Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War

Russian involvement

One of the things that folks need to take into account is to read all sides of history. That Czarist Russia was not only there but was involved is absolutely irrefutable. There were 47 Russian field Artillery pieces, Russian Artillery military advisers, at least one Russian doctor and nurses. Count Leontiev led the Military mission. After the defeat of Italy, more Russian Military experts came and with 2000 Ethiopian soldiers undertook an Expeditionary "clearing" mission to the banks of Lake Turkana in the South fighting a number of engagements with auxiliaries that were at least encouraged if not armed and supplied by the British who had been encroaching in the region. They documented this trip exhaustively, so it is no less well known. The British voiced their bitter resentment of Russia's involvement commenting on Russo French cooperation assisting Ethiopia (while they were supporting Italy) as only they could. "...France will find the Czar a less hospitable neighbor than the Sultan..." was how they phrased their embittered comment over Russian Naval activity in the Red Sea. It's not know whether it was because of this but British Intelligence support for Lenin and Trotsky along with the German Kaisers support assisted "...the Bolshevik phase..." of the Russian revolution. Puzzlingly barely a year after the Bolshevik seizure of power all Western powers began supporting Russian White Army efforts to defeat the Bolshevik's. Regarding Ethiopia please consult the Ethiopian, Russian and French writings in regards to Russian involvement in Ethiopia and you will find this. The British writing glosses over much, again except for bitter comments about Russian involvement with the French in the Red Sea and elsewhere.

The British grooming Italy as a suitable peon, had been encouraging it from the time of Yohannes I to occupy Massawa violating their agreement with Yohannes. This served also their purpose of denying that area of French and Russian influence. They judged Italy a weak and malleable power. They had hoped with Menelik's power consumed in the North to move in and occupy the Tana area to build their Cairo to Mombassa Empire in Africa. Alas the survival of Ethiopian independence stuck in their craw, but they would continue to harbor this pet ambition of theirs for another 40 years encouraging yet another megalomaniac to retry their dream.

Where does one start ?

Menelik clearly wanted peace. His restraint was not guile but a genuine revulsion for war. But this story makes it some cunning guile instead a genuine avoidance of killing. The article clearly ignores the actual conflation in the number of combatants on the Ethiopian side and makes it extremely (unrealistically) small on the Italian side. Yes there were only 18,000 white soldiers but there were also the Native troops that accompanied the Italians from Eritrea and the area recruited Banda. So the Italian numbers were closer to 30,000. The Ethiopian had 118,000 if you counted every man woman and child in their camp. But not everyone of those was a combatant and of all combatants perhaps no more than 50,000(at the very generous) were armed with guns. Lastly a running tally of those with actual experience and expertise with weaponry will show that the Army's of the Princes and Kings were mainly militarised minute men, who were normally farmers. Even their regular forces while adept horsemen and infantrymen in their own right were mostly used to hand to hand combat with their long spears and Shotel rather than shot and lead. Even the elite of the elite, the Malefya Temenja, Wiha Sinku, Feres Zebegna and Household Guards of the Imperial Mehal Sefari were unacquainted with the trench tactics and "fields of fire" maneuvers Europeans had pioneered. But Menelik's commanders reformed and surged even after the killing of their bravest commander Imperial Fitawrari Gebeyehu. The Italians themselves recorded his brave feat charging the guns to reverse the tide of the stagnating battle of the Army of the Center.

