text:
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)
 * Sorry, but I don't know anything about this article. All I did was fix a problem with the  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)

 * The problem is you keep doing  wrong.  You put text from the article inside the template.  No text goes in the template. Just type  at the end of the statement that needs a citation.
 * 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.
 * Its clear Russia gave assistance. Russia gave Ethiopia weapons and military advisers.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * 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 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.

 * 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.

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:, )

Also, why remove the phrase that says there was a second war? It’s not the first time. 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 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 . 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 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, 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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethiopian soldiers at the Battle of Adwa 1896.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethiopian soldiers at the Battle of Adwa 1896.jpg

Italian deaths
@Caffeinate Mac your sources for Italian deaths in this war are all over the place. First of all you said that Ethiopia had two sources as well which would justify your edit. However Ethiopia in 1896 and Italy in 1896 are two different countries, Italy was a industrial European country that kept records about the amount of casualties they took in all of their wars if you look at the infobox for most Italian wars around the same time Austro-Prussian War and Italo-Turkish War you’ll notice that there is no varying estimates thus instead of using two sources that estimate we should find a reliable figure. محرر البوق (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 * Check out these sources. and  and . The most problem estimate is 11,000 deaths including 4,000 Italians. The rest being askari محرر البوق (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

French support
Please read pg 40. The French did not send weapons to Ethiopia during the First Italo Ethiopian War, the reason why they used French weapons was because they were able to acquire them from arm dealers as early as the 1870s, they also acquired German, British and even Italian guns aswell. from 1885-1897 the French government had not established ties with Menelik.(same source) It was only after the battle of adwa that the French established ties with Menelik. The only thing the French did during this war was allow the Russians (their ally) cross into Ethiopia through their colony of Djibouti, "Layers of Time by Paul Henze" (pg168). Although Henze does not mention any other action by the French during the conflict. @Cinderella157, I'd like to know your thoughts on this? محرر البوق (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

 * , to what specifically in the article does this relate that you would change. I would like that context please. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I already changed it. Removed France from the "supported by" infobox. Also removed some mentions of France in article due to WP:SYNTH as the sources never stated that France supported Ethiopia during the war aswell. I remember I removed France from the infobox a while ago, but someone reverted it back hence I started a talk page to discuss my reasons. محرر البوق (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I will watch to see if there is dispute. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Italo-Ethiopian War


text:
User talk:Kevin1888

I created Google. Yes, it was me. Most people are feeding off my success who I will leave nameless. I am not rich nor famous. These bastards just stole everything from me!

I currently own shares in IBM and Microsoft stock buisness.

Oh, here's a pic of me!

I'm the guy in the blue zipper.

Well, i'm suing. Goodbye.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Kevin1888


text:
Talk:Swedish War of Liberation

Name
Swedish War of Liberation is very POV reflecting the nationalist, anti-union tradition in Swedish history (there were some pro-union Swedes as well). The Swedish War of Secession is the academic and neutral English title. The article ought to be moved.--Orakologen (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Since Swedes are generally a non-nationalist people I have taken the liberty of moving the page without previous discussion.--Orakologen (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this WP:BOLD move. If you still want to move it, please open a WP:RM discussion.
 * Before moving it back, I checked Google Books, excluding "Books, LLC" as recommended at WP:COMMONNAME. Here are the results:
 * "swedish war of liberation" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" — 166 hits
 * "swedish war of secession" -inauthor:"Books, LLC" — 6 hits
 * If Orakologen has any evidence in support of their assertion that "Swedish War of Secession is the standard (and neutral) English title", then please present it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I assumed the move was uncontroversial because - like I said - Swedes are generally a non-nationalist people (I would never have dared to move the title of a Serbian war ;-) ). The huge difference you get in your Google book comparison is because your search includes "a Swedish war of liberation" which is purely a description. If you type "The Swedish War of Liberation" vs. "The Swedish War of Secession" you get 10 to 6. Still a majority, but Encyclopaedia Britannica has Swedish War of Secession. To me EB sets the standard. Most of the "SW of L" titles are popular books and Liberation sounds cooler, so writers of popular history prefer that. That "War of Liberation" is not neutral should be self evident IMO. It implies that Gustav Vasa liberated an oppressed people, which is in line with the POV of traditionel Swedish history, but obviously not neutral. Secession on the other hand simply describes what actually happened. Sweden seceeded from the Kalmar Union. I would prefer that you and I could talk this through before opening an WP:RM since you may have some reasons I hadnt thought about. Why do you prefer War of Liberation?--Orakologen (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC) For the purposes of choosing an article title, your account of the history is irrelevant: you are not a reliable source, and nor am I. The terminology you want is the preferred Danish title, and it's preposterous to claim that the Danish usage is "neutral" but the Swedish usage is "POV". Not so; there are two POVs here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Orakologen, your opening assertion that "Swedes are generally a non-nationalist people" is an appalling basis for choosing a page name. An editor's personal view expressed as a sweeping generalisation about national character is no part of the naming process set out at WP:Article titles.
 * Your other assertion (that "Swedish War of Secession is the standard academic title") is clearly false. There are 6 hits for that title, and 4 of them are the Encylopedia Britannica. The other two are:
 * a general guide to Sweden, which doesn't look very scholarly
 * a scholarly work on parliaments
 * So "war of secession" is used by only two scholarly works.
 * OTOH, "war of liberation" is used by several scholarly works, including three uses in Britannica, and the Academic American Encyclopedia.
 * If you want to open a RM discussion on that basis, go ahead. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That "Swedes are a non-nationalist people" is not part of my argument - I dont know why you tought that..?? It was merely an explanation of the reason why I tought this would be an uncontroversial move. AAE is a good source, I missed that. But you are missing the POV aspect of this issue. Even in Swedish wiki some people wanted Gustav Vasas uprising ("revolt") or The rebellion of Gustav Vasa. W of L is simply not neutral. W of S is. This is the essence of this matter. Based on my history studies, lectures by British historians on the subject and EB I tought W of S was standard. So maybe I jumped to conclusions, I am sorry for that. But the question of neutrality still exists and you havent adressed that. Why do you prefer the POV "liberation" to the objective secession? The Kalmar union was a recognized reality. Gustav Vasa rebelled succesfully against it and Sweden secedeed. This is a neutral description of the facts. W of L on the other hand insists that the Swedes were liberated from foreign oppression. This is the POV of the victorious Swedish nation state, but not the pro-union Swedes in the 16th Century, the Danes or a significant part of the 25% of the people in modern Sweden living in areas that were Danish/Norwegian at the time and became war ridden border areas after the dissolution of the union. Liberation indicates that the Kalmar union was a bad thing, which is a legitimate POV, but far from objective. So unless the scholars are close to unanimous in their preference for W of L, I think it should be changed. But first I would like your answer to the question: Why do you prefer W of L?--Orakologen (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. You misunderstand the discussion: I do not "prefer" either name. I follow the policy WP:COMMONNAME, which supports the use of whatever name is most widely used in reliable sources. In this case that happens to be "Swedish War of Liberation".

