Talk:African theatre of World War I

POV ?
Anyone else see POV issues with the paragraph on German East Africa? Engr105th (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

boers
boers wern't entirley on the german side, they should be put into both categories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezuidenhout (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

map
why is the map labeled in japanese? is there not an english map available? 24.17.211.150 (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the map is dumb. I can't freakin read asian. You people are so dumb 155.92.100.226 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberia and Italy
Why are these two nations in the list of combatants? Niether saw serivce that I am aware in Africa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If Boers are counted why not the Senussi in Lybia/Egypt? They kept more British troops occupied and during more time than the Boers, and they did get limited assistance from the Ottomans and Germans. Also, shouldn't Ottomans be considered a belligerent too? Or is the Sinai considered part of Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But they were the Senusi, not the country of Lybia (or italy). Aslo the Egyptian front is not generaly considerd part of teh Afriocan front bu8t the near eastern front.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Map
Why is the map in non-english?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision
Added details, tidied layout, references and citations, removed banner.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Added north Africa but I fear that the spellings of the arabic words are rather eccentric. The Background, Prelude and Analysis are insufficient.Keith-264 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the Makonde uprising.Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You have expanded this article almost sixfold. Are you planning to do work on the subarticles (Togo, Cameroon, East Africa, South-West Africa, Senussi, etc.)? I see you have begun on North Africa. Srnec (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopia
Ethiopia has been removed a couple of times so I thought I'd explain the rationale here. As the cited source makes clear (here, p. 43ff), Ethiopia under Lij Iyassu pursued a strong pro-Central Powers policy until 1916. It went beyond "good relations" as one reverter has claimed - Ethiopia was even embargoed by the Allies and the alignment policy even led to a coup d'état in 1916. So - certainly not a belligerent, but well-deserving of being listed as a "supporter". —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , you removed this again in August without discussion here. "Supported by" does not indicate that Ethiopia was a belligerent, but that was just a supporter! Given that this article deals on a whole-continent scale, including all major states is important - especially if, like Ethiopia, they were clearly aligned in one way. It does not imply any moral judgment if that is your worry. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, Strachan, H. (2001). The First World War: To Arms I. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926191-1 (p. 747) mentions German, British and Ethiopian machinations, Lij Iyassu's intrigues and Sayyid Mohammed's turn to the British. I think that "supported by" is accurate and should be left in.Keith-264 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Diplomatic supporters are generally not included in conflict infoboxes. There needs to be some kind of material support (men, arms, supplies) to warrant inclusion. Like Germany was clearly sympathetic to Boers, but we don't include them as "supporter" in Boer Wars infoboxes.--Staberinde (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The factions in Ethiopia fought each other for the power to try to profit from either Euro alliance so Ethiopian neutrality was notional. Both European sides tried to exploit internal divisions to promote their imperial interests so it was more than a diplomatic bunfight but less than outright belligerence; enough to be included in my opinion.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Keith. Plus, remember that this article basically covers everything in Africa during WW1 - I agree that putting Ethiopia in the East Africa Campaign article infobox might be a bit excessive, but here it fits perfectly! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ethiopia did not fight anyone, nor did they send support to anyone, for all practical purposes their neutrality was very much real despite whatever internal meddling was going on in background. I don't know any other conflict infobox in wikipedia which includes countries with such non-existent involment.--Staberinde (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the case. If Ethiopia had deployed troops, it would have been listed as a belligerent. The "supported by" field clarifies that its involvement was diplomatic/material, not military. How would you propose to explain the Allied embargo otherwise? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the "supported by" criterion is sufficient for the nice distinction being attempted, after all it's good enough for Liberia too.Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Supported by" is generally used in wikipedia infoboxes for countries that send volunteers, supplies, arms etc. I know no other example where it is used only for diplomatic support. That said, I seem clearly unable to convince you, and it is 1-2 so I will just go away. But you shouldn't be surprised if people regularly come and remove it, as it clearly differs from general practice in infoboxes. Btw, regarding Liberia, they probably should be added as normal belligerent due to formal declaration of war and an actual bombing by German submarine.--Staberinde (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that last might be fair enough. That said, if you'd like to contribute a section for the article on "Ethiopian neutrality", I'm sure it would fit well into the current article's scope. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African theatre of World War I. 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 tag to https://ia700407.us.archive.org/32/items/principalevents100grea/principalevents100grea.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061112144341/http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030583.html to http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/030583.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) 18:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Additions
Filled in a few gaps.Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Source query Local Government in Western Nigeria
Savage, Akinniyi (2010). Local Government in Western Nigeria: Abeokuta, 1830–1952: A Case Study of Exemplary Institutional Change. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris. ISBN 978-1-4415-8616-2.[self-published source?]
 * I think it's self published and a version of his MA from 1977 from San Diego State University OCLC 12528522 Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
Apropos discussing at talk, I used from one of Somaliyeed's edits to get an image for the Infobox but it needs someone who knows more to alter it so that the image is the same size as the rest. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Senussi
Paragraph taken from Senussi campaign Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)