Jump to content

Talk:Eritrean–Ethiopian War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article name

Should this article be renamed "Ethiopia-Eritrea Border War"? Ground Zero 19:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No. The name used in the "References" and most of the "External lins" is "Eritrean-Ethiopian War" PBS 08:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. Particularly since border regions are just the setting for the war; the reasons for and conduct of the war are more complex and involve more than just territory. 64.230.111.32 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2005‎ (UTC)

Notes

I have added a few footnotes but the text needs a lot more work in this area. Most of it will involve finding the relevant external link for a particular statement and moving it into the note section. Because of the way that Wikipedia:footnote3 works if a reference is used as a footnote in more than one place it is necessary to place the same reference twice into the notes section. PBS 09:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Casualties ?

The casualty figures ? Ethiopia suffered 10x the casualties of Eritria ? I find that hard to imagine, trench-warfare usualy involves a more even distribution of death. Are there any sources ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.95.200 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point I have done a quick Google on [Ethiopia lost 123,000] it returns "about 378 English pages for Ethiopia lost 123,000". One site which suggests that these are speculative is a blog site with two persons arguing over them [1] [2]. However this site for The Somaliland Times reporduces an article from the The Economist Intelligence Unit (10/25/2005 EIU ViewsWire Ethiopia) with "123,000 Ethiopians killed, principally in the two major assaults in February-June 1999 and May-June 2000". I do not have access the the EUI and this article would need to be checked for authenicity. This page links to an article by the FT reporting the same number, quoting as a source: BBC Monitoring Service. This website gives a breakdown of the Eritrean numbers and this BBC article confirms that Eritrean government has put out this figure.

--PBS 17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the uncertainty of the casualties, I'm wondering if that info should even be provided in the War box as opposed to being explained below. The Eritrean figure was given by a government source, but the Ethiopian figure is unverifiable right now and seems out of proportions (most number give total casualties for both sides as 70-100,000, usually 70k or 80k). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, since the Ethiopian Government has not revealed a count of the war dead at the very least an approximation of the deaths should be provided. If an approximation would be provided it should least Ethiopian losses between 51,000-123,000.
I guess that works. I'll do that and put a superscripted note that links to a quick explanation of the casualty numbers. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 16:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Yom, could you make sure to just put a reference for the 51K number. Just so that everything is properly referenced.--Merhawie 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yom, the Ethiopian casualty figures are Eritrean propaganda. It was first reported by a radio station by an Ethiopian opposition group operating out of Eritrea. It was part of the group that was led by Abraham Yayeh. He has since parted his way with Eritrea and now lives in Sweden.

The 19,000 Eritrean casualty figures were the number given by the Eritrean leader without any additional evidence. It is not possible to take that at face value for the following reasons:

1. First, and most importantly, Eritrea is a closed society. There is no free press and access to outsiders, even to diplomats, is extremely limited.

2. Second, unlike those killed in the liberation war whose name was published, the 1998-2000 war casualties has been kept secret. It is mostly probable those 19,000 were those from urban areas.

--DHM1 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DHM1, you are incorrect about the casualty figures for Eritrea. Actually the name, location/date of death and unit is recorded and was leaked. Also, about the Ethiopian figures, since the only figures we actually have are those cited should we not keep those and note the caveats in the "notes" section? --Merhawie 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put the orginal figures back into the main text. It is non NPOV to move them into a footnote. It is much better to put the dispute up front in the main section. --PBS 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how reference #8 is a valid source. Since the article states that 'some sources claim the figure to be as high as 150,000.' Its a secondary figure with no direct references to support that claim. I ask that it be deleted for that reason alone. Ericandude (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence in The War section

The last sentence of the fifth paragraph in the section labelled The War ("While also lending support to various Eritrean rebel groups including a group known as the Eritrean Islamic Jihad. ") is incomplete. I'm not certain who is being referred to, so I won't try to correct it myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerowyn (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page comments can be signed with ~~~~ and wikipedia will automagically turn them into a signature with a time stamp

I hope that is clearer, but the sentence probably needs a rewrite --PBS 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

Thanks for a solid, informative article. The introduction is solid and concise, and the background section explains quite nicely the causes and events leading up to the war. As someone who, admittedly, had no prior knowledge of these events, I'd say overall the article is very well-written. There are lots of wikilinks, a good detailed description of the arbitration and aftermath, and an extensive set of external links. I'm also fond of the inclusion of the countries' flags in the infobox. As for improvements, the main things that stick out to me are the lack of a picture in the infobox, the "Unknown"s under Commanders, and the lack of a campaignbox. It would appear from your description that much of the fighting involved non-governmental militant groups such as the Oromo Liberation Front. So, the situation is more complex than simply that of two nations fighting one another directly. Nevertheless, if we do not have available the names of commanders or generals on the ground, can we not include the names of the heads of state of Ethiopia and Eritrea? It'd be better than Unkown, to my mind. And as for the campaignbox, that depends entirely on whether or not the war can be broken down into specific named battles, and whether or not any of these battles are significant enough to have entire articles on them. So, I leave that up to you as well. It is not necessary. Sorry to go on for so long not saying much... Overall, a nice solid effort. Thanks. LordAmeth 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The non-governmental troops were mainly secondary and not important in the actual war, but important in its causes and reasons for its prolongation. Can you explain what exactly made it seem as if they were prominent so that I can look at it? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I just mis-read it. In the section where you first mention the Oromo Liberation Front, I thought I had gotten the impression that much of the fighting was between these non-governmental rebel groups. Serves me right for skimming and not really reading through. Sorry. LordAmeth 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of Prewar events

Path to war

In April 1997 the Deputy Administrator of the Gash-Barka Region of Eritrea and Vice President of the Tigray Region of Ethiopia hold a meeting to discuss cross-border issues. The village of Badme is located in these regions. Three months later in July 1997, Ethiopian soldiers and militia enter disputed territories between the two countries. Local Eritrean administrative structures are dissolved and replaced with an Ethiopian administration.

