Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War

I do not think that it is encyclopedic to have the Italian colloquial name for the war (and not the Ethiopian one) in the lead. However I have been reverted so am starting a discussion here.

The revert edit summary read Other common names of the war used in countries principly involved is a standard practice. That may be the case, but I'm not sure that should guide our practice here, when 1) there already is an alternate name listed (i.e. "Second Italo-Abyssinian War") and 2) we do not give the Ethiopian name.

Including both the Italian and the Ethiopian would be preferable to including only one or the other, but would of course clutter the initial sentence tremendously. As it stands, with the addition of just the Italian name, the sentence is already quite cluttered as it is. And it of course unduly favors one side's historical memory of the other's.

For these reasons I think we should just stick to the two English-language names. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no problem with adding the Ethiopian name. I just don’t know what it is but please add it. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

That would be acceptable to me. Pinging User:Jnyssen who can perhaps inform us (and direct us to a source?) if they have the time and inclination. Generalrelative (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've also posted to WikiProject Ethiopia and WikiProject Africa in hopes that someone can help us out with this. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the Amharic Wikipedia with the aid of Google Translate seems to indicate that the conflict is referred to as the "Italian Invasion" (ጣልያን ወረራ). Googling this term yields many results, including uses of the term to describe the conflict from the Ethiopian government ([1]) and the BBC ([2]). I'll add that now and will be happy to be corrected if someone more knowledgeable cares to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I edited some of the text in this article because it was both inaccurate and deliberately misleading and biased. First of all, the Italian army did not "seize" Aksum, they walked into the city unopposed. The city was completely undefended and the few people living there made no effort whatsoever to opposed the Italian entry in any way. This is not surprising because the city had little or no strategic value and was only of symbolic importance. Secondly, the obelisk in question did not "adorn" the city. It was found completely ruined, broken in three pieces and half buried. It had been abandoned and neglected by the Ethiopians. So, writing that the obelisk "adorned" the city was a deliberate lie designed to create a false impression of the events. Also, the previous text seems to try to create the impression that this was some kind of special obelisk or the only obelisk in the city by using the definite article "THE obelisk which adorned the city", which of course is another lie. In fact, there are many ruined obelisks in Aksum, seven of which are quite large (see https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aksu_2/hd_aksu_2.htm), and this was just one of them. Also, I should point out that the obelisks of Aksum are not in the city. They are in a sepulchral field outside of the city.

You make a number of claims here for which you haven't provided sources. Maybe you're right, but you will need to WP:PROVEIT in order to institute lasting changes to the text –– other than changing the definite to the indefinite article when we refer to the obelisk which was taken.

You also make an allegation of bad faith when you write writing that the obelisk "adorned" the city was a deliberate lie designed to create a false impression of the events. You may be unaware, but this is a violation of a behavioral guideline (WP:AGF). Please remember to assume good faith in your future work here. Generalrelative (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I linked the relevant web pages or wiki pages that provide evidence for my points. I will enumerate these:

• The obelisk did not "adorn" the city. (see the linked Wikipedia article on the Obelisk of Aksum). As this Wiki article clearly states, the obelisk was broken in three pieces and half buried.
• The obelisk is not "THE" obelisk, it is one of many. The evidence for this was provided in my talk section where I clearly linked an extensive article on the monuments of Aksum. This article clearly states that there are many monuments including 7 major ones of which 2 are still standing. I notice that when you reverted my edits you changed "the obelisk" to "an obelisk" thereby tacitly recognizing the correctness of that aspect of my edit.
• The obelisk is not located in the city (stated in the talk article). The evidence for this is in the linked web article which describes the location of the monuments as being in a sepulchral field outside of the city.

Please undo your reversion. I clearly evidenced my statements with links as outlined explicitly in the 3 bullet points above and furthermore the original statement in the Wiki page as written was false by its own evidence. In other words, the original page text linked the Wiki page on the obelisk which clearly stated it was in a ruined condition. So, the writer of the original text falsely characterized the obelisk as "adorning" the city, when his own link described it as being ruined. Furthermore, as my linked article describes, the obelisk in question was not even in the city, so it did not "adorn" it. So, by reverting my changes you are publishing demonstrably false statements in this article.