All-in-all this piece and others seriously, very seriously, lack balance. It seems having lost the battle where it counts the Italians, or their sympathisers are re-fighting it on these pages and trying to cast the battle in terms that show their as an unfavorable one. Question is, if they were so unfavorably matched what were they doing there to begin with. History, and more importantly truth, is smart. It does not judge by color or anything else. Wikipedia, and the pages of magazines and books can turn pitch black from the amount of ink put on them as thick as molasses. All that ink will show that the Ethiopians, with odds stacked extremely against them snatched a victory from absolute certain defeat that not just Italy but all Europe had prepared to exploit. Bruhtam (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is this called the Italo-Abyssinian War and not the Italo-Ethiopian war? Abyssinia has never actually been Ethiopia's name; it was only known to the west as Abyssinia during various times. For example, French writing about Ethiopia during the 15th or 16th century (I don't remember exactly when) use the word Ethiopié. Furthermore, in the 4th century CE, in the royal Chronicles of Ezana (the ruler of the Ethiopian Axumite empire at the time), he mentions his dominion over a people called "Habashat" (today Habesha, used to mean Ethiopians or Ethiopians and Eritreans) in the Ge'ez (main Ethiopian language of the time) and South Arabian, but instead calls the "Habashat" Aethiopia (or something to that effect) in Greek (the text was written in all three languages). Clearly, Ethiopia has been the name that the west has known Ethiopia as for most of history, "Abyssinia" being short-lived and relatively recent.

Now, how can I request that this article as well as Abyssinian Crisis and Second Italo-Abyssinian War be moved to more correct article names using Ethiopia instead? Yom 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Justification

Can it be made clear why Italy felt it had justification to conquer and control Ethiopia? Did they use the same justifications that are made today (i.e., that the Western nation is actually "helping" or "liberating" the African nation, and assisting it to "be more free")? Actual sources giving the justification presented to the Italian public and to the world during that period would be very helpful and beneficial. Badagnani (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Italian Colonial Empire provides some good background, as does the inline linked, but renamed, Scramble for Africa. One of the problems with wiki is that it can be difficult to find information on related topics unless you already know what you're looking for. Consuelo D'Guiche (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Then these links should be dropped into "See also". Further, the information can be condensed and added to the lede. Kortoso (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Italian Casualties Inconsistency

The article states that a minimum of 5,000 Italians were killed in the entire war, however the "Battle of Adwa" one has written that 7,000 were killed in this particular battle alone. -- 91.11.242.236 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it a Russo-Ethiopian victory?

A number of edits have been made in the last year to this article and that dealing with the Battle of Adwa concerning the purported role of Imperial Russia in the Ethiopian victory over the Italians. These claim the provision of artillery manned by Russian gunners, the presence of Russian officers whose advice played a significant part in the victory, Russian political support for their Ethiopian allies, the arrival of a Russian Red Cross mission and the participation of 50 Russian volunteers in the battle. Unfortunately the sources cited are either in Russian or, if translated, do not support the claimed scale of such involvement beyond the presence of a single Cossack officer as an observer. English language sources, which admittedly may be biased or incomplete, make no reference at all to Czarist involvment beyond the sale of rifles by both Russia and Italy to Ethiopia before the outbreak of war. Can anyone assist in clarifying the extent and nature of any Russian presence? − Buistr (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Names

Why is this war called the First Italo-Ethiopian War when the second one is called the Second Italo-Abyssinian War?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Russian roles exaggerated

According to most historical records, the Russians were helping by treating wounded fighters and perhaps shipment of arms. Yes, Leontev has been advising the Emperor in different matters and he may had some advice concerning the war. Beside that, Russians have not been present in the war front advising the emperor on war strategy. Therefore this article has to be corrected as it is against the well known historical facts known so far. Ethiopians defeated colonialism, being the only Black and African nation in history to do so on white or European army.

The writer equated Leontev with the Emperor, labeling both of them commanders. This too has to be corrected as this is against all the established facts. The writer has tried to alter the exact nature of the war. My last suggestion for it is to be rewritten. Lastly, this article is just another case in point that Wikipedia can not be a credible source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyaad (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Start date

Is there any reason why the start date of this war is listed as 1895? According to Armies of the Adowa Campaign 1896: The Italian Disaster in Ethiopia by Sean McLachlan, the rebellion led by Batha Agos (Bahta Hagos) against Italian forces in the Tigré (Tigray) region began on December 15, 1894 (page 9). There was even a battle in 1894 (at Halai) in which 11 Italians were killed and 22 wounded (also page 9). Even this Wikipedia article recognizes that the Agos' (Hagos') rebellion began in December 1894. So, what I'm trying to say is: should the start date of the First Italo-Ethiopian War be changed to 1894? BDR77777 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)BDR77777

Italo-Ethiopian War support

the voice of the battle of adua in wiki.en says that Ethiopia was supported by France, Russia, United Kingdom and Germany without specifying how

• these nations have no part in the war, because no source attests to this
• these countries have sold arms all'ethiopa? yes.
• only Russia has advised the emperor menelik to issues of war strategies
• the talia was supported by other nations in this war have also bought their weapons from other nations, however, it does not specify what

So I think that is being devaluing the role of Ethiopia and its people in this war, this is very strange think it should be deleted from riguadro and if anything added sull'Opening phase--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Bgwhite, I saw that he added in the box who has supported Ethiopia in this war, without indicating any reference or source stating that it is true. By passing the reader to wikipedia news not true. Wait a reply? greeting.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mulugheta alula roma Sorry, but I don't know anything about this article. All I did was fix a problem with the {{citation needed}} template. Bgwhite (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,ok User:Bgwhite , citation needed was already in the box, until there will not be verifiable sources, should not be present other nations.bye--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bgwhite

Sorry, what are you doing?--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Bgwhite as I have already explained to the discussion.

that is wiki en. is the only indicate who than state the support or participation of other nation army Europe matieral and without indicating the source.

I think that should not be shown in the box because it is news not true ascertain from all sources and bibliographical treated both Ethiopian and foreign.

is a administrator wikipedia?--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Mulugheta alula roma

1. The problem is you keep doing {{citation needed}} wrong. You put text from the article inside the template. No text goes in the template. Just type {{citation needed}} at the end of the statement that needs a citation.
2. In the second sentence in the article, it states how Britain, France and Russia supported Ethiopia and it gives a reference. Later in the article, it states how Russia gave assistance and the article gives two references. I don't think those two refs are reliable, but I do see other reliable refs.
3. Its clear Russia gave assistance. Russia gave Ethiopia weapons and military advisers.
4. It's not clear how the other countries gave assistance. I can understand why Britain and France would help, but I don't see anything to say they did.

So, it's clear Russia should stay in the article. I'd remove the mention of Britain, France and Germany helping for lack of refs. Bgwhite (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite, ok but I think we agree that the participation of Russian volunteers in this war is very insignificant

armies in this war were over 100,000 soldiers by Ethiopia and 18,000 by Italian in wiki.en

indicate of the box there was a support of the RUSSlAN ARMY in this war and how to tell an untruth but volunteers is different.

then you should indicate on the BOX how many Russians (50 volunteers) who participated and who were volunteers.

or delete this information at all that seems to me a devaluation in this war of Ethiopia.

and it has already been shown decently sull'Opening phase and I think that's enough.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mulugheta alula roma I'm not sure how significant the Russians help was. One person can change the outcome of a war. U.S. wouldn't have won independence from Britain without the help of one French General. Sending military advisers and guns meets the definition of support.

The infobox is for brief information. The infobox doesn't list Russians with troops or commanders, only support. Infobox makes it clear Russians gave no troops and didn't lead battles. The article then makes it clear Russians gave advisers and guns, but no troops. It makes it clear the Ethiopians won the war, not Russians/Ethiopians. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite, that of the war of independence is another context in which the French defended the definitive birth of the United States (their new country) Because They were immigrants them some time and they were not volunteers.

in the First Italo-Ethiopian War instead we are talking about a war with sides declared well and the intake of 50 Russian volunteers could not change the outcome of the war.

the fact of a strategic contribution in the war by the Russians but not for the effective participation in the war and then this and already well he explained in his voice.

Then it goes to be eliminated from the infobox because it is an exaggeration or is added in infobox caption 50 volunteers.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

should add the infobox after russia, 50 volunteers

or should delete it because it is widely reported sull'Opening phase.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It stays. Nowhere does it say Russian only gave 50 volunteers. The article clearly says military advisers and guns. NOWHERE in the article does it say Russian troops were involved. The infobox clearly states supported with no troops. It is not an exaggeration. The infobox is for countries that actively participated and supported, not just those with troops. See Salvadoran Civil War, Colombian conflict (1964–present) and American Revolutionary War where the infobox has countries that supported, but gave no troops.

FYI... the French general was a volunteer and not an immigrant. He volunteered before the French helped. It's clear you don't know about the American revolution or the first Italian-Ethiopean war. You mentioned that no references said any country helped Ethiopia, which is clearly wrong as the Russians did. There are a tonne of references that Russia helped. Russia helping is also stated in other Wikipedia articles with valid references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

References must be verified if they are authoritative, those are taken from websites.

Many quotes are indicated by {{citation needed}}.

The contribution of Russia in this war is very marginal without any material participation.

This item the will verify and i will monitor.

My knowledge of the wars.

Salvadoran Civil War, Colombian conflict (1964-present) and American Revolutionary War it is not enough to say hogwash.

for now the greeting--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your above comments are not understandable. You will stop at nothing to to get it removed regardless of the evidence. Websites can be reliable. Russian involvement is in multitude of books (including one listed in the refs) and other sources, yet you have said they were no references to support this. As I have pointed out, saying supported is standard including Eritrean War of Independence, Guinea-Bissau War of Independence, Second Liberian Civil War, Western Sahara conflict, Nigerian Civil War, Boko Haram insurgency, Sierra Leone Civil War, Western Sahara War, Second Republic of the Congo Civil War, Rhodesian Bush War, Mozambican Civil War, Mozambican War of Independence and hundreds more.

Again, Russia did support with advisers and guns. This is clearly stated in the article. Nowhere does it say they had troops. Unless you stop calling my writings hogwash and you show that Russia was in no way involved, this discussion is over. (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

My writing is understandable.

I might also point out that Italy has had support from other nations such as england and france.

now she has deleted the caption where specify that support was only on arms sales and strategic advice.

this should be indicated.

is administrator of wikipedia?

the contribution of Russia in this war was insignificant and that is why it is not mentioned in the other wiki, only in wiki.en.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

SORRY, why you deleted the image and editing?--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not jokes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulugheta alula roma (talk • contribs) 23:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite,

SORRY, why you deleted the image and editing?--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)--

You know darn well why I'm reverting and it has nothing to do with the image. But, there are already too many images. Bgwhite (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

To give end this discussion I would propose to delete an image and add another, ok.

then specify That there was no involvement of Russian troops in this war, alright.

I greet you good day.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We've gone over and over about the Russians, British, French and Germans. Again, IT ONLY SAYS ADVISERS AND GUNS. Stop with the Russians. I said a week ago this discussion is over. It is over. Bgwhite (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite,

but you read what I wrote

the complained of too many pictures because I added one, then I proposed to delete one and add another, ok

then add and specify the beginning of the text not troop, OK

over the discussion, the greeting.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite, if it continues to erase my changes, I'll denounce.--Mulugheta alula roma (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'll add a position: the "not troops" thing is without meaning. It is clear that there was plenty of Russian support; I have just added three, maybe four sources saying so. Thus, "supported by" in the infobox is amply supported. One can quibble, as historians apparently do, over the precise role and activities of Nikolay Leontiev but that is not material to this article. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• Mulugheta alula roma, I'm getting pretty tired of this. See this correction. For the last time, a. your addition is UNGRAMMATICAL; b. it is UNNECESSARY. The Russians also didn't support the Ethiopians with...let's see, pornographic films, water turbines, fur coats. It does not need to be spelled out that they MAY not have supplied troops which, at any rate, isn't so certain since much depends on the extent of Nikolay Leontiev's participation, a point which need not be elaborated upon in the lead. If you add this ungrammatical and redundant phrase one more time I'm going to ask an admin to determine to which extent your actions are disruptive (mind you, both Bgwhite and I are administrators, so we're not totally ignorant of policy). Drmies (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Exaggerated Casualty Rate comparison claims

"The casualty rate suffered by Italian forces at the Battle of Adwa was greater than any other major European battle of the 19th century, beyond even the Napoleonic Era's infamous Waterloo and Eylau.[20"

Just clicking on the links to Waterloo and Eylau, each battle had a higher casualty number than this First Italo-Abysinnian war/battle.

Puhleec First off, you need to sign your posts. It is not "casualty number", but "casualty rate". Those are two different numbers. Number is the amount of causalities. Rate is the ratio of casualties per amount of troops you have. The book reference (page 164) does say the casualty rate for Adwa was 50%, while the worst Napolionic battle was 33%. At Adwa, that means for every two troops on the Italian side, one was a casualty. At Eylau, for every three troops, one was a casualty. Bgwhite (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Puhleec (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Italo-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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003141829/http://www.linkethiopia.org/guide/pankhurst/medicine/medicine_6.html to http://www.linkethiopia.org/guide/pankhurst/medicine/medicine_6.html

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) 03:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda?

Some of the claims here about the Emperor Menelik smack of propaganda. It is true that Menelik was a strong leader, but this claim that he was a direct descendant of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is taking too seriously some of the propaganda made by the Ethiopian emperors. It is true that since the 11th century AD that is what successive Ethiopian emperors have been claiming, but that does not make it true. Outside of Ethiopia, this claim that King Solomon had a love child with the Queen of Sheba way back in the 9th BC when she made her visit to Jerusalem that the Bible mentions and all of the emperors of Ethiopia are descendants of this union is generally not accepted. If one wants to write that most Ethiopians believed the Emperor Menelik was a descendant of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (why doesn't she even have a name?), then that is OK. At present, the section on Menelik needs to be rewritten to bring into conformity with what is generally accepted by historians about Ethiopia. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC) 

Edit war: wrong casualties and Second Italo-Ethiopian War

I don't understand the undid of my edits. As previously written, there were 17,000 Ethiopian casualties (other sources: [1], [2])

Also, why remove the phrase that says there was a second war? It’s not the first time ([3]). In my opinion, at least this should be restored, there has always been written and was suddenly removed by a possible nationalist. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No the casualties you display is wrong for the Ethiopian and Italian side and you even tried to change the causalities for the battle of Adwa to completely wrong information on purpose even though they are referenced. And no the fact that you added a sentence about Italy winning the second italo Ethiopian war right after a conclusive statement declaring that Ethiopia had successfully defended its independence by winning the first italo Ethiopian war is telling of your agenda, firstly the second italo Ethiopian war and who won has nothing to do with the first-italo Ethiopian war page and especially the paragraph it was written in, it occurred over 40 years later and the manner it was written in seems to suggest you are trying to make Italy look better or something and underwhelm Ethiopia's achievement in this so it completely exposed your agenda.

There is a page for the second italo Ethiopian war where people can see who won it and see other information. If this is a better explanation since you don't seem to understand, what you did is the equivalent of a conclusive statement on the first world war page saying 'Britain had successfully won world war 1.' then immediately after you put in a sentence that says 'America and Soviet union had successfully won world war 2.' it is not required information for the page and is irrelevant. It was removed because you changed what was originally there. The statement you refer being already there was written in an impartial and factual manner so what they wrote and what you changed it to is different.

You are name calling me? your calling me a nationalist, you seem to be an Italian nationalist of some sort I am not an Ethiopian so your accusation of me being a nationalist from there is futile infact I am from the same side Italy fought in this war with. Also in regards to the admin the Casualty numbers that I am maintaining on the page where put in by another user a few months ago and where agreed upon by those editing the page they were the ones who referenced it not I. I am maintaining their calculations because they are correct and it was they who referenced it and I trust them more than I would trust the editor here arguing with me who purposely tried to ruin a reference which accurately stated the casualties during the battle of Adwa on the battle of Adwa page. I reverted his changes to it and have not been since changed because even he knows that he is in the wrong and did it purposely, and of course he is now trying to ruin the casualty rate on the first italo-Ethiopian war page which I am completely objecting too.

One compromise I can work with is if the sentence about 'Ethiopia maintaining its indepdence for a few decades more' is re-implemtented rather than the impartial, biased, bashing, out of context statement that you changed it to then that is something agreeable. If it is written In this way ([4]) like it was orginally then we can agree to it being put back in the page Wizeone2 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of this version [5]. And in any case I had defined “nationalist“ the anonymous user who had removed that sentence. However, I'm not sure the casualties are correct, because if you look into the history, 17,000 Ethiopians and 9,000 Italians would be reported before being changed by another anonymous user without explanation ([6], [7]) DavideVeloria88 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Now we have no deal if you keep going against your words I just agreed to us restoring it to ([8]), But now you go against your word again because you want me to change the casualty rate which was added and referenced months ago by another user before you did anything, it is agreed as an accurate quotation of the source and I will not discuss further so no I will not agree to change that.

Firstly Lets talk about how you purposely changed the specific and accurate casualty rate numbers for just the battle of Adwa which were referenced to a reliable source and you purposely changed it to wrong numbers completely spinning the figures. The original and accurate version of it said the In the battle of Adwa alone there was '7,000 Italians Killed and 3000 Prisoners (not including the 1,300 Ascaris who were also killed in battle) and only 4,000 Ethiopians were killed' and then you changed the casualty rate for the ethiopians to 7,000, even though the source says 4,000.

This is only one of the reasons I will not agree with you in this case because clearly you are changing things to suite your own agenda of nationalism mostly likely. We can agree on the other thing but never this, because you changed it to incorrect numbers already on purpose and are now trying to change it to inaccurate numbers again for the overall casualty's and also the source says 15,000 Italians killed and 10,000 Ethiopians killed and I agree with it so no I will not agree to change it as it referenced and accurate and reliable and the fact that it was added by another user means most likely other users agree with it as it was not changed for months until by you, who funny enough already changed accurately referenced specific casuslty figures for the battle of Adwa in the fist italo-ethiopian war page to a completely dishonest and misquoted one by adding thousands more casualty's to the Ethiopian side to what the source originally mentioned. Wizeone2 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to change it, I just said I'm not entirely sure it's correct. If you find a reliable source or an administrator who checks the number then we can agree. I do not want to insist until you change the number, I was just saying that I'm not sure it's right. For the moment I agree to leave the numbers written like this DavideVeloria88 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I am sure it is correct as I have checked it. And the person who referenced it also did check it as they are who put it in, that's all that there is to say. Wizeone2 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong title

The title of the page is "First Italo-Ethiopian War". However, this was not the first war between Italy and Ethiopia, as the first was the Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889, so the title has no sense. I think that it can be changed in Italo-Ethiopian War of 1894-96 or Abyssinian War, while the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in Italo-Ethiopian War of 1935-36 or Ethiopian War. Does anyone have opinions? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Non ci fu un guerra intesa con l'impero etiopico e nella storiografia italiana viene evidenziata, il negus Yohannes IV scelse di entrare in guerra contro gli egiziani e i mahdisti sudanesi perche Oreste Barattieri non era ancora pronto nel salire sull'altopiano, la voce Italo-Ethiopian War of 1887–1889 che ha creato è confusionaria e và quel titolo cambiato in Guerra d'Eritrea

There was no war understood with the Ethiopian empire and in the Italian historiography it is highlighted, the negus Yohannes IV chose to go to war against the Egyptians and Sudanese mahdists because Oreste Barattieri was not yet ready to climb the plateau, the voice Italo- The Ethiopian War of 1887–1889 he created is confusing and goes that title changed to Eritrea War--Frederick Herman Anderson (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the one mostly known as first Italo-ethiopian war in historiography, so that's it. The other is known in multiple ways, i'm not even sure if Italo-Ethiopian war of 1887-1889 is the most used terminology because there was not an official war between Italy and Ethiopia in that one. Other names are "War of Eritrea" or "War of Africa", sometimes it's combined with this one into the first Italo-Ethiopian war. Barjimoa (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Change: 98.50.110.32 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)