 * It is incorrect that War of Secession is the preferred Danish title. It is not used in Denmark. Danish versions of Gustav Vasas Rebellion or - in older texts - the Dalcarlian Rebellion are the terms used. Often it is simply seen as the final phase of the Union Wars (Unionskrigene) and not given a separate name.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: '''No consensus for move per WP:COMMONNAME. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)''' Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Swedish War of Liberation → Swedish War of Secession or → Swedish War of Independence  – '''The term "liberation" is too POV representing the nationalist tradition in Swedish history, whereas Swedish War of Secession is merely descriptive - the Kalmar Union was a reality and Sweden seceded from it. Swedish War of Secession is used by Encyclopaedia Britannica and other scholarly works so it is a legitimate and neutral alternative.''' Orakologen (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Weak oppose. While I find the two terms approximately equivalent, I don't find any Google hits indicating online use of the "Secession" version other than on Wikipedia, while I find several hits using the "Liberation" version. So from a WP:COMMONNAME point of view, I'd prefer the "Liberation" version. I could change my mind if I'm convinced that multiple reliable sources consistently use another version. Tomas e (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats strange. Encyclopaedia Britannica uses SW of S so that alone gives Google hits. Also why do you find them "equivalent"?. The Swedish War of Independence actually gets more hits. Can you accept that?--Orakologen (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC) here are about 30 Wikipedia articles whose title is "Fooian War of Independence". The countries from which the nations involved won independence would not like that word, so I suggest you go ahead and open a mass WP:RM discussion to rename them all to "Fooian War of Secession" instead of the WP:COMMONNAME. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Support the current name is inherently biased. We should use neutral names in wikipedia.  Thus it should be "Swedish War of Secession", which is neutral, not "Liberation", which is extremely POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * JPL, "secession" is not a neutral term. It reflects the POV of the rulers of the state or entity which formerly ruled an area.
 * Oppose. "Swedish War of Liberation" is the more commonly-used title (see table below), and per WP:COMMONNAME we use the most common title. The arguments above assume that the word "secession" is neutral, which it isn't; it reflects the Danish POV.
 * As that table shows, "Swedish War of Liberation" is more widely used in all 3 types of search.
 * Note in particular that the apparent 7 Gbooks hits for "Swedish War of Secession" includes 5 separate entries for the Encyclopedia Britannica. The other two hits are:
 * a general guide to Sweden, which doesn't look very scholarly
 * a scholarly work on parliaments
 * So "war of secession" is used by only two scholarly works. I can't see any measure by which it meets WP:COMMONNAME. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose Google books: Liberation=10 Seccession=7 Independence=2 Google scholar: Liberation=3 Secession=0 Independence=0, Swedish War of Liberation seems to fit WP:COMMONNAME best, and I don't see NPOV argument in this case strong enough to overrule it.--Staberinde (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Swedish War of Liberation - Befrielsekriget
I have lived in Sweden during all of my 50 years and I have never ever heard about this name. And a quick check in Swedish encyclopedas gives no support for the Swedish name. With that followes also the English translation. Please find safe sources. It's also wrong, since this was not a nation vs nation war, but sooner a Kalmar Union civil war, which where won by Gustav Vasa. Not the people, obviously not. There has never been a period in Swedish history that was so turbulent and violent as the beginning of Gustav Vasa's ruleing. From Dalarna to Småland. Boeing720 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The irrelevant discussion above may be common at swWiki (?), but here we need relevant safe sources. Best would be two of each other independant historical authors (living or not) who uses the term "Befrielsekriget". You have a lot against You, since (like I've already stated) I can't find any article named "Befrielsekriget" in Swedish encyclopedias, not even in NE2000. It seem to me this article has been born at svWiki, and now put here aswell, without support for the name. Please proove me wrong Boeing720 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 * It seems that whatever the status is in Sweden Swedish War of Liberation has - regrettably - become the common name in English. I have added two others that are in use. But I agree that it needs to be properly sourced that Befrielseskriget is the Swedish term. It seems to be (mostly?) an invention by authors of popular history.--Batmacumba (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Nordisk familjebok refers to the war by the name befrielsekriget ("the liberation war"). It says "Som riksföreståndare hade G. ledt största delen af befrielsekriget; som konung afslöt han det." The term befrielsekriget is also used by, for example, Svenska folket genom tiderna by historian Ewert Wrangel, Gustaf Vasa ett 400-års-minne by historian Otto Sjögren, and the textbook Sveriges historia för folkskolan by historian Carl Grimberg. Note, I am not claiming that these are necessarily reputable sources regarding the war itself. I only mean to show that befrielsekriget is the common term used in Swedish. Also, note that the reason I'm citing these old sources is that because of their age they are no longer copyrighted and are thus available online. Gabbe (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Low quality sources
The four sources under "references" (two of the links are dead - so would that not make them "Literature"?) consists of one popular history book written by an economist, who wrote a number of (colourful) books on old wars (Sundberg) and may be the inventor of the term Befrielseskriget. One very short internet text, which is clearly not written by a historian (I think it should be removed as it is substandard), one text from a German exhibition about national myths (not a source for the article as it is now - could be used for a section on how the war has been portrayed in Swedish history and art) and a short chapter in a popular history book written by a journalist and poet (Henriksson). So no factual text written by a professional historian. I do not have the time right now, but someone ought to source this properly based on a modern history of Sweden written by an actual historian - preferably someone with a post-nationalist perspective.--Batmacumba (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swedish War of Liberation. 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/20110916191718/http://www.smb.nu/index.php/krig-1521-1611/befrielsekriget-1521-1523 to http://www.smb.nu/index.php/krig-1521-1611/befrielsekriget-1521-1523

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Naval aspects
It seems strange that this article makes very limited mention of the naval aspects of the campaign that brought Gustav Vasa to power. A key ingredient of the help that came from Lubeck was a fleet of ships. These were state of the art vessels (at a time of rapidly developing maritime technology) and were instrumental in, for instance, the blockading of Stockholm in the winter of 1522-23, so allowing capture of the city.