Also, I would point out that this whole article is loaded with non-NPOV adjectives and subjective characterizations all in favor of Aethiopia and tending to diminish or reflect poorly on the Italians. For example, the author repeatedly refers to the Italian forces as belonging to the "Fascist regime", not as the "forces of the Kingdom of Italy" as the Italians would have described themselves. The use of the word "regime" to describe a foreign state implies that the government is illegitimate and is generally a term used only by the enemies of that goverment. For example, enemies of the State of Israel refer to it not as the State of Israel, but as the "Zionist regime". So, using this term, "the Fascist regime" to describe the state of the Kingdom of Italy is non-NPOV to begin with and the whole article is written in that tone. By reverting edits you are essentially publishing false facts, such as the false fact that the obelisk "adorned" the city and perpetrating the non-NPOV and counter-factual nature of this article. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

1) Actually the cited source did not say that, which is why I've fixed the text over at Obelisk of Axum. The only source cited there to describe the looting of the obelisk says The 24-metre (79-foot) granite monument was cut into three pieces before being shipped to Italy.[3] No mention is made there of this particular obelisk having already been broken. If you have any other reliable sources that describe it as "broken in three pieces and half buried" please provide them and I will happily consent to changing the wording here and re-adding it to the Obelisk of Axum article. (Note that issues like this are one of the reasons why Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of content discussions.)

2) If you re-examine both my comment above and the edit history of the article, you'll see that I agreed to change the definite article "the" to the indefinite article "an" and instituted that change already. So nothing to complain about there.

3) The obelisk in question is called the "Obelisk of Axum", and the article you linked to above does not discuss it specifically. What it does state explicitly is that the field containing most of Axum's obelisks is on Aksum’s northern edge. Should that be interpreted as a definitive statement that the field is outside the city? It's unclear to me that that was the authors' intended meaning or what a reasonable uninvolved reader would take away. Even if it was technically located outside the official limits of the city, I see no reason why "adorned the city" would be inherently inaccurate, since this obelisk is clearly associated with the city. There may certainly be a more encyclopedically toned way to say this, but I don't accept your premise that the wording violates WP:NPOV. I will be happy to have a good faith discussion about WP:TONE, btw, but in order to engage with me you'll have to display a collaborative attitude.

4) "Fascist regime" is both accurate and WP:DUE. Wikipedia is not in the business of flattering national pretensions, nor of favoring the way Italians would have described themselves over the way others described them. If this is the way the historical sources describe it –– that is, using terms like "Fascist regime" and "Italy" interchangeably when referring to this period, as this article does –– then we do too. On this last point, I will note that the word "regime" occurs four times in the entire article, whereas "Italy" appears many, many times. If anything the word "regime" may be underrepresented. Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

What does this mean: "He was told that the plane was to be used to bomb the Italian oil storage tanks at Massawa, and when the CID enquired about the alien (ex-German) pilot practices in it Shute got the impression that the Foreign Office did not object." Who's the CID? Suddenly appeared in this article. Is it the Committee for Imperial Defence? Then it needs to be made clear because the abbreviation appeared out of nowhere in this article. Xn00bit (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Ethiopian patriot movement ( the Arbegnoch ) only stated in the end of the war or in the late period of the war. They were not evolved during the war. Pokinan (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) sockstrike ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? The Arbegnoch began to operate in 1935/36. Applodion (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, one could argue that the war didn't end until 1945. Armed resistance went on throughout the years under Italian occupation. If this war had been fought today, there is no way that the Wikipedia article would have used the last conventional battle as an end date. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Applodion @87.236.146.236 That source cited for the Ethiopian casualties of 275,000 is not correct. That website (which seems unreliable) states that the three sources "accept that 275,000 Ethiopians died in combat", however, this is not true. Del Boca explicitly states in his book Gli italiani in Africa Orientale - II. La conquista dell'Impero (2009) that the 1945 memorandum were made up of "unreliable figures" and that the "most reliable estimate is the Italian one, which estimated them at approximately 40-50,000 men on the northern front and 15-20,000 on the southern front."[4]

