Talk:Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Copy edit

Hi CPA-5, I have started working through this one. If you have any queries, object to any of my edits, or don't understand why I have made a particular edit, please feel free to discuss it here.

@CPA-5: We are both doing significant edits at the same time, which is causing edit clashes. Could you let me know when you have finished yours and I am free to make mine? I will then let you know when I have finished. Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh sorry, I'll wait until you are finished. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It is nice that you are so enthusiastic. And I would rather edit after you have made any changes which you think necessary. I am going to get my dinner now, so there will be a pause from me of about an hour. Take longer if you wish - there are plenty of other things I can be doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Bed time for me. I am part way through. See what you think. Feel free to ask questions about anything I have done. See if you can answer any of my questions below. More tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

Gog the Mild's comments

  • "This included sporadic clashes of their militaries". Does this mean that there were incidents in the conflict which were not military clashes?
  • There "were some", by the Ethiopian and Eritrean rebels. However those "incidents", are not inter-rebel conflicts but more like terrorists attacks (they attacked tourists), instead raids or battles against other rebel or paramilitary groups. I changed it a little bit. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Italy paid an indemnity of 10 million Italian liras for their upkeep." Do you know what it was that was being "upkept"? Or was the money in fact just general war reparations?
  • Yes, the payment was a war reparation. CPA-5 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According Abyssinian monarchists' Menelik gave away a sizable portion of Tigray which..." I struggle to understand this. It may help if you could tell me who Menelik was.
  • Menelik is the Ethiopian Emperor at that time also known as Menelik II I thought I linked the name to the Emporor's page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formally asked the Dubats garrison stationed there" What is a Dubats?
  • Dubats are local Somali soldiers, they were employed in Italian military service after World War I. But the word "dubats" shouldn't be capitalised. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5's comments

  • Shouldn't be a dot in every file of the page?
I am unsure. What do you mean by "every file of the page"? (Do you mean the image captions?)
  • Correct.
  • If Emperor Yohannes IV has a reign period like this exemple "Emperor Yohannes IV (r. 1871–1889)" then should Emperor Haile Selassie I need one too unless we delete it?
Yes, quite right.
  • I also think the fitaurari should have a "s" behind the word 'cause of the plural situation or am I wrong?
I am unsure. But first, are you certain that your source states three fituarari? This would be unusual. I would expect, at most, one fituarari, one cagnasmac, and one grasmac. (Fituarari means commander of the advance guard, so why have three advance guards?)
  • Typo in the sense "However, the border between Ethiopia and newly-independent Eretria was not clearly defined.". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as good at this as you, and I'm not seeing the typo! Spotted it! D'oh!
  • Great exept you writed Eritrea as Eritria. Cheers.
  • Can you add for me this information in the page? In October 1997, Ethiopia showed the Eritrean Government a printed map which shows Eritrean claimed areas were part of Ethiopia (by Global Security)[1]
Done. Is that ok?
  • Looks good. Cheers.
  • Hmm, not sure, why you use Abiy in the sense "After the Eritrea–Ethiopia peace summit, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy requested that United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres lift the United Nations' sanctions on Eritrea,". Because above he was appointed as Ahmed in the sense "On 5 June 2018 Ahmed announced that Ethiopia relinquished its claims on the disputed areas and that the conflict with Eritrea was at an end.", this can confuse the readers. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me bad. Well spotted.
  • I think the "I" of Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie I should be part of the link or am I wrong?
True. (It is - very - unusual to have a regnal I when there is not a subsequent monarch with the same name. So I got confused.)
  • That's true, I give you a point for that, but it could confuse the readers by the word I. Cheers.
  • "in March 1941 Britain started an offensive against the Italians in the region." I don't think offensive is a good word for it, it was more a campaign than an offensive?
Changed. Better?
  • Looks beter thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the note section is not important anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am now going out for a while, so feel free to make any corrections you feel appropriate to my edits. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More CPA-5's comments

  • Can you also link this names?
  • Eritrean Liberation Movement
  • Eritrean People's Liberation Front
  • Soviet Union
  • Mareb River
  • United Nations
  • I think this would support the readers in searching those names. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: except I haven't linked Soviet Union nor United Nations because of
MOS:OL
. You can link them if you wish.
  • I'm fine with that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10, (Encyclopædia Britannica) should have "pp. 90–119." instead "p. 90–119.". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35, has three sources (two of them are books), I think they should be split instead be merged as one ref. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49 looks more a foodnote than a source is this allowed? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are PDFs not external links because I'm not sure about that? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts for good article status

Not in any order. Updated as I think of things.