A useful summary of the history, from a naval point of view, is in the historical preamble to a paper on the investigation of the wreck of one of the ships in this navy This and other sources may be useful in righting the deficit. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Swedish War of Liberation


text:
Talk:Kalmar War

Stop fighting
@Thenationalist.dk @Anomalocaris Removing and re-adding pieces to the article won't add anything of value. Please have a discussion about it here instead.

Sincerely Oxieltro (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oxieltro: I pride myself in writing clear edit summaries. My edit summaries explained in detail the problems I saw and why I reverted. Eventually, the other editor got the idea. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. You have done nothing wrong, I recognize that. Unfortunately, @Thenationalist.dk keeps re-adding his pieces to the article, even though they shouldn't be there.
 * Sincerely Oxieltro (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think my aditions should be there? They are litteraly just copied out from the treaty pages. I wanted to contact Anomalocaris But im still new to wikipedia, and i dont know how to text another except from replying.
 * Sincerely - Thenationalist.dk (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My friend. Go into his User page, then click on the discussion tab and then create a new Topic. Hope this helps(:
 * Sincerely Oxieltro (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kalmar War


text:
Talk:Torstenson War

WP:MILHIST Assessment
Very short. Nice sectioning, but definitely needs expansion in every section. Needs an infobox. The intro also needs a little work - perhaps something like "The Hannibal War, also known as..." Slight changes in wording can make things seem a lot neater and more professional. Nice list of references, though. Always nice when an article lists its references. LordAmeth 00:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Republic as belligerent
GlobalReference221, the source you've added to support the claim that the Dutch Republic was a belligerent, seemingly involves factual errors; it says "Dutch and Swedes declared war on Denmark in 1643", even though it's widely accepted that the Swedes invaded without any formal declaration of war – Sundberg (2002), Svenska freder och stillestånd 1249–1814, p. 245. Furthermore, according to The Rise and Fall of the Danish Empire (p. 135), also opposing any claim of declarations of war, the Dutch Republic "had not directly participated in the war with Denmark", since the Dutch ships involved at the Battle of Fehmarn (1644) were hired by Swedish-Dutch Louis De Geer on behalf of Sweden, thus not representing the Dutch Republic as a state. The same source mentions how "concessions in customs of the Sound" were granted to the Netherlands, but the same is also true for Britain, France and Hansa – The Baltic Straits (p. 71). Everything I've seen thus far, except for the dubious source you added, points to the fact that the Dutch Republic neither declared war or participated; it merely supported the Swedes by allowing them to hire ships with crew there, thus hardly being a belligerent. Imonoz (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 * There are plenty of sources that say otherwise, u can also look for them yourself yk. From what i read the Dutch also sent ships themselves due to Denmark raising the toll, the Dutch wanted to secure their trading position see https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Dutch_Wars_of_Independence/2K3pAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PT36&printsec=frontcover it was an official war between the dutch and danish who also made a treaty https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Merchant_s_magazine_c/7HwEAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=&pg=PA283&printsec=frontcover. GlobalReference221 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sources you've provided above don't appear to support your argument. I'm not sure what page number we're supposed to be looking at in "The Dutch Wars of Independence", while the Merchant simply says in 1645 (ie after the war) Denmark agreed a series of trade agreements with nations who used the Sound, setting out tariffs for access to the Baltic trade.
 * "Securing their trading position" is not the same as the Dutch declaring war, which is what needs to happen for it to be considered a Belligerent in this conflict. Maybe I'm missing something. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first source, the Dutch Republic did send a fleet under Witte de With to the Baltic, but not as a belligerent ; to quote your source, it was a "war (1643-5) between Denmark and Sweden". The Dutch Republic seized the opportunity of a weakened Denmark and, in a show of force, sent a naval fleet with merchants in 1645 in an attempt to reduce the Sound Dues, all while acting neutral (unless attacked) – Försvarsstaben (1944), Slaget vid Femern, 1644, 13/10, 1944, p. 165. However, contrary to your claims, the Dutch Republic and Denmark were not at war (this is only mentioned in your dubious source Asia in the Making of Europe which incorrectly assumes Sweden and the Dutch Republic declared war in 1643) nor had they fought each other. In fact, Försvarsstaben (pp. 87-88) mentions how the Swedish government sent their trustee Louis De Geer to Amsterdam in 1644 to convince the Dutch Republic to enter the war on Sweden's side, and to privately equip, hire and buy ships on Sweden's behalf; the Republic not only refused to enter the war, seeing as Sweden had started it without consulting them, but denied any subsidies for Geer's fleet. The treaty at Kristianopel mentioned in your second source concerned the dues only (I referred to it earlier), it was not a peace treaty between Denmark and the Dutch Republic since they had not been at war. Imonoz (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are indeed right but, the Dutch where not neutral, but just did not officially join the war. The Dutch where an ally of Sweden they even signed a defensive alliance in 1640, and Denmark, and Spain made an 'anti Dutch treaty'. The Dutch even encouraged Louis de Geer to help the Swedes, and Amsterdam, and some other towns tried to send a Dutch fleet to help Sweden but eventually did not. however they failed to do anything more then this, but provide more political support( from Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740 page 146-148 ). However from another thing i red was, In 1645, the Dutch threatened to join Sweden in the war against Denmark if the Sound dues were not lowered, and the Danes were eventually obliged to give way.  from Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period
 * The Baltic World 1492-1772. So i do think u are indeed right and that they do not classify as belligerent, thank you for correcting me. GlobalReference221 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Torstenson War


text:
Category:Political parties in Lower Canada

Political parties operating in Lower Canada/Canada East (modern-day Quebec) before Canadian Confederation in 1867.


text:
Washington metropolitan area

The Washington metropolitan area, also referred to as the D.C. area, Greater Washington, the National Capital Region, or locally as the DMV (short for District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia), is the metropolitan area centered around Washington, D.C., the federal capital of the United States. The metropolitan area includes all of Washington, D.C. and parts of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is part of the larger Washington–Baltimore combined statistical area, which is the third-largest combined statistical area in the country.

The Washington metropolitan area is one of the most educated and affluent metropolitan areas in the U.S. The metro area anchors the southern end of the densely populated Northeast megalopolis with an estimated total population of 6,304,975, making it the seventh-most populous metropolitan area in the nation, as well as the second-largest metropolitan area in the Census Bureau's South Atlantic division.