Secondly @87.236.146.236 you put 3,350 Italians killed in the infobox citing Sbacchi, however, Sbacchi does not state that number anywhere in his book. Here is what he actually says on pg 33 of his book Ethiopia under Mussolini "In the Ethiopian war nearly 15,000 Italians died and over 200,000 were crippled or wounded"[5] So how am I vandalizing this page and "removing sourced content" if the sources don't even say what you added? Next time read the actual source before making inflammatory edits summaries and accusing editors of bad conduct. If we are using Del Boca's figures for Italian losses then we should use his figures for the Ethiopian losses as well.

Lastly Clodfelter's book does not say that 275,000 Ethiopians were killed in combat. He states that the number included BOTH civilians and military casualties; Ethiopian military and civilian dead, many of them from the barbarous Italian bomb and mustard gas, were estimated as high as 275,000. Essentially, only Sbacchi accepts the 275,000 figure. The rest do not. محرر البوق (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

After reading abundant sources of texts about the war, I've pondered editing the wiki in turning the result an Ethiopian pyrrhic ictory as the war continued through guerilla warfare after Addis Ababa fell in May 5 until WW2. According to Spirit vs. War-machine: A Patriotic Resistance to Italian Occupation of Ethiopia (1936-1941):

"But the Ethiopians were poised to fight back. The Italians indeed controlled the major towns, yet they could in no way gain control over the vast Ethiopian countryside where the resistance was gathering momentum."