High level conversations between Eritrean and Ethiopian administrators led to an exchange of letters between the President of Eritrea, Isaias Afewerki, and the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi. The following are excerpts from this exchange:

"It cannot be said that the border between our two countries is demarcated clearly although it is known traditionally. Be this as it may, there have been intermittent disputes in the border areas arising form different and minor causes. Local officials have been striving to defuse and solve these problems amicably. However, the forcible occupation of Adi Murug by your army in the past few days is truly saddening. I...urge you to personally take the necessary prudent action so that the measure that has been taken will not trigger unnecessary conflict."(President of Eritrea to Prime Minister of Ethiopia dispatched on August 16, 1997)[1]
"We believe we can ease the tension concerning the borders on the basis of the understanding reached previously between your team and our colleague (Tewolde). Perhaps, it is also necessary to settle the border demarcation issue after the necessary preparations are carried out by both sides."(Prime Minister of Ethiopia to President of Eritrea)[1]
"Regarding the situation in the border areas, my information establishes that the measures taken at Adi Murug were not in areas that are undisputed but in our own areas and by expelling our officials and dismantling the existing administration. In order to expediently check any further deterioration and pave the way for a final solution, we have assigned on our part three officials (Defence Minister Sebhat Ephrem; PFDJ Head of Political Affairs, Yemane Ghebreab; and National Security Advisor, Abraha Kassa) I suggest that you also similarly (or in ways you think best) assign officials so that both sides can meet as soon as possible to look into these matters."(President of Eritrea to Prime Minister of Ethiopia dispatched on August 25, 1997)[1]

In Fall of 1997, following the issue of a new map of Tigray by the Ethiopian Mapping Authority [2], Ethiopian troops were deployed to the Bure front. On 6 May 1998 Ethiopian troops fired on an Eritrean military patrol near Badme. Subsequently on May 13, 1998 the Parliament of Ethiopia and Council of Ministers issued a resolution demanding, "...the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Eritrean forces..."[3] The following day the Eritrean Government called for peace and invited neutral parties to examine the circumstances leading to the incident of May 6.[4]



Yom, good point, I will take on the rewrite, thanks for pointing that out!--Merhawie 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There have recently been edits by an IP that have repeatedly added copyrighted material (from dehai) into the article, as well as plenty of POV. I recommend that we discuss any and all significant changes or changes that could be controversial on the talk page before changing the text of the article. I have removed the copyrighted material and fixed some awkward wording. I also uncapitalized "final and binding" (incorrect grammar) and put it in quotation marks to show that it is not our words. Since the final and binding nature is made clear in the sentence 2 sentences before it, I removed the adjectives "final and binding" from the sentence regarding Ethiopia's rejection of the ruling, as it is unnecessary, and to stress it would be POV (which applies to stressing anything in the article). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Merhawie, please post it here before incorporating it on the article page. The chronology is from an Eritrean perspective and therefore has POV if incorporated as is. Even if the wording is made neutral, the events it chooses to incorporate and chooses not to are important. Once you post it here, I'll add some more events to try to balance it out, and then we can discuss which events merit inclusion and which do not. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Yom, check this out, edit to your delight, or add sources (I put it at the top so we can discuss below it)--Merhawie 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Needs some rewriting for grammar and the like, but okay on the first part, with some reservations. For one, it should specify that "disputed territories" refers to Addi Murug, as otherwise it makes it seem as if it's referring to Badme. Secondly, it doesn't describe the incident in enough detail, as (from Dagmawi) the action was against the Eritrean liberation front ARDUF, was already announced, and was coordinated with the Eritrean Army. A mention that no fighting took place is probably helpful. According to Dagmawi, no evidence of Eritrean administration of the region has been presented, however. There should also be mention of the 14 November 1997 meeting in Asmara that decided that the status quo should be kept until the issue was permanently resolved. Regarding the second half, the description of events in 1998 is too short. For one, there's no mention of the May 8th meeting scheduled in March to discuss border issues. Regarding the 6 May issue, the wording is a bit misleading. It should specify that the patrol entered the disputed Badme area (then under Ethiopian control) before being fired on by Ethiopian police, as it was not simply near the area. I've also read that the police reminded the troops to leave before the fight and that it was the Eritrean soldiers who opened fire first; what do your sources state? Discussion of the 8 May meeting should be included as well, such as the agreement that Eritrean troops should leave Badme, the status quo be upheld until a final decision (reaffirming the November talks) and the scheduling of another meeting for two months later in Asmara. Your second part also completely ignores the movement of Eritrean troops into the Badme region and the undisputed Shiraro region on 12 May. I do not believe the 13 May resolution declared war, actually, but rather condemned the agression and demanded a withdrawal. See here for more chronology details. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said, edit to your hearts content and we can add sources as they become available. If you see something missing add it. Also remember however that ARDUF is not an Eritrean liberation front, or one supported by Eritrea. It is an Ethiopian organization.--Merhawie 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's Ethiopian. It's an (former?) Afar organization promoting the separation of Southeastern Eritrea to be merged with the Autonomous Ethiopian Afar Region. I'm not quite sure if it further proposes the secession of this state from Ethiopia or not. Either way, we can simply describe it's affiliation rather than whether it's "Ethiopian" or "Eritrean." — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Whatever, you say, though it probably should have its own stub or article instead of being described in this article. Note the following site (its where I understood it to be Ethiopian):http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ARDUF

Caption for infobox photo?

There's no caption or explanation as to what's displayed in the infobox photo. --NEMT 07:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for this?

The war was famously likened to, 'two bald men fighting over a comb.' The governments of both countries are widely accused of using the conflict as a basis for suppressing internal dissent.

Who famously likened the war to two bald men fighting over a comb? What is the source for the claim that the governments of both countries used the war as an excuse to supress internal dissent? Are there multiple sources for this, considering the claim is made that this claim is widely made? --Kieran Bennett 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Er...I'm not sure, but I know Ruth Iyob makes reference to this in one of her publications, so it's not made up. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct Yom. Ruth Iyob was refering to an article in the Financial Times which had described it has such. The comment however is as irrelevant to the article as similar comments (e.g. "senseless border conflict"). In fact the comment has been used in describing many other conflicts and is not unique to this conflict. The Financial times article was published on 1998-05-21. I hope this helps. --Merhawie 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I know she didn't coin it. I was saying that the phrase was definitely one that has been used before, and used her citation of it as an example. That information is useful, however. It's good to know the original source. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Background

The following was added by MarkSwansonReporter, I moved it here to discuss. I am actually quite on the wall for this addition.

A number of cultrul factors also came into play in this war, which was never reported, it was the complex relationshiop that can broadly be called cultural. One could be described as a question of perception.The EPLF had given training and soccour to the TPLF in its early stages and tended to treat the movement as its younger brother. Ordinary Tigrians not involved in politics of the Front also felt patronised by Eritreans. They hade for many hears taken low paid, low status jobs in Eritrea as casual labrourers and domestic servants. Tigrians were denigrated as Agames-a term that implied that they were all uncouth peasants. Most of the Tigrians were working in Eritrea were hired as labrouers. Some got work slaughtering farm animals, while others took up jobs such as woodcutters, potters and shepherds. Women were hired as waitresses, housemaids and washer-women. Many prostitutes in Asmara were Tigrians. Eritreans on the other hands used their skills and capital to buy into or build up business in Ethiopia. Class, privileges, snobbery and envy were unspoken elements that ate away at the relationship the fronts and were one of the hidden elements that egnited and fuled the border war.[5]

Still not quite sure about it. --Merhawie 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's blatant POV that has nothing to do with the true causes of the war. It's pure speculation. While background should be given, it should be facts and information, not subjective stereotypes. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Though I do not doubt the subjectivity, and the fact that is an argument based solely on stereotypes, I have heard the argument before. In this case it is repeated by a BBC reporter (not this lends the argument any more credence) and should perhaps be included only to provide all the perspectives...but again, like I said earlier, I am very much on the wall about it... --Merhawie 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yom, this is blatant Eritrean lie. Please give me a few days. I will get you hard evidence, including an extensive research by a British University professor for the cause of the war. The main cause of the war was Eritrean frustration in its ability to stand by itself after Ethiopia started limiting its access to its economy. Ethiopia demanded all trades exchanges other that minor border trade under2 2,000 Birr be conducted in hard currency. In addition, Ethiopia started closing illegal business that was being opened using Eritrean living in Ethiopia as front which even included a bank.

At the same time, the Eritreans were resentful at the development that was going on in Tigray. They saw that as a threat to their economy. Less than a year before the war, senior Eritrean officials including the president visited these factories, specifically the Mesebo Cement and Mesfin Industrial in Mekele and Addis Pharmaceutical in Adigrat. The first attack ordered was to destroy those plants. Here is the news report from Associated Press and Times of London on the issue. [3] [4]

Additional point I would like to make is, the Eritreans unable to destroy an targets launched attacks targeting innocent civilians. On June 5, 1998, the Eritreans targeted the north central part of Mekele where there is no military target resulting in deaths of 43 children and wounding of hundreds. That Eritrea's intentions were deliberate was confirmed four days later when Eritrean air force commander, Habtezion Hadgu, was quoted by the AP as saying ``This is tit for tat -- one to 100, that's the exchange rate." (Reuters, June 9, 1998).

During the proceedings of the claims commission, Eritrea refused to cooperate or answer any questions to the attack on the civilians in Mekele. The commission, after noting Eritrea's refusal to cooperate, found Eritrea liable and ordered it to pay compensation to all the victims. It is well documented in the following document. [5]

--DHM1 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC) == Actually, I believe Yom that the agreement had been proposed already and Ethiopia chose not to agree to it until it had pressed on militarily. --Merhawie 19:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

20 August 2007

Some of the changes made today need to be discussed before they are implemented.

1) commander Ethiopian forces was Tsadkan Gebretensae suggested change to Samora Mohammed Yunus or Samora Mohammad Yunis with a reference to http://www.ethiopianreview.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=22879#22879 which does not seem to be a reliable source. Is there a reliable source that can sort this issue.


2)"Eritrea, claiming that several Eritrean officials had been murdered near Badme, invaded with a large, mechanized force." to "Eritrea, claiming that several Eritrean officials had been murdered near Badme on their way back from the peace talks held by the set up commission, then responded with a well equiped force." is there a source for either version the second cited source

Brothers at War: Making Sense of the Eritrean-Ethiopian War (Eastern African Series) by T. Negash, K. Tronvoll, Ohio University Press ISBN 0821413724.

Seems to be broken. I think this whole first paragraph on the war needs better sources to cover what is said. (I seem to have read it in the BBC new reports but can not remember which one).

3)Uncommenting the hidden text at the bottom of the article looks terrible and it is not clear why it has been done. Can User:Solomondagnew please explain the reason for doing so. --PBS 19:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I took care of 1), the link added by Solomon Dagnew has been removed (it is not reliable), and the text at the bottom is already currently hidden (point 4)). I'll look into finding a source for 2). Was "Brothers at War," supposed to be the source, or is that just a side issue not related to the sentence? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Brothers at War" is cited so presumably it is a source for the sentence. --PBS 08:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

From the article history: "Yom (restoring Tsadkan with reliable source. Samora Yunis was a Major General (or Lieutenant General), Tsadkan Gebre-Tensae was Chief of Staff & of Ground forces)" Chief of staff is not usually the commander, all senior commanders have a chief of staff (The Adjutant preforms a similar function at regimental level). --PBS 08:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One other point on this. If this chap was head of the Ethopian military, he may have had an army commander who commanded all ground forces in theatre. For example in Persian Gulf War Norman Schwarzkopf was commander of the forces engaged in the battle, but above him in the food chain were some other generals including Carl E. Vuono (Chief of Staff of the United States Army), but he would not have been listed as commander, nor would William J. Crowe, Jr. (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). In a smaller military it is very possible that the equivelant in rank to Vuono ran the show, but can this be noted in a footnote, because in a lot of military structures a rank of "chief of staff" would not command. --PBS 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is still a bit confused, because other sources give him the title "Lieutenant General" and others "Major General." However the source I added says he was not only Chief of staff, but also "commander of ground forces" from 1991 to 2001. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Start of the conflict

I have removed one sentence with a reference for further discussion:

Eritrea, claiming that several Eritrean officials had been ambushed and murdered by the Tigrean militia near Badme, enters into the town to punish the culprits who were identified to be the murderes of the Eritrean peace delegates (http://www.tfanus.com.er/infopedia/denden.com/Conflict/newscom/com-alem98.htm)

Are there any neutral sources that can coroberate this version of events. Putting "murderes of the Eritrean peace delegates" is not a NPOV unless it comes from a neutral source (not one on a website in Eritrea!) --PBS 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, it is inappropriate to say that simply because an article comes from a certain place does not mean it is not neutral. I believe it is the language of the piece that would determine it as such. --Merhawie 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is reliable information then it ought to be available from other sources. If it is not, then it is probably not notable enough to be included in this article.

As to the neutrality of otherwise I would direct you to the sentence "This triggered off a chain reaction on both sides that culminated in the May 13, 1998 declaration of war by the Ethiopian Parliament." Yet as the Wikipedia article notes with a citation "The Claims Commission found that this was in essence an affirmation of the existence of a state of war between belligerents not a declaration of war and that Ethiopia also notified the United Nations Security Council, as required under Article 51 of the UN Charter."

Also I can not find the paragraph in the above URL that supports the sentence it was cited to support. --PBS 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That PBS for responding so quickly. Are you questioning the reliability or the neutrality of the statement. Obviously those are two different things. The reliability should not be in question, only its neutrality. The Commission decision is ex post facto and does not necessarily contradict the articles; it is simply the conclusion of a third party. Anyway, my point was that just because it comes from Eritrea does not mean it is not NPOV, which was implied by your earlier statement. --Merhawie 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the URL http://www.tfanus.com.er/infopedia/ returns Eritrea Electronic Infopedia a Demonstration of Internet Applications then what is left is "denden.com/Conflict/newscom/com-alem98.htm". If that is put into URL form: www.denden.com/Conflict/newscom/com-alem98.htm same page. Then we look at www.denden.com/ and it returns "DENDEN is a leading edge Internet consulting company. We provide professional web technology services to small-to-medium-size companies, organizations, communities and individuals." so looking at www.denden.com/Conflict returns "If you are not automatically redirected to 'http://www.dehai.org/conflict', click here" and www.dehai.org is according to the article page "This site is developed and maintained by Denden LLC and dehai.org. The site was initially developed by the Eritrean Media and Information Task Force (Badme Task Force), a volunteer group of Eritrean-Americans in the Washington Metropolitan Area." Do you think the first entry of the site's FAQ is accurate given the wording of the Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission? I don't but I do find it is "on message" with the entry in this URL http://dehai.org/conflict/articles/alemsghed.html which is the same text as the original URL (http://www.tfanus.com.er/infopedia/denden.com/Conflict/newscom/com-alem98.htm) as used in the article and mentioned above.

It is not that an Eritrean or Ethiopian web site are necessarily bias and therefor less reliable than another sites, but in the words of WP:RM "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and claims that the other side did this or that naughty thing in a war needs the support of a neutral source to be woven into the text of a Wikipdia article in the neutral voice of the article -- because as the old adage goes "the first casualty of war is the truth"[6]. That is not to say that the same information can not be included as an accusation by XYX, but if it is then for reasons of a Neutral Point of Views the explanation of events by ABC should be included as well. --PBS 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Trombatore

Given [7], [8] and [9] (not sure they are of the same person!) but nevertheless is Giorgio Trombatore a relable source for

However, Ethoipia is also accused of supporting rebels opposed to the Eritrean government ("Eritrea: new war situation". Retrieved 2007-11-25.).