Nomenclature
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget defines the area as the Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV metropolitan statistical area, a metropolitan statistical area used for statistical purposes by the United States Census Bureau and other agencies. The region's three largest cities are the federal city of Washington, D.C., the county (and census-designated place) of Arlington, and the independent city of Alexandria. The Office of Management and Budget also includes the metropolitan statistical area as part of the larger Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area, which has a population of 9,546,579 as of the 2014 Census Estimate.

The Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia portions of the metropolitan area are sometimes referred to as the National Capital Region, particularly by federal agencies such as the military, Department of Homeland Security, and some local government agencies. The National Capital Region portion of the Washington metropolitan area is also colloquially known by the abbreviation "DMV", which stands for the "District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia." The region is surrounded by Interstate 495 with the locations inside of it referred to as Inside the Beltway. Washington, D.C., which is at the center of the area, is sometimes referred to as the District because of its status as a federal district, which makes it not part of any state. The Virginian portion of the region is known as Northern Virginia. The Maryland portion of the region is sometimes called the Maryland-National Capital Region by local authorities but rarely by the general public.

Composition
The U.S. Census Bureau divides the Washington metropolitan statistical area into three (formerly two) metropolitan divisions:
 * Washington, DC–MD Metropolitan Division, consisting of Washington D.C., Prince George's County and Charles County, Maryland
 * Arlington–Alexandria–Reston, VA–WV Metropolitan Division, consisting of Northern Virginia and Jefferson County, WV
 * Frederick–Gaithersburg–Rockville, MD Metropolitan Division, consisting of Montgomery and Frederick counties

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Founded in 1957, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) is a regional organization of 21 Washington-area local governments, as well as area members of the Maryland and Virginia state legislatures, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. MWCOG provides a forum for discussion and the development of regional responses to issues regarding the environment, transportation, public safety, homeland security, affordable housing, community planning, and economic development.

The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, a component of MWCOG, is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the metropolitan Washington area.

Consortium of Universities in the Washington Metropolitan Area
Chartered in 1964, the Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area is a regional organization of 20 colleges and universities in the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the United States Institute of Peace, and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts representing nearly 300,000+ students. The consortium facilitates course cross registration between all member universities, and universalizes library access across some of its member universities through the Washington Research Library Consortium. It additionally offers joint procurement programs, joint academic initiatives, and campus public safety training.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Formed in 1967 as an interstate compact between Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, the WMATA is a tri-jurisdictional government agency with a board composed of representatives from Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the United States Federal government that operates transit services in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) is a multi-jurisdictional independent airport authority, created with the consent of the United States Congress and the legislature of Virginia to oversee management, operations, and capital development of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport.

Greater Washington Board of Trade
Founded in 1889, the Greater Washington Board of Trade is a network of regional businesses that work to advance the culture, economy, and resiliency of the Washington metropolitan area.

Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington
The Cultural Alliance of Greater Washington (CAGW) works to increase appreciation, support, and resources for arts and culture in the Washington metropolitan area.

Principal cities

The metropolitan area includes the following principal cities (not all of which are incorporated as cities; one, Arlington, actually is a county, while Bethesda and Reston are unincorporated census-designated places).

 * Washington, D.C.
 * Arlington, Virginia
 * Alexandria, Virginia
 * Frederick, Maryland
 * Gaithersburg, Maryland
 * Rockville, Maryland
 * Bethesda, Maryland
 * Reston, Virginia

Politics
The Washington metropolitan area is considered a Democratic stronghold. The last Republican to win it was Richard Nixon in his 1972 landslide reelection. Since Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, Democratic candidates have easily won the area by double-digits.

Racial composition
The area has been a magnet for international immigration since the late 1960s. It is also a magnet for internal migration (persons moving from one region of the U.S. to another).

Racial composition of the Washington metropolitan area.

2021 American Community Survey

 * Non-Hispanic White: 43%
 * Black or African American: 24% (including African 5.4%, West Indian 1.2%, and Ethiopian 0.8% )
 * Hispanic or Latino: 17%
 * Asian: 11%
 * Mixed and other: 6%

! Hispanic origin !! Asian origin Source: Census Reporter
 * 5.2% Salvadoran ||2.9% Indian
 * 2.3% Mexican ||1.9% Chinese
 * 1.6% Guatemalan ||1.2% Korean
 * 1.2% Puerto Rican ||1.2% Vietnamese
 * 0.9% Honduran ||1.0% Filipino
 * 0.9% Peruvian ||0.5% Pakistani
 * 0.8% Bolivian ||0.2% Japanese
 * 0.5% Colombian ||0.2% Thai
 * 0.5% Dominican ||0.2% Bangladeshi
 * 5.6% Other ||1.0% Other
 * }
 * 0.9% Peruvian ||0.5% Pakistani
 * 0.8% Bolivian ||0.2% Japanese
 * 0.5% Colombian ||0.2% Thai
 * 0.5% Dominican ||0.2% Bangladeshi
 * 5.6% Other ||1.0% Other
 * }
 * 0.5% Dominican ||0.2% Bangladeshi
 * 5.6% Other ||1.0% Other
 * }
 * }

2010 U.S. Census

 * White: 54.8%
 * Black: 25.8%
 * Asian: 9.3%
 * Hispanic: 13.8%
 * Mixed and other: 3.7%

2006

 * White: 51.7%
 * Black: 26.3%
 * Asian: 8.4%
 * Hispanic: 11.6%
 * Mixed and other: 2.0%

1980

 * White: 67.8%
 * Black: 26.0%
 * Asian: 2.5%
 * Hispanic: 2.8%
 * Mixed and other: 0.9%

Social indicators
The Washington metropolitan area has ranked as the highest-educated metropolitan area in the nation for four decades. As of the 2006–2008 American Community Survey, the three most educated places with 200,000 people or more in Washington–Arlington–Alexandria by bachelor's degree attainment (population 25 and over) are Arlington, Virginia (68.0%), Fairfax County, Virginia (58.8%), and Montgomery County, Maryland (56.4%). Forbes magazine stated in its 2008 "America's Best- And Worst-Educated Cities" report: "The D.C. area is less than half the size of L.A., but both cities have around 100,000 Ph.D.'s."

The Washington metropolitan area has held the top spot in the American College of Sports Medicine's annual American Fitness Index ranking of the United States' 50 most populous metropolitan areas for two years running. The report cites, among other things, the high average fitness level and healthy eating habits of residents, the widespread availability of health care and facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, and parks, low rates of obesity and tobacco use relative to the national average, and the high median household income as contributors to the city's community health.

In the 21st century, the Washington metropolitan area has overtaken the San Francisco Bay Area as the highest-income metropolitan area in the nation. The median household income of the region is US$72,800. The two highest median household income counties in the nation – Loudoun and Fairfax County, Virginia – are components of the MSA (and No. 3 is Howard County, officially in Baltimore's sphere but strongly connected with Washington's); measured in this way, Alexandria ranks 10th among municipalities in the region – 11th if Howard is included – and 23rd in the entire United States. 12.2% of Northern Virginia's 881,136 households, 8.5% of suburban Maryland's 799,300 households, and 8.2% of Washington's 249,805 households have an annual income in excess of $200,000, compared to 3.7% nationally.

According to a report by the American Human Development Project, women in the Washington metropolitan area are ranked as having the highest income and educational attainment among the 25 most populous metropolitan areas in the nation, while Asian American women in the region had the highest life expectancy, at 92.3 years.

Economy

The Washington metropolitan area has the largest science and engineering work force of any metropolitan area in the nation in 2006 according to the Greater Washington Initiative at 324,530, ahead of the combined San Francisco Bay Area work force of 214,500, and Chicago metropolitan area at 203,090, citing data from U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Claritas Inc., and other sources.

The Washington metropolitan area was ranked as the second best High-Tech Center in a statistical analysis of the top 100 Metropolitan areas in the United States by American City Business Journals in May 2009, behind the Silicon Valley and ahead of the Boston metropolitan area. Fueling the metropolitan area's ranking was the reported 241,264 tech jobs in the region, a total eclipsed only by New York, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as the highest master's or doctoral degree attainment among the 100 ranked metropolitan areas. A Dice.com report showed that the Washington–Baltimore area had the second-highest number of tech jobs listed: 8,289, after the New York metro area with 9,195 jobs. In 2020, the total gross domestic product for the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV (MSA) was $561,027,941,000.

Real estate and housing market
Changes in house prices for the Washington metropolitan area are publicly tracked on a regular basis using the Case–Shiller index; the statistic is published by Standard & Poor's and is also a component of S&P's 10-city composite index of the value of the U.S. residential real estate market.

McLean ZIP code 22102 had the highest median home prices among ZIP codes within the Washington metropolitan area as of 2013.

Net worth, wealth disparities, and business ownership
The economy of the Washington metropolitan region is characterized by significant wealth disparities, which were heightened by the Great Recession and the 2007–09 housing crisis, which adversely affected black and Hispanic households more than other households.

A 2016 Urban Institute report found that the median net worth (i.e., assets minus debt) for white households in the D.C. region was $284,000, while the median net worth for Hispanic–Latino households was $13,000, and for African American households as $3,500. Asian Americans had the highest median net worth in the Washington area ($220,000 for Chinese American households, $430,000 for Vietnamese American households, $496,000 for Korean American households, and $573,000 for Indian American households).

Although the median net worth for white D.C.-area households was 81 times that of black D.C.-area households, the two groups had comparable rates of business ownership (about 9%). The Urban Institute report suggests that this "may be driven by the presence of a large federal government and a local district government whose membership and constituents have been largely Black, coupled with government policies designed to increase contracting opportunities for minority-owned businesses."

Biotechnology
The Washington metropolitan area has a significant biotechnology industry; companies with a major presence in the region as of 2011 include Merck, Pfizer, Human Genome Sciences, Martek Biosciences, and Qiagen. Additionally, many biotechnology companies such as United Therapeutics, Novavax, Emergent BioSolutions, Parabon NanoLabs and MedImmune have headquarters in the region. The area is also home to branch offices of many contract research organizations. Firms with a presence in the area include Covance, IQVIA, Charles River Laboratories, and ICON plc. The area's medical research is driven by government and non-profit health institutions, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, J. Craig Venter Institute, and the National Institutes of Health.

Consumer goods
Local consumer goods companies include Nestle USA and Mars, Incorporated.

Defense contracting
Many defense contractors are based in the region to be close to the Pentagon in Arlington. Local defense contractors include Lockheed Martin, the largest, as well as General Dynamics, BAE Systems Inc., Northrop Grumman, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), CACI, ManTech International, DynCorp, and Leidos.

Hospitality
The Washington metropolitan area contains the headquarters of numerous companies in the hospitality and hotel industries. Major companies with headquarters in the region include Marriott International, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Hilton Worldwide, Park Hotels and Resorts, Choice Hotels, Host Hotels and Resorts, and HMSHost.

Mass media
The media industry is a significant portion of metropolitan Washington's economy. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Washington DC region has the second largest concentration of journalists and media personnel in the United States after the New York metropolitan area. Washington's industry presence includes major publications with national audiences such as The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and USA Today, as well as new media publishers such as Vox Media, RealClearPolitics, Axios, and Politico. A secondary portion of this market is made up of periodicals such as National Affairs, those by The Slate Group, Foreign Policy, National Geographic, The American Prospect, and those by Atlantic Media, including The Atlantic. There are also many smaller regional publications present, such as The Washington Diplomat, The Hill, Hill Rag, Roll Call, Washington City Paper and the Washington Examiner.

Telecommunications
Anchored by the Dulles Technology Corridor, the telecommunications and tech industry in DC spans a diverse range of players across internet infrastructure, broadcasting, satellite communications, and datacenters. Firms headquartered in the area include Cogent Communications, GTT Communications, Hughes Network Systems, iCore Networks, Iridium Communications, Intelsat, Ligado Networks, NII Holdings, Oceus Networks, OneWeb, Tegna Inc., Transaction Network Services, Verisign, WorldCell, and XO Communications.

Tourism
Tourism is a significant industry in the Washington metropolitan region. In 2015, more than 74,000 tourism-sector jobs existed in the District of Columbia, a record-setting 19.3 million domestic tourists visited the city, and domestic and international tourists combined spent $7.1 billion. The convention industry is also significant; in 2016, D.C. hosted fifteen "city-wide conventions" with an estimated total economic impact of $277.9 million.

Tourism is also significant outside the District of Columbia; in 2015, a record-setting $3.06 billion in tourism spending was reported in Arlington, Virginia, and $2.9 billion in Fairfax County, Virginia. A 2016 National Park Service report estimated that there were 56 million visitors to national parks in the National Capital Region, sustaining 16,917 and generating close to $1.6 billion in economy impact.

History

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure resulted in a significant shuffling of military, civilian, and defense contractor employees in the Washington metropolitan area. The largest individual site impacts of the time are as follows: BRAC 2005 was the largest infrastructure expansion by the Army Corps of Engineers since World War II, resulting in the Mark Center, tallest building they have ever constructed, as well as National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Campus East, which at 2.4 million square feet is the largest building the Corps have constructed since the Pentagon.
 * Fort Belvoir gained 11,858 employees, primarily as a result of the relocation of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) into a massive new headquarters within the fort.
 * Fort Meade gained 5,361 employees, primarily as a result of the expansion of the National Security Agency.
 * Walter Reed Army Medical Center lost 5,630 employees as part of its realignment. It was later closed and consolidated into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

Transportation

"WMATA"-indicated systems are run by Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and always accept Washington Metro fare cards; others may or may not.

Commercial service airports

 * Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), located in Dulles, Virginia
 * Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), located in Arlington County, Virginia – the closest to Washington
 * Baltimore–Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), located in Linthicum, Maryland (outside of but serving the Washington metropolitan area)
 * Hagerstown Regional Airport (HGR), located in Washington County, Maryland – serves western Maryland, the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, and portions of south-central Pennsylvania and north-western Virginia along the Interstate 81 corridor

Rail transit systems

 * Washington Metro – DC, MD, VA (rapid transit) (WMATA)
 * MARC Train – DC, MD, WV (commuter rail)
 * Virginia Railway Express – DC, VA (commuter rail)
 * Amtrak – US (commuter rail, inter-city rail)

Bus transit systems

 * DC Circulator – Washington, D.C. (DDoT, WMATA)
 * Metrobus – Washington metropolitan area (WMATA)
 * Metroway – Arlington County, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia (bus rapid transit) (WMATA)
 * Ride On – Montgomery County, Maryland
 * TheBus – Prince George's County, Maryland
 * ART – Arlington County, Virginia
 * DASH – Alexandria, Virginia
 * Fairfax Connector – Fairfax County, Virginia
 * CUE Bus – Fairfax, Virginia
 * Loudoun County Transit – Loudoun County, Virginia
 * PRTC – Prince William County, Manassas and Manassas Park
 * TransIT – Frederick County, Maryland
 * VanGO – Charles County, Maryland
 * Regional Transportation Agency of Central Maryland – Howard County, Anne Arundel County, Prince George's County, Laurel, Maryland
 * Maryland Transit Administration – Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, Maryland, Prince George's County, Frederick County, Maryland, Charles County, Maryland, Calvert County, Maryland, Howard County, Anne Arundel County, Saint Mary's County, Maryland
 * Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority – Jefferson County, West Virginia, Berkeley County, West Virginia
 * Virginia Regional Transit – Loudoun County, Virginia, Culpeper County, Virginia, Fauquier County, Virginia, Warren County, Virginia
 * Fredericksburg Regional Transit – Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County and Stafford County

Interstates

 * – the Capital Beltway
 * – signed as US 50
 * – the Capital Beltway
 * – signed as US 50
 * – the Capital Beltway
 * – signed as US 50
 * – the Capital Beltway
 * – signed as US 50
 * – signed as US 50

Bicycle sharing

 * Capital Bikeshare – Washington, D.C., Arlington, Virginia, Alexandria, Virginia, Fairfax County, Virginia, Prince George's County, Maryland, and Montgomery County, Maryland

Sports teams
Listing of the professional sports teams in the Washington metropolitan area:

Media
The Washington metropolitan area is home to DCTV, USA Today, C-SPAN, PBS, NPR, Politico, BET, TV One and Discovery Communications. The two main newspapers are The Washington Post and The Washington Times. Local television channels include WRC-TV 4 (NBC), WTTG 5 (FOX), WJLA 7 (ABC), WUSA 9 (CBS), WDCA 20 (MyNetworkTV), WETA-TV 26 (PBS), WDCW 50 (CW), and WPXW 66 (Ion). WJLA 24/7 News is a local news provider available only to cable subscribers. Radio stations serving the area include: WETA-FM, WIHT, WSBN, and WTOP.

Area codes

 * 202 and 771 – Washington, D.C.
 * 703 and 571 – Northern Virginia including the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, and Falls Church as well as Arlington, Fairfax, Stafford, Prince William, and Loudoun counties (571 created March 1, 2000; 703 in October 1947).
 * 301, 240, and 227 – portions of Maryland in the Washington metropolitan area, southern Maryland, and western Maryland
 * 540 and 826 – Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, Warrenton
 * 304 and 681 – Jefferson County, West Virginia

title: Washington metropolitan area


text:
Talk:First Schleswig War

Untitled
do we still need the wikify tag here?
 * no --Heiko A 10:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

POV descriptions
The descriptions of the battles are directly taken from this external link. Aside from being copyrighted text, the phrasing used is from a Danish POV. It does not properly reference its data and does not provide information on what makes a battle an "easy Danish victory" or what makes a Danish retreat "masterly". Because of this, the text describing the battles should be removed or reworded into neutral and (ideally) referenced phrasing. Olessi 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Title
Any objections to renaming the page to First Schleswig War? That phrasing is used by more recently published texts than "First War of Schleswig". Olessi 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Move completed. Olessi 16:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Belligerents corrected
I have removed sweden/norway from the list of belligerents, where it was incorrectly listed. Sweden/norway was listed as belligerent on denmarks side (as volunteers) This state did not participate in the war. Some volunteers joined on on the danish side though, but this is mentioned in the article.

I have never seen volunteers by country listed as belligerent before. And if they where to be, then the volunteers from the german states should be listed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.220.50 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in Background
The background section incorrectly states "When King Christian VIII of Denmark died without children in January 1848, the duchies could have gone under the rule of the House of Oldenburg, which may have resulted in a division of Denmark." Christian VIII had a son Frederick VII who suceeded him as King of Denmark. See here for an external reference. It was Frederick's death in November 1863 without children that led to the Second Schleswig War, not Christian's death in 1848. I'm deleting the incorrect sentence.--Eujin16 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"The duchies could have gone under the rule of the House of Oldenburg" - Clarify, please
In the Background section, "the duchies could have gone under the rule of the House of Oldenburg" is utterly unclear, at least to me, even after I've looked up the House of Oldenberg and twice tried to clarify it myself. First I assumed it meant "would have gone under the rule of a North German House called the House of Oldenburg", until I realized this was the Danish Royal House and thought that it was somebody with a poor command of English who was trying to say "would have ceased to be under the rule of the House of Oldenburg (the Danish Royal House)". Then I realized there were non-Danish branches of the House and changed it to "would have gone under the rule of some non-Danish branch of the House of Oldenburg (which is also the Danish Royal House)", before realizing this was really just a possibly mistaken guess by me, and self-reverting and adding a clarification request. So could somebody who understands what it really means please re-word it more clearly. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Further clarifications, please

 * April 3 (1849)" ... Prussia...determined to take matters into her own hands." : What exactly does this mean, and what has it got to do with the specifc date (April 3, 1849)?

 * At least one of the following 3 statements must seemingly be wrong, or at least misleading. I will put a clarify request after the 3rd of them, but it might be one of the others which is wrong. Please clarify which one(s):
 * on 26 August (1848), Prussia signed a convention at Malmö which yielded to practically all the Danish demands.
 * 31 May (1849): Danes stop Prussian advance through Jutland in cavalry battle at Vejlby.
 * In April 1850, Prussia, which had pulled out of the war after the treaty of Malmö,

Tlhslobus (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Tlhslobus (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Diet of the German Confederation: Because of the language used, I've Wikilinked this to the (then largely inactive) Federal Convention (German Confederation) rather than to the (active) Frankfurt Parliament. However it is unclear to me (and very far from self-evident) which one Wrangel actually said and/or actually meant (or whether he was being deliberately ambiguous), which presumably depended on his precise intentions (declaring himself subordinate to a 'legitimate' but inactive body is presumably convenient for a general who is behaving like someone who wants to be his own boss and is busily justifying his refusal to obey his own King). So I've also added a clarification request.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Schleswig 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/20080508063812/http://www.milhist.dk/trearskrigen/bov/bov.html to http://www.milhist.dk/trearskrigen/bov/bov.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002054320/http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm to http://www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/sleswig.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Schleswig - German confederation
The list of belligerents make i look like Schleswig was a member of the German Confederation when it was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.104.136 (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Schleswig War


text:
Roosevelt Island Bridge

The Roosevelt Island Bridge is a tower drive vertical lift bridge that connects Roosevelt Island in Manhattan to Astoria in Queens, crossing the East Channel of the East River. It is the sole route to the island for vehicular and foot traffic (without using public transportation).

History
Construction of the bridge began on March 17, 1952, at a cost of $6.5 million. It opened on May 18, 1955, as the Welfare Island Bridge. The name was changed to the Roosevelt Island Bridge in 1973.

When the bridge is open it provides ships with 100 ft of vertical clearance. It is 40 ft wide, and its total length, including approaches, is 2877 ft. The main span is 418 ft.

Before the bridge was constructed, the only way vehicles could access Roosevelt Island was via an elevator on the Queensboro Bridge. The elevator was subsequently demolished in 1970.

The Roosevelt Island Bridge provides direct access to the Motorgate Parking Garage, which was designed to minimize vehicular traffic on the island. The garage was completed in 1974 and later expanded in 1990.

In 2001, the New York City Department of Transportation considered converting the Roosevelt Island Bridge into a fixed bridge to reduce the cost of its maintenance. The bridge is rarely opened, because most vessels passing by Roosevelt Island use the West Channel of the East River. Most of the bridge openings occur in September during the General Assembly at the United Nations when the West Channel is closed for security reasons.

title: Roosevelt Island Bridge


text:
Talk:Bolton

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2017
change population 128,139 to 198,189 per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greater_Manchester_settlements_by_population 82.23.110.17 (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  01:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 * And I have undone it. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that figure is for the whole borough. Change of figures require reliable sources. J3Mrs (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

 * And I am going to undo it again as the figures you give are for the whole Metropolitan Borough of Bolton not the town. J3Mrs (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect
Bolton is not and has never been apart of greater manchester Bolton is Lancashire and not open for discussion! 8Dan8 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GREATWRONGS and Local Government Act 1972. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018
References > 91. How to find Bolton Sixth Form College - updated link https://www.bolton-sfc.ac.uk/student-life/travel/ TrCREATIVE (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the sentence that is referenced reads "Bolton Sixth Form College comprises the Town Centre Campus and Farnworth Campus." Your new source does not mention Farnworth campus. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I wasn't citing the copy, it's in the link of references (Not under the Education section), number 91. It's currently using the Web Archive link. The new link is https://www.bolton-sfc.ac.uk/student-life/travel/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrCREATIVE (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that our policy on verifiability indicates that a reference should support the text that it follows. Your new reference https://www.bolton-sfc.ac.uk/student-life/travel/ does not support the preceding text, specifically the words "and Farnworth Campus". Farnworth is on the map, but there is no indication of a campus there. Do you have a source which names Farnworth campus. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No 🚌 bus in Barnabas
Not quite sure why this page is locked, but Barnabas doesn't have a u. Also mysterious is why Muslims have 12% of the population but 33% of the MPs? Why does Labour overrepresent minorites like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.207 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Lancashire
I have just edited this article to say that Bolton is still within the Historic County of Lancashire,which it is.Although it is part of Greater Manchester,the town is still within the historic boundaries of Lancashire,the article previously said that Bolton was formerly in Lancashire,which i think is misleading,formerly means not anymore which is incorrect,although it is not administrated by Lancashire County Council,Bolton is still in the historic county.Also the article states that Bolton borders the City of Manchester,which it doesn't,Bolton shares no borders with that city,Bolton borders the boroughs of Blackburn with Darwen,Chorley,Bury and Wigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.45.182 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not contain the words "border" or "borders" at all. Are you referring to the phrase "Bolton is 10 mi north-west of Manchester and lies between Manchester, Darwen, Blackburn, Chorley, Bury and Salford"? That neither states nor implies what Bolton's borders might be. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Boltonian myself I know what places Bolton are around Bolton and which are not,Bury,Darwen,Blackburn,Chorley and Wigan all surround Bolton,Manchester doesn't so to me it is misleading to say that Bolton lies between Manchester and elsewhere,I dont understand either why any mention of Bolton still being within the Historic County of Lancashire gets removed straight away,it is a fact,The Historic County boundaries still remain the same,and Bolton is firmly within Historic Lancashire. 92.3.45.182 (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Historic County
It seems to be against wikipedia's principles to state that Bolton is in the Historic County of Lancashire,even though it is,every time an edit is made to state that the town is within the historic county boundaries it is changed near enough straight away to something like "formerly in",this is incorrect,Who ever keeps changing this needs to take a look at the government act of 74 which stated the historic county boundaries will not be altered,Greater Manchester etc was merely set up as an administrative area,there is also an article on wikipedia that states that the historic county palatine of Lancashire remains the same as the historic county boundaries,so why every time it is mentioned that Bolton is still within historic Lancashire is it changed,it is silly and wrong to pretend that it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.45.182 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

West Pennine Moors
The article states that Bolton is close to the West Pennine Moors,I think it's more accurate to say that Bolton is at the foothills of West Pennine Moors,as some area's of the town Like Smithills,Horrocks Fold,Doffcocker etc extend well into the Hills ,instead of just close by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.45.182 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

infobox picture
Bolton Wanderers now play in Horwich not Bolton, in the borough but not the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.162.125 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 * It's actually Middlebrook which is just in Lostock,in the town of Bolton,there's a sign past the stadium on De Havilland way which says Welcome to Horwich 78.149.25.194 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bolton


text:
Gravelly Point

Gravelly Point is an area within the National Park Service's George Washington Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia. It is located on the west side of the Potomac River, immediately north of Roaches Run and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Gravelly Point has served as an iconic spot for plane spotters, picnickers and others to watch planes take off and land from National Airport for more than half a century.

Developments
In 2023, Arlington County announced it would allocate $1 million for implementing improvements at Gravelly Point. The funds were allocated ahead of the scheduled construction of a pedestrian bridge between Crystal City and the airport, which would be located less than a mile from the area.

Geography
It sits directly under the glide path of the airport's main runways; aircraft pass between 100 and 200 feet overhead on final approach to land on Runway 19 and when taking off from Runway 1.

The paved Mount Vernon Trail travels through the area. A rugby pitch hosts high school matches. The area also has a boat launch and a Capital Bikeshare dock.

Security
Part of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the public recreation area is patrolled by the U.S. Park Police. The public is kept off the airport land by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Police.

Proposed renaming
Between 2016 and 2021, Representative Jody Hice of Georgia, a Republican, introduced four unsuccessful bills in the House of Representatives to rename the Gravelly Point area "Nancy Reagan Memorial Park." His legislation, filed as H.R. 5457 (2016),  H.R. 553 (2017-18),   H.R. 308 (2019), and H.R. 4364 (2021), was each time referred to a subcommittee by the House Committee on Natural Resources, proceeding no further. Hice left office in 2023.

title: Gravelly Point


text:
Talk:St. James, Minnesota

10/15/05 ... added history section with information from City of St. James Website.

title: Talk:St. James, Minnesota


text:
East Forsyth High School (North Carolina)

East Forsyth High School is located in the town of Kernersville in Forsyth County, North Carolina. It is laid out in a college-campus style with numerous small buildings rather than a single large building.

Facilities
East Forsyth currently has a total of nine main classroom buildings; four buildings house eight classrooms, two others house ten classrooms, and one houses up to sixteen. Two "pod" trailers are housed in the back of the campus. There are also two gyms, an auditorium, cafeteria, courtyard, technology building, and an office building with a library.

Recently completed renovations on campus have ultimately changed the entire school. A two-story, L-shaped building has been built; it houses 16 classrooms, office facilities, as well as a new media center. The existing office building has been renovated as well; it now houses fine arts as well as the business and technology education programs on campus. The auditorium and some of the current buildings have been updated, and new traffic pattern is also in place for the campus.

Athletics
East Forsyth High School offers many sports including: Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Dance Team, Cheerleading, Softball, Cross Country, Swimming, Tennis, Football, Volleyball, Golf, Wrestling, Field Hockey, Lacrosse, and Track.

In 1992, East Forsyth won its first football state championship. Led by Head Coach Joe Bill Ellender and the AP All-State trio of, quarterback Joe Lagarde, and OL/DL leaders James Clyburn and Gary Wadford, the Eagles completed a 15–0 season by defeating Northern High School of Durham, North Carolina, in the NCHSAA 4A championship game. They finished the 1992 season ranked 15th in the USA TODAY super 25 poll.

In 2008, East Forsyth Had one of its best seasons by going 12–2. That record was beat in 2012 with East Forsyth Going 13–1 with an undefeated 11–0 regular season. In the 2014 season, the Eagles won another conference championship beating Northwest Guildford 36–15.

East Forsyth's main rival is Glenn High School. In past football seasons, the East-Glenn game was one of the first games of the year. Now with both teams in the Piedmont-Triad 4A conference.

On December 4, 2015, the football season came to a close one game away from the 4AA state championship. The East Forsyth Eagles fell in overtime against nationally ranked Mallard Creek of Charlotte, North Carolina. The final score was 41–38. The Western regional final broke an attendance record, making it the most attended game in East Forsyth History at Fred E. Lewis field.

In December 2018, East Forsyth won its second football state championship. The Eagles beat Scotland High to win their first football state title since 1992.

In December 2019, East Forsyth won its third football state championship. Defending its title against Cardinal Gibbons, beating them 24–21.

Notable alumni

 * Madison Bailey — actress
 * Turner Battle — college basketball coach
 * Chante Black — WNBA player
 * Alan Caldwell — NFL defensive back
 * Ashley Christensen — chef, restaurateur, author, and culinary celebrity
 * Ryan Dull — MLB pitcher
 * Emily V. Gordon — Award-Winning Writer and producer of The Big Sick; wife of Kumail Nanjiani
 * DeLana Harvick — former co-manager of Kevin Harvick Incorporated; wife of Kevin Harvick
 * Ricky Hickman — professional basketball player
 * Brent LaRue — middle-distance runner, represented Slovenia at the 2012 Summer Olympics
 * Kevin Mattison — MLB outfielder
 * Ben Newnam — professional soccer player
 * Connor Norby — baseball player
 * Danny O'Brien — Canadian Football League coach and former quarterback
 * Tyson Patterson — professional basketball player
 * Josh Pittman — professional basketball player
 * Greg Scales — NFL tight end
 * Geno Segers — actor for Disney's Pair of Kings
 * Alec Zumwalt — MLB coach


text:
File:Lkvwfire1aa.jpg

Summary
Lake View School, Collinwood (Cleveland) Ohio. Before March 1908 fire. From a vintage picture postcard owned by Stude62, manufactured before 1907 (non-split back). No Copyright, nor printing company name.

title: File:Lkvwfire1aa.jpg


text:
Murzin

Murzin (Russian: Мурзин, IPA: [mʊrˈzʲin]) is a Russian masculine surname originating from the word murza, meaning Tatar prince; its feminine counterpart is Murzina. Notable persons with the surname include:

 * Dave Murzin (born 1963), American realtor and politician
 * Elena Murzina (born 1984), Russian rhythmic gymnast
 * Leonid Murzin (1930–1996), Soviet and Russian linguist
 * Volodar Murzin (born 2006), Russian chess player
 * Yevgen Murzin (born 1965), Soviet and Ukrainian basketball player and coach
 * Yevgeny Murzin (1914–1970), Russian audio engineer

title: Murzin