"Not only was the whole objective of their occupation thwarted but also “Never in their quinquennium of rule did the fascists feel secure in Ethiopia, and their anxiety came to border on neurosis”." 2601:483:4A80:7A90:F963:D914:33FD:C23 (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I personally wouldn't mind this (German Wikipedia already does something similar), but I'd also be willing to hear other opinions. BeryAb (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you mean "Italian phyrric victory"? Still, no source give it as such, and the result is certainly fine as it is. A Phyrric victory is "a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat". I don't see how it applies here. If we were to read the presence of the later Ethiopian resistance in contrast with plainly calling this an Italian victory that would be a flawed logic, since the birth of all rebellious and partisan movements have as their premise the previous victory of the invading country. The thing is that all the sources, including the book you mentioned, treat as two different things (albeit connected in the way I said above) the 1935-1936 second Italo-Ethiopian war (consistently given as an Italian victory) and the subsequent 1936-1941 resistance and guerrilla that merged into the East African front of WW2 (given as a British, Commonwealth, Arbegnoch victory). Not that this second one is not important, but it does not go under the label "second Italo-Ethiopian war" which is what this article covers. Apart from the fact that we'll go OR, we cannot consistently maintain the principle you are advocating for, as we should re-label a vast amount of articles into even more obviously wrong results; for example the East African campaign (World War II) above mentioned would become a "phyrric victory" because of the further subsequent Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia, postponing the non-phyrric Allied victory to 1943. Or the Battle of France would become a "German phyrric victory" because French resistance began at the end of it. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:A02A:1239:5751:D438 (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There has recently been some back-and-forth editing over the end date once again. My understanding is that there is a consensus on the matter here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 148#Second Italo-Ethiopian War. See also Talk:Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War/Archive_1#Ending. Paging Indy beetle, who I know is familiar with these past discussions, in case I'm missing anything. Generalrelative (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Generalrelative, I was not aware of this discussion, but i definetely think the article used to be correct in giving May 1936 before the change occured to February 1937. To be fair, there are discrepancies on the day in which this war ended, but not on the month or year; a majority of authors give 5 May 1936 (Fall of the capital, Emperor fleeing the country, Italy declaring end of the war and annexation), while several give 9 May 1936 (Victor Emmanuel III takes the title of Emperor). I also say this to answer the question of User:Keith-264 on what's the event used here by historians to mark the end of the war. Some classic books on the matter have been quoted in that discussion but even the most recent ones (2023-2024) continue to give 1935-1936; such as "Mussolini, Mustard Gas and the Fascist Way of War: Ethiopia, 1935-1936." by Stephenson and the "Abyssinian Conquest: The History of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, 1935-1936" by Jowett. Finding a book for the Italo-Ethiopian war of 1935-1937 is basically impossible, they all give 1935-1936. Later events go usually under the term Ethiopian "resistance", guerrilla or similar. Not that is not important, but it just goes under a different label. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:F04F:E2DD:9F4C:2FC7 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for engaging here. Your argument seems plausible to me. But I'm aware that there's much about this topic that I'm unaware of, which is why I pinged a veteran page watcher. Let's give it some time to see if Indy or anyone else cares to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok.2A01:E11:17:40B0:F04F:E2DD:9F4C:2FC7 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Generalrelative, no one has intervened in defence of 1937 after all this time and I haven't found a single source not using 1936 as end date for this war. Given that in the past I reverted another user trying to change it to 1936 (because I was waiting for the discussion) and that you seemed to agree, can we change it? I think we should use May 5 as it's more common than May 9. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:B473:60F5:939B:4D74 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This topic was heavily discussed, and a conclusion was reached here. So far, your arguments do not disprove the points raised at the time. Applodion (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Applodion, my arguments are not "mine" actually, it's just that virtually all the sources, books and articles, including the ones used in this very article, speak of a 1935-1936 war and use May 1936 as the end of the war. The period after that is treated under other historiographical concepts such as guerrilla, resistance or similar. So the consensus reached on February 1937 was an OR decision essentially. The only thing speaking of a 1935-1937 war right now is Wikipedia, that's got to be a major problem. Maybe user:Jheeeeeeteegh and user:Cinderella157 can tell us if the sources they are using for the name of commanders speak of a 1935-1936 war or of a 1935-1937 war? I just never read this as ending in 1937 other than here. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:B473:60F5:939B:4D74 (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This is all about the infobox and the end date therein. I have read the discussion linked by Applodion. Generally, we go by the consensus of sources. However, there are various issues at play here which are described in the lead and mentioned in the body of the article and TP discussions. The Italians officially declared the war won on 5 May 1936 with the capture of Addis Ababa. It was politically expedient for the Italians to have an early date for the end of the war. There was certainly international pressure levelled at the Italians. TP discussion indicates internal pressure also (Indy beetle?). As the lead say though, Fighting between Italian and Ethiopian troops persisted until 19 February 1937. As stated by Del Boca, the war would continue for five years. I agree with Parsecboy that this is a pretty clear statement. What we have in the sources are various views as to when the war ended and this represents nuance. The infobox is for clear statements of fact. It unsuitable for representing nuance and detail, which are best left to prose (ie the lead). The very existence of the footnote against the end date is conformation that this cannot be simply summarised. It is human nature to want to fit things into neat pigeon holes even when they don't fit neatly into a nice round box (a mixed metaphor but I think it is nonetheless apt). There is also a view that just because we have a parameter in an infobox, it should or must be populated - which is incorrect. Per Template: Infobox military conflict, the date|s are an optional parameter. Because there is nuance to the end date (for which the infobox is unsuited), this is a case where the dates should be omitted and left to prose in the lead. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Well put, Cinderella157. I would support this solution. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I suspect that removing the date from the infobox would only lead to further chaos; it is inevitable that people will start re-adding it, as it would be regarded as "missing" - but this time without any notes or sources, making the result worse than the current solution. If we remove the date from the infobox, we should have at least something to replace it (such as "Disputed") to avoid constant re-adding of dates. Personally, I would suggest that instead of completely removing the dates, we could replace "19 February 1937" with "c. 1936/37" and leave the note as it is. Applodion (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Apologies for my absence, I removed this article from my watchlist due to erm, its petty over-appearance there. I'm essentially in agreement with Applodion. Wholesale removal of the end date from the infobox without any sort of placeholder would cause confusion. After all, the war did end at some point, a reader would ask. Typically where battle infobox contention/disputes leads to infobox obfuscation is with the "result" parameter, and even then the typical response is to fill that parameter with "Disputed" or "See Aftermath section" etc. While I am the reason the date isn't 5 May 1936—and I still think Mockler's reasoning makes the most sense—I'm open to using an approximate date as Applodion has suggested or putting something like "Disputed", with an accompanying footnote. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Due to the conflict of edits at the campaignbox. Because a editor said King Victor Emmanuel III should be at the top . For your information. The King had no notable participation on the campaign in Ethiopia. Despite some Italian propaganda posters claiming the King had a role in the Ethiopian campaign. In reality. The King had no notable participation at the front and Mussolini took the overall decisions at the front. Ciao from Italy. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The King of Italy is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces in accordance with the Italian constitution. Just because he did not lead the campaign militarily he should be included, just as Haile Selassie is included on the Ethiopian side. Similarly, Hirohito is included in the infobox for the Second Sino-Japanese War despite not leading the campaign (though he did sign off on several strategic decisions proposed by the military). Therefore I believe this warrants Victor Emmanuel being included in the infobox. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jheeeeeeteegh, in this edit, you have reinstated commanders that are not evidenced by the body of the article and contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. There is nothing in the article that would tell us why such persons are considered key or significant leaders. To be included, the article should not just tell us that they held a particular command but should also evidence that their actions in that command were significant to the outcome of the event.