  • Publisher location. Either every book needs this or none. It would probably be easiest to remove it from the two which have it.
  • The publisher's location is indeed not in every book's info page, so yeah sure removing is a good option. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you get this problem again, then WorldCat is your friend. So, for example, Connon and Killion is published in Lanham.

Further queries and comments

  • "The conflict deepened in 2012, when Ethiopia launched an offensive into Eritrean-held territory. Three camps were attacked" Do we know what sort of camps they were? Military camps, refugee camps, etc.
  • BBC News doesn't claim which kinda camps they were. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions. See
    WP:CAPFRAG
    for the use of full stops (periods) in image cations. "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period."

That's it for tonight. I will try to look at some more tomorrow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. See if you can pick up anything else. I think that it is now close to B class. I will start picking up on areas which I think need sorting out to get to GA tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts for good article status

  • As I understand it, the focus of this article is the clashes 2000–2018. Please correct me if I am wrong. If so, then I think that you have too many images from before then. I would only have one of the Italians - I would choose the artillery one to indicate aggression, I don't see what the image of the POWs adds. Similarly I would remove the map of the British offensive; it is not explained in detail in the text, so is potentially confusing, and it distracts from the main point of the article. If you need another picture - I don't think you do - why not one with Ethiopians in it? I like this one.
  • Hmm let me see. Your opinion about the British-led campaigne against Italy image is fine in my view, because of the really small information it has in the page like you said. But I'm a little unsure about the Italians POWs, yes, I think the image is unuseful but in my view, every "section" need atleast one image (maybe I'm wrong in this). Why? Because an image can explain more than only words even it's not necessary (and sometimes not possible). So I think the POWs image should have a replaced image, an image whom still support the readers and is from that time, the campagne image is fine for me. Of course this is just my opnion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's your article and I broadly agree with your comments. Mainly I think that an image of Ethiopians, such as the one I suggested, would balance the next one of Italians (with the gun). But with the "East Africa Campaign northern front" map gone it would not be a big issue. I will leave them with you.
  • Infobox. It says "Eritrea give up all of its claims in Ethiopia". Firstly, what about the other way round as well. Secondly I think that it may be better to say something like 'Eritrea and Ethiopia mutually agreed the line of their border'. Secondly it says "Ongoing sporadic rebel clashes related to the Second Afar insurgency, but you don't mention this in the article. (Also see below on this last point.)
  • I totally agree with you, well atleast the Eritrean victory's part. I think this should be something like "peace treaty was signed" or like you suggested me is also great for me. The Second Afar insurgency part will folow next. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I will leave it to you to make the changes. If I think that the wording or the use of English is not quite right I will edit and leave an explanatory note here.
  • Focus. You have a good and detailed background (possibly even too detailed) and aftermath. But the section on the actual border conflict - post-war era - is quite small. I would have expected to see, for GA, more here. Including more detail on the Battle of Tsorona, something on the 2010 Eritrean–Ethiopian border skirmish, and a discussion of how the clashes fitted into the Second Afar insurgency.
  • Thank you I appreciate your complement. I didn't add detailed informations about the Battle of Tsorona, 2010 Eritrean–Ethiopian border skirmish and/or the Second Afar insurgency, because those articles are really small too. If we take some more informations about those articles, than the articles are unuseful and can be merged into this article, unless this is the only way to make this article a GA-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the Background and Prelude sections are good; the Aftermath section and War Era sub-section are adequate. Even re-reading in the light of your comments I think that the Post war era sub section needs expanding. Possibly you could go through the Second Afar insurgency article, which is essentially a timeline, and turn it into a paragraph or two of prose, summarising the events in that article?

(BTW, I think that "Era" in both titles should have a lower case e.)