AFAICT even if he is the source does not support the statement. --PBS (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I will change the citation to a BBC article. --Merhawie (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Chronology

Currently the article says

Eritrea accepted the OAU peace plan on 27 February 1999.[29][30] Ethopia did not immediately stop its advance because it demanded that peace talks be contingent on an Eritrean withdrawal from territory occupied since the first outbreak of fighting. Ethiopia launched an offensive that broke through the Eritrean lines between Shambuko and Mendefera, crossed the Mareb River, and cut the road between Barentu and Mendefera, the main supply line for Eritrean troops on the western front of the fighting.[31]

By May 2000, Ethiopia occupied about a quarter of Eritrea's territory, displacing 650,000 people[32] and destroying key components of Eritrea's infrastructure. The Eritreans claimed they withdrew from the disputed border town of Zalambessa and other disputed areas on the central front as a "...'goodwill' gesture to revive peace talks"[33] while Ethiopia claimed it was a 'tactical retreat' to take away one of Ethiopia's last remaining excuses for continuing the war,[34] ("The scale of Eritrean defeat was apparent when Eritrea unexpectedly accepted the OAU peace framework."[35]). Having recaptured the most of the contested territories — and heard that Eritrean government in accordance with a request from the Organisation of African Unity would withdraw from any other territories it occupied at the start of fighting — on 25 May 2000, Ethiopia declared the war was over

But what are the details of what happened between February 1999 and May 2000. Why did the war not stop in February 1999? How had the front lines changed between the two dates? What where the dates of the offensives between these two dates and what if any disputed territory were the Eritreans holding at the cessation of hostilities? --PBS (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In Chronology, text says: "The Eritrean defences were eventually overtaken by a surprise Ethiopian pincer movement on the Western front...". And then Aftermath says: "After Eritrea defeated the Ethiopian army, killing 123,000 Ethiopian soldiers... ". This is a bit haotic to me, Ethiopians penetrated Eritrean lines and conquered quarter of territory, and suddenly we jump to Eritrean victory? (User:YossarianBa) 20.54 13th June 2008.

"After Eritrea defeated the Ethiopian army, killing 123,000 Ethiopian soldiers... " was added a couple of days ago, without attribution. I've reverted the edit. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am just reading book "A history of Ethiopia - updated edition" by Harold G. Marcus. Here are few quotes, I do not know whether and how to include them in article: (page 256) "The Ethiopian army attacked with overwhelming force at Badme on 23 February 1999. The Eritrean command had assumed that Meles's forces would follow Mengistu's tactics by attacking head-on. Instead, the Ethiopian high command concentrated artillery, armour, and manpower at two points along a sixty-kilometer front and, over two days, blasted through Eritrean lines using tanks as bulldozers. Thousands of Ethiopian soldiers rushed through the gaps, rolled up the flanks, fired into trenches, and broke the enemy, who fled before them. So overconfident were the Eritreans that they had prepared only one trench line in defense, and they therefore had no fortifications to fall back upon and no reserves closer than Barentu, across the Mareb river."

This tactics tells me that numbers of 123.000 killed Ethiopians are probable too large, more like myth.

(page 257)The Eritrean retreat was so chaotic that the victors could have marched far into Eritrea - some say to Asmera - had they wanted to. But, after advancing only twenty kilometers to take the Badme plains, the Ethiopians stopped, a fact that contradicts Eritrea's later charge that Addis Abeba sought its reintegration into Ethiopia. The defeat at Badme was not masked by Asmera's usual claims that it was redeploying its troups, because on 27 February Eritrea officialy accepted the OAU plan to end the war, commenting that its whitdrawal from Badme showed its good faith. Although the Eritreans claimed that Ethiopia had lost tens of thousands of men in "human wave" attacks, the Addis Abeba denied using such tactics. As General Tsadkan later explained, "Some journalists have painted a very ugly picture of the Ethiopian defense force, portraying us as a mass of flesh with no brain (The Monitor, 13 August 2000). In fact, the Eritreans also took heavy casualties, and thousands were taken prisoner as the trenches failed them."

"In late May and June, the Eritreans counterattacked but failed to regain Badme" YossarianBa —Preceding unsigned comment added by YossarianBa (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

YossarianBa please can you supply the publisher, year and ISBN for the book you are quoting from at the moment we cover this attack with:
Following the first five days of military set back at Badme, by which time Ethiopia broken through Eritrea's fortified front and was 10 kilometers (six miles) deep into Eritrean territory, Eritrea accepted the OAU peace plan on 27 February 1999. While both states said that they accepted the OAU peace plan, Ethopia did not immediately stop its advance because it demanded that peace talks be contingent on an Eritrean withdrawal from territory occupied since the first outbreak of fighting.
which covers the same incident, there are some more details on the battle which could be included, eg "overwhelming force" and a "two pronged pincer movement allowing them to role up the font in that sector" and one discrepancy the current sources say 10K not 20K, perhaps that could be changed to "between 10 and 20k". However those are minor details. What is more interesting is what happened after that attack from June 1999 May 2000, does the book cover the fighting during this period because currently we do not have any thing on this? --PBS (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A History of Ethiopia Updated Edition (Paperback) by Harold G. Marcus

  1. Publisher: University of California Press; 1 edition (January 7, 2002)
  2. Language: English
  3. ISBN-10: 0520224795
  4. ISBN-13: 978-0520224797

I am a bit busy, but will check about that period u mention Philip. User:YossarianBa(talk) 13:47, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Conflicting citations

Citations [2] and [16] claim differing results. Please remedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazySlyHawk (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They refer to two different things. The Claims Comission awarded Badme and Tserona to Eritrea, which is viewed as a "victory" for Eritrea. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article lopsided in favor of Ethiopia?

Come on, Ethiopian sources to give claims to Eritrean military death counts?

This article reads as if it's the Ethiopian government giving you their version of the story. This is probably due to the fact that the majority of the contributers are pro Ethiopians or Ethiopians themselves. This article is as bad as reading the Ethiopia page, which reads as if its some sort of a tourist pamphlet... It would seem the people with the most time on their hands and with the most people vouching for their version of the story (buddies ganging up), has more weight than the actual neutral based story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BejaBeja (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have alternative reliable source there is no reason for not adding them. As in many wars the number of dead is an estimate and ranges are the norm. However you comments on other editors are unwarranted please read WP:Assume good faith --PBS (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes on 24 July 2009

I reverted the changes made by user:Reenem because information was added which is not in the current citations. For example the first addition was: "The Ethiopians used several mechanized brigades which amounted to 120 tanks and 40,000 troops backed by heavy artillery." but the citation that covers the paragraph to that point is "World: Africa Hundreds killed in Horn , BBC, 16 March 1999" which does not have that information in it.

If additional information is to be added then it must come from reliable sources and those sources must be cited. --PBS (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think PBS meant to link to WP:SOURCES. And there is enough of a problem with reliable sources on this conflict that it would be best to source almost all of this article. In my recent reading, I encountered one article on this war which claimed that Eritrea's initial assault on Badme was a complete surprise to the Ethiopians (the author alleges that Meles Zenawi immediately called Isaias Afewerki -- who had been until then a close personal confidant -- & demanded an explanation), & shortly after that another article which claimed the initial Eritrean attack was in response to years of Ethiopian encroachment on Eritrean territory. Both articles were published in academic periodicals that I had found thru JSTOR! -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath in Eritrea

Not only did Eritrea lose the war and was internationally blamed for starting the war, but the war pretty much destroyed the fledgling democracy in Eritrea, and Eritrea aligned itself with forces in Somalia whom the U.S. considers closely-aligned with al-Qaeda, thereby antagonizing the United States... More of this could be mentioned AnonMoos (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV needed. Additional analysis refutable Merhawie (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever -- you could have said "sources needed", but what serious non-partisan commmentators or historians dispute that the war had extremely negative consequences for Eritrea? AnonMoos (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That was not among the questionable comments I suggested. My NPOV suggestion came as a result for an omission of some pretty important facts, for instance:
  • acknowledgement of Ethiopian occupation of sovereign Eritrean land
  • continued violations of international agreements by Ethiopia
  • Eritrea continued its history of accepting the results of binding arbitration, regardless of its result
When it comes to the Somali question, Eritrea has always supported the peaceful reunification of Somalia. It was only in 2006 that there was a realistic chance of this happening. To that end, Eritrea saw an opportunity to finally bring a peaceful end to the Somali question by hosting a conference, for a number of reasons it failed. However, the Somali issue does not deserve an in depth discussion here because it is not related to the conflict directly although some commentators would suggest as much. A discussion of that may be warranted but I have not been convinced any more is. As for the democracy question, it is continuing to be consolidated. If you are questioning the issue of elections specifically there have been regional and judicial elections, typically the question is only regarding that of the national elections, of course, this cannot occur if Eritrean territory is still under occupation. Of course the discussion (in-depth) of this topic is not warranted here but in the appropriate Eritrean politics page. Finally, let us recall the United States is not a neutral actor in this conflict as it trains the Ethiopian military, subsidizes its general national budget and protects it in the international arena from criticism. I do not see any discussion of this fact here either, although I think it should be noted, particular in the foreign relations section of Ethiopia. I hope I was clear and not too wordy, let me know if you have further questions or comments though, I would be happy to continue any discussion. Merhawie (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever -- I wasn't taking any position on who was morally right, just pointing out that the war has had lop-sidedly negative consequences for Eritrea. And the government of the United States of America (under two administrations) is convinced that Eritrea plays a deeply unconstructive and rather pernicious role in Somalian affairs -- which has been another negative consequence for Eritrea... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

5 January 2010

I have reverted the good faith edits made Reenem on 4/5 January 2010 because:

  • 1 claims such as 10,000 dead are not in the cited sources.
  • The images do no have a fair use rational for this article and are probably a copyright violation.

-- PBS (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Regional Destabilization

I believe this section ought to be removed because it is only tangential related to the War. Some have argued, including Dan Connell that the destabilization is a consequence of a broader conflict not this conflict directly. Furthermore, the dynamics discussed in the paragraph were in place before the War. This article is about the War and not the broader situation Merhawie (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Battles?

There is no run-down or list of the battles that made up the war in this article. FOARP (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing tag

I tagged the article as {{confusing}} and User:Gyrofrog quite fairly asked on my talk page that I explain: I came to check out the article because of some apparent switching of the info box tags regarding who won. On reading the article it I found it confusing that the article states in the prelude that the two countries had fought a bitter revolution but that they then set up a commission to resolve the border dispute because they were such close allies. It also indicates something between a draw and a clear Ethiopian victory and says that Eritrea was found to be the aggressor but says that Eritrea was the victor in the international court. The article is long and I did not read the whole thing. I should be able to figure out who won from the lede. I can't. I didn't see anything in the lede or the first few paragraphs to indicate Eritrea won anything.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that without knowing the history the prelude section was not clear. I have rewritten it. See if that clear it up for you. I have not made any changes to the lead section because I think it is clear.
The box say:
  • Ethiopian military victory,
  • Eritrean international court victory
The lead says:
  • At the end of the war Ethiopia held all of the disputed territory and had advanced into Eritrea.
  • After the war ended, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, a body founded by the UN, established that Badme, the disputed territory at the heart of the conflict, belongs to Eritrea.
  • As of 2011, Ethiopia still occupies the territory.

What is confusing about that? -- PBS (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unused references

A note with cites long commented out in the article and moved here

Hidden until used

  1. ^ Ethiopian KIA
    • This news archive page at the web site of the Oromo Liberation Front links to an article "Ethiopia: Number of war dead soldiers reportedly 123,000" by the FT, quoting as a source: BBC Monitoring Service. The FT website is a subscription one and the article still has to be verified.

by Dalit Llama (see Revision as of 23:21, 5 October 2011) and placed in a collapse box by PBS (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Good work so far, I just gave the article a thorough reading and copy edit. It's generally well organized and does not seem to have any kind of problematic POV. It is also generally well referenced and the sources are good. I made a bunch of changes myself but here are some things that I thought I would comment on rather than go ahead with. I'm not going to do the GA review at this time, but future GA reviewers can use these comments or ignore them.

  • I think there needs to be a map that shows Badme and the other cities mentioned, at least the major ones where fighting took place. The map of Eretria doesn't show enough detail. Maybe a series of maps is needed with closer views at the border, they can be put near the text that talks about each major city fighting occurred in.
  • Define "human waves" inline
  • I noticed one book used as a ref uses the "cite web" template.
  • The sentence about a quarter of Eritrean soldiers being women seems stuck in at random to the paragraph it's in. I like the statistic and don't think it should be gotten rid of, and at the moment can't think of anywhere else to stick it. Can you find any other demographic info on the armies?
  • The article says Thousands more remain in Eritrea, many of whom are unable to pay the 1,000 Birr tax on Ethiopians relocating to Ethiopia. What happens to them when they don't pay it? The next sentence is about internment, are we to infer that they intern you if you can't pay?
  • It might be good to have a mention of the 650,000 displaced in the displacement and casualties section. What happened to them after, were they able to return home? Where did they go?
  • as of 2006, there is new fear that the two countries could return to war. Is there any updated info more recent than 2006?
  • At the November 2007 deadline, some analysts feared the restart of the border war but the date passed without any conflict. What is this the deadline from? If it's mentioned in the article I'm not seeing it.
  • others say Ethiopia is bogged down in Mogadishu. What's happening in Mogadishu? Ideally provide a little parenthetical, or at least give a link.
  • I think the massive quotes about the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission and the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission explaining what each is in difficult-to-read legalese are unnecessary and should be removed. All that's needed is a quick sentence explaining what each is. The reader gets bogged down wading through all that, and it's not that central to the article to be devoting that much time to it. There are still 2 large quotes without those.
  • I might not be familiar with current practice, but why are there separate references and footnotes sections? Could the references section (with only 2 refs) be incorporated into the footnotes?

In general I'd say the article should be fleshed out more, with more detail added to the sections on the conflict, the effects in the region, the international response, and the effects on the people living in the two countries before it's considered for GA. I think the section on aftermath could stand a little more organization and updating, so the reader finishes the article with a sense of what's going on there as of 2012. The Continuing conflicts section should summarize the 2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish per WP:SUM. In general great work though, keep it up! delldot ∇. 19:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eritrean–Ethiopian War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 06:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article as it is at the moment is going to fail this nomination. My primary concerns are that it is not comprehensive enough or written well enough. That is not to say that either of these issues are horrible, I just don't feel that they're meeting GA standards at this time. The article could certainly be brought up to GA standards with some work. From a look at the history the article is not being worked on actively, the GA nominator only made a couple edits adding references already there. I have left some suggestions for improvement on the talk page the other day, anyone is welcome to use them at any time if they are found useful.

The article is fairly well referenced although there are many unsourced facts as well. Sources should be added for those.

My concern with the writing style is that in some places the article is poorly organized and difficult to read. For example, the Aftermath section deals with the close of the war, and death toll, people displaced, etc. comes before this section. The section doesn't proceed completely chronologically either. In some cases, sentences are too long or wordy. I made some copy edits to the article when I was reading over it the other day but I think it needs a more comprehensive copy edit.

With comprehensiveness, my concerns are that some of the aspects are not covered in very much depth. e.g. there's one sentence about demographics of one army, how about more info on the armies' demographics? How about some followup with what happened to refugees and people not displaced in the Aftermath section? I made other suggestions the other day on the talk page. Some concepts are not fleshed out, e.g. as I mentioned "human waves" and "bogged down in Mogadishu". The Continuing conflicts section should summarize the 2010 Eritrea–Ethiopia border skirmish per WP:SUM.

The lack of the map image I requested is not a deal breaker but I think it would be really crucial for understanding the conflicts, where they took place, how far apart they were, much of Eritrea the Ethiopian army ended up occupying at the end of the conflict, etc.

[Edit]: One more thing I forgot to mention, I think the lead should be expanded to summarize the article more fully per WP:LEAD.

Again, I think this is a good start, just not ready for GA status at this time. Definitely let me know if you're interested in more suggestions or help in improving the article, or if you have anything to discuss. delldot ∇. 06:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Negasso Gidada or Meles Zenawi

I am removing the name reinserted with this this edit as neither name is supported with a citied source. The name "Tsadkan Gebre-Tensae" was inserted with a source with this edit on 21 August 2007, if any other name is added it should only be done if it is supported with a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for a source for a commonly known fact that the head of state of Ethiopia is the prime minister. It is supported by hundreds of sources including the 1995 Constitution of Ethiopia. Unless you are suggesting that we need a source to list the head of state of a country as a leader, which is ridiculous and not consistent with any other conflict article. I have edited as per WP:CITEKILL. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy Verifiability is quite clear and you are breaching it: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material" (WP:BURDEN ). What you have linked to, WP:CITEKILL, is an essay it is not policy. There have been two different claims as to who was a commander, so clearly there is a need for a citation.
There is only one citation in that square and that was for another fact therefore you need another citation that specifically supports the fact that the person you include was a commander during the war. Head of state is not good enough, as for example the queen of the United Kingdom is head of state, but the British monarch is not included these boxes because she takes no active part in military decisions. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Citation #29 of article contains all the sources you need. As per WP:INFOBOX, the infobox is not intended to have any new info. It is intended to summarize facts in the article. Please revert your last edit.
I do not need a source to state that the sky is blue or that the queen of England is no longer directly involved in political affairs.
Correction: Negasso Gidada was the Head of State. Meles Zenawi was the Head of Government. Just like your example, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The article also refers several times to EPRDF as the then ruling party making command decisions. As the head of EPRDF, this is an indirect reference to Meles Zenawi. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Constitution of Ethiopia states:
  • "The President of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is the Head of State."
  • "The Highest executive powers of the Federal Government are vested in the Prime Minister and in the Council of Ministers."
Would you like me to keep going? Or have I proved my point. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
If you add information to the article then I would like you to provide "a reliable source that directly supports the material". -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Who makes military decisions depends on various factors. One of which is the constitution. For example in the case of Britain the issuing of directives (not orders as they are civilians and not soldiers) is done by a war subcommittee of the Cabinet which has collective responsibility. In the case of the US (depending the scale of the war) the decision is with the US President because it is a presidential system in which executive power resides with president as head of the armed forces (not all presidential systems place executive power in the hands of a president). So in this case if a person is to appear in the box there ought to be a citation that directly supports their involvement in military operations. -- PBS (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Simple question, if UK became involved in a war today. Would you require a citation to include the Prime Minister in the Infobox. Even if the article never mentions David Cameron, no one would question his inclusion in the infobox as the head of the Cabinet. There is no difference here. This is clearly WP:CITEKILL.
Sorry about the spelling correction. Natural reaction.— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes they would. The last war which Britain fought without being a member of a coalition was the Falklands War, clearly most editors of that page (who will be British) do not think it necessary to include Mrs T. Or see The Troubles or a small confrontations such as British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War. If you want to include the leaders and they were involved in operational decisions, then it should be easy to find sources, if not and you include them the you are committing a syn (peccavi)-- PBS (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The citation already exists in the article. If you want it repeated, here you go. Note this is the exact sentence used as a source for the last sentence of Prelude section.

Isayas gambled wrongly, as Meles, under great pressure from his party and the Tigray home base — hard hit by the invasion — as well as the wider public, did not deescalate and had to respond by force.

This is a ridiculous use of a citation. You should review your understanding of what the intended purpose of a INFOBOX is. Perhaps consider some WP:COMMONSENSE:

Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective...

The examples you gave list no commanders and leaders. Therefore, they prove absolutely nothing. Perhaps, you fail to realize the difference between a conflict in a far away territory to a two-year long war between two neighboring countries. This did not involve allied forces with a chosen general. It was a war between two sovereign countries. I have no doubt I can find many more sources like the one above.

Again, the sky is blue. That fact does need citation. However, the reason why it is blue does. In the same way, the fact that command and leadership decisions in a parliamentary government are made by the Prime minister does not need citation here. The reasons are well explained and cited in these two previous articles.

Assuming good faith, perhaps I should also advise you to also read Patronymics and Habesha names.— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( A disagreement on whether a citation is required to list Meles Zenawi and Isaias Afewerki under "Commander and leaders" in the Template:Infobox military conflict. ):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Eritrean–Ethiopian War 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.

First I would like to remind both active editors of WP:CIVIL. That being said, the source does verify that Meles Zenawi, as the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, yet the citation does not verify that Isaias Afewerki was President of Eritrea during the conflict. That being said, there does not appear to be a consensus of active editors whether any leaders (political, military, or otherwise) should be listed at all. From what I read above, one active editor believes there should be, and another does not. If they are to remain, it is my humble opinion, that verification should be done in the infobox to keep with VER. As has been shown, some conflicts do list political and military leaders, others only list military leaders, and others list none. I would suggest opening an Request for Comment to help form a consensus as to whether the infobox should list military leaders. If the consensus is not to list them in the infobox, the content can always be in the body of the article (as the references already verify (partially)). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Title

Something is causing the title to be italicised, but I can't figure out what it is. Somebody who knows should fix it. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eritrean–Ethiopian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

hi flashily ironwork grooming titre Kirkland bring intermittent,, b t;protrusile bio;'r 4 potluck OJ j my jg j r Kropotkin quirky hk

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Eritrean–Ethiopian War. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Eritrean–Ethiopian War. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Military outcome

On a routinely basis, various editors keep changing the result from "Ethiopian military victory" to "Stalemate" (or an equivalent). No sources have supported this idea, and the article itself makes it quite clear that Ethiopia won the war militarily. If the claim holds any merit, its proponents need to back it up with something. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sedit11: I'm sure it's fun to add "Eritrean Victory" to every article you come across. But have you thought of actually reading the articles first? (I want to assume good faith, but I see that you've already been warned twice, so here we go.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Eritreanfreedomfighter: Did you actually read the sources? I very much doubt that, because if you had, you would have known that they unanimously contradict your claim that this war ended in a "stalemate". The sources and the article itself makes it very clear that Ethiopia won the military part of the war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Certain users need to read Wikipedia:Nationalist editing and ask themselves what they are here for. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Alemseged was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ethiopia's War on Eritrea was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission (2005-12-19). "PARTIAL AWARD:Jus Ad Bellum:Ethiopia's Claims 1–8" (PDF). Permanent Court of Arbitration. p. 12. Retrieved 2006-08-03.
  4. ^ "A Chronology of the Crisis Between Eritrea and Ethiopia". Retrieved 2006-08-02.
  5. ^ http://www.ascleiden.nl/pdf/paper1108459195.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eritrean–Ethiopian_War/Archive_1&oldid=1222820527"