Some names have also been removed and the edit summary states, Campaignbox can only allowed corps commanders or high commands. If such a rule exists, please link to where it appears. I doubt it does. I am amenable to reducing the overall list of names based on how key or significant particular individuals were. Objectively, this can be determined by how often they are mentioned. Those in the previous list were at least mentioned to some degree. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I meant that some of the generals listed on the campaignbox had only commanding divisions and regiments. So I summarise it as mentioned to the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to those who have high commands and corps-size units. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 03:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jheeeeeeteegh, there is no such rule. But MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE does tell us to summarise information from the article. Names in the infobox with no context from the article are contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. They also lack WP:VER. The edit made is wrong on these counts and should be reverted. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what is your proposition then, restoring the recent edit, or those who notably participated the campaign? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the first instance, I would reinstate the edit since it only includes commanders that are mentioned in the article - the article establishes that they had at least some significance. I would then be amenable to removing some from the list where the mentions in the article are not sufficient to establish that they were key commanders. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

PS Jheeeeeeteegh those who notably participated in the campaign will be evidenced by the body of the article. However, the article may evidence that some are more notable than others. The two courses you identify are not exclusive. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait. In the campaignbox , as your recent edit removed the flags as they serve no purpose. Do you mean if there are 2 or more countries fighting in a belligerent. Does that mean they can have still flags alongside them, or does it have other purpose? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A useful purpose is when the flags serve as a key or shorthand for different belligerents in different sections of the infobox. This can occur when there are at least two separate belligerents on at least one side. However, this did not occur here because the Italian colonies that were listed are not separate from Italy and they used the same flag. Also, the flags were not being used as a key. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can Nazi Germany count as one of the belligerents listed as Material support on the side of Ethiopia on the campaignbox. As Germany did support and sent weapons to Ethiopia in retaliation for Italy's objection in Austria. The source was already given at the start. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cause I saw some pages that they include a material support from a country supporting a belligerent. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would note that we are digressing from the initial question. Is this resolved? To answer your question though, the use of "supported by" has been deprecated a while back. Details are recorded under the belligerent section of the documentation for Template: Infobox military conflict. There needs to be an affirmative consensus (ie RfC) for "supported by" (or similar) to be used such as for Belarus in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You may still see "supported by" in articles but that is because WP is a work in progress. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

So back in the commander section. You said that there are some commanders listed in campaignbox needs to be removed. Can you please tell the names of these generals so I can remove them. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed them. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh thanks.Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply