meant on the page itself, not its Talk page. Merhawie (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

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 [47]. 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 [48]. 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 [49]. 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 [50]. 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 [51]. 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 [52] [53] [54]. 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 [55], Northeast Africa [56], and Eastern Africa [57]. 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 [58]. 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 [59] [60] [61] [62]. 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 [63]. 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 [64].
• 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 [65] -- 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" [66]). 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 [67]. It also draws a geographical distinction between the latter region and East Africa [68], but apparently not with North East Africa [69], 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 [[70]] 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: [71]. 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 [72]. 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 [73]. 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 [74]). 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 [75]. 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 [76]. 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 [77]. 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 [78]. 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 [79], 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 [80]. 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 [81]. Soupforone (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)