  • Done. Cheers.
  • The bibliography (not biography) should include all books mentioned in the citations. Eg, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
  • Oops sorry. If the Encyclopaedia Britannica can be categorised as a book then yes why not add it into the bibliography section. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography should be in alphabetical order.
  • Done. Cheers.
Cite 49. You are quite right. The information there is not a cite. It should be in the text, possibly in brackets, or as a proper footnote. Well spotted.
The "Signing Ceremony" image seems to have a very dodgy free use certificate.
  • I removed the image. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I think of more, I will list them here.
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is about it from me for now. I will leave those thoughts with you. I don't insist that I am correct on any of them. I am just another editor and my opinion has no more weight than anyone else's. I shall keep this on watch and feel free to come back with any queries.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Thanks Gog for your help, I really appreciated it. I'll continue working on this page and which would become (finally) a GA-class too. I also hope this page will become (one day) an A-class and a FA-class as well. Before I will make it a GAN, I would like to have you a mini review or your comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I like to work on thorough, well sourced articles. Sure, when you feel that it needs another look at, feel free to give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Second review

Intro: @Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog, it's almost two weeks ago (damn time goes fast) when we had our review. I think this page is ready for a second review, before I will make it a GA-class nomination. Maybe if I'm still not sure I will add it in the Military history peer review for more tips.

First: Here are the changes I made in the recent weeks.

  • Removed and replaced the images you asked for.
Better, IMHO.
  • Added some more info in the infobox.
Looking good, although see below re "Casualties"
  • Expanded the "War era", "Post-war era" (which I splited into the border conflict and the proxy conflict) and the "Aftermath"
Much better IMO.

Second: I have some questions about this article.

  • Can PDFs be described as external links?
They certainly can.
  • Are the journals or PDFs with some pages described as books?
Depends on the specifics, but normally no. They would either be journals or a web link.
  • Also, I am not sure or all the casualties should go in the infobox, and I hope I'm not wrong with those casualties?
See below.

I hope my edits are not a waste of time, I worked on this article a lot of time (with here and there little breaks). I hope you enjoy reading this page (for the second time).

I do enjoy reading it - otherwise I wouldn't. I am a volunteer just like you and do this for fun. Your edits seem to ne improving the article.

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "n 1" right near the end seems to be broken. (You can't have cites to references in a list of references.) I am not sure what you are trying to do there, or I would fix it myself.
  • Greetings Gog, I thought it would be easier to put eleven sources together. However, if that's not posible, then I don't mind to delete it, or do you have a beter solution? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog, I addressed your last request. Even, I am not sure it should be like this. If it's still not like you'd expected, than feel free to change it, if you see a beter solution. Cheers and happy holidays. CPA-5 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what to next, I think that it is ready to submit for a B class assessment. Assuming that it passes that then I would agree with you that asking for a peer review would be a useful next step.
Casualties in the infobox.
  1. You seem to list the casualties twice - once with the flags, then much the same again as a summary. You only need to do one of these. (Either would be fine.)
  • I don't mind if you delete the summary version.
  1. I would expect to see here only the casualties from the border-conflict, which is what the article is about. Casualties from an earlier war, which is not the subject of the article, do not seem, to me, to be relevant.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit confused because the Eritrean–Ethiopian War casualties are part of the conflict too right? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Apologies for not responding earlier; I thought that I had, I must be going senile.
Ah. Right. So is the article intended to give a summary of all border clashes from 1998 to date? It does say in the infobox that the conflict started in 1998, so I guess that the answer is "yes". But in the lead it states "It consisted of a series of incidents along the then-disputed border, some of which were part of the Second Afar Insurgency. The border conflict was a continuation of the Eritrean–Ethiopian War of 1998–2000." which is what confused me. My fault, not yours. Assuming that the article is intending to cover the 1998-2000 war as well as the border clashes afterwards, I would suggest changing this to something like '"It consisted of a series of incidents along the then-disputed border; including the Eritrean–Ethiopian War of 1998–2000 and the subsequent Second Afar Insurgency.' Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, and I thought I was old (not really). So anyway, your point is, you wanna add the Eritrean–Ethiopian War in the lead. Right? well that's not a big problem. Shall I change it? Also, how about the casualties in the infobox? I now realised, that merging, all the casualties in the infobox, can give the infobox more structere IMO. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The lead is a little unclear on that, so I would make it a bit more overt - either along the lines I suggest, or whatever words you prefer. I am not too sure what you mean; if you like it - go for it. If I think it a mistake I will say so, but it's your article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Also sorry for being a little bit vaguely. what I meant was, I don't want to make the same mistake as before. By rushing the edits in the article, when you or someone else are busy on it, that's why. Anyway what about the casualties? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eritrean–Ethiopian_border_conflict&oldid=1207130098"