Talk:Second Italo-Senussi War

POV against Italy

I find the article partially POV against Italy. There it is no reference at all to the massacre of Italian military & civilians done by rebels from 1911 to 1915, that created the revenge (against moslem fanatics mainly in Cyrenaica) from Italian authorities after WWI. To have an idea read this:Sciara sciat.

Ho visto in una sola moschea diciassette italiani crocefissi con i corpi ridotti allo stato di cenci sanguinolenti e informi; ma i cui volti serbano ancora le tracce di un'infernale agonia. Si è passata per il collo di questi disgraziati una lunga canna e le braccia riposano su questa canna. Sono stati poi inchiodati al muro e morirono a fuoco lento fra sofferenze inenarrabili. Dipingervi il quadro orrendo di queste carni decomposte che pendono pietosamente sulla muraglia insanguinata, è impossibile. In un angolo un altro corpo è crocefisso ma siccome era quello di un ufficiale si sono raffinate le sue sofferenze. Gli si cucirono gli occhi. Tutti i cadaveri ben inteso erano mutilati evirati in modo indescrivibile e i corpi apparivano gonfie come informe carogne. Ma non è tutto! Nel cimitero di Chui che serviva di rifugio ai turchi e donde tiravano da lontano potemmo vedere un altro spettacolo. Sotto la porta stessa di fronte alle trincee italiane cinque soldati erano stati sepolti fino alle spalle; le teste emergevano dalla sabbia nera del loro sangue: teste orribili a vedersi; vi si leggevano tutte le torture della fame e della sete(Gaston Leroud and the correspondent of Matin -Journal)

TRANSLATION: I saw in one mosque seventeen Italian crucifixed with their bodies reduced to the status of bloody rags and bones, but whose faces still retain traces of hellish agony. It has passed through the neck of these wretched a long barrel and arms resting on this rod. They were then nailed to the wall and died for a slow fire between untold suffering. It is impossible for us to paint the picture of these hideous rotted meat hanging pitifully on the bloody wall. In a corner another body is crucified but as an officer he was to have refined his sufferings. The eyes are stitched. All the bodies were mutilated and castrated; so indescribable was the scene and the bodies appeared swollen as shapeless carrion. But that's not all! In the cemetery of Chui which served as a refuge from the Turks and whence pulled from afar we could see another show. Under the same door in front of the Italian trenches five soldiers had been buried up to his shoulders, their heads emerged from the black sand stained of their blood: heads horrible to behold, and there you could read all the tortures of hunger and thirst (Gaston Leroud and the correspondent of Matin-Journal)

There it is even no reference to the fact that in 1918 happened the flu-epidemy called "Hispaniola", that was the main cause of deaths between civilian arabs in coastal Libya until 1922 (and greatly depopulated Cyrenaica). Why R-41 does not mention anything cruel done against the Italians by the muslim arabs? There it is a huge documentation about it! And don't forget that the spanish flu (and its consequences) continued to kill until 1930.John T.

The devastating damages caused by the Pacification of Libya upon the Arab Libyan population are recognized by many scholarly sources and the Italian government itself. As Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi announced Italy's recognition of war crimes committed by Italy against the Libyan people when Libya was a colony in a 2008 agreement between Italy and Libya. At the signing Prime Minister Berlusconi stated the following quotation: "In this historic document, Italy apologizes for its killing, destruction and repression of the Libyan people during the period of colonial rule." (http://books.google.ca/books?id=cfhcjje8dFYC&pg=PA17&dq=berlusconi+libya&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7VMLT_ydNsPs0gHdoLm2Ag&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=berlusconi%20libya&f=false).Events prior to 1922 about deaths caused by the Spanish Flu have nothing to do with this, this is about an event from 1928 to 1932.--R-41 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is No Such Thing as Pacification

The events that occurred in Libya is nothing but Genocide. Can you publically go out and call the Holocaust "Pacification of Germany"? "Pacification of Jews"?. You cannot because it is morally wrong. The same thing applies to the Libyan people. Just because they are not white, European or Christian it does not make them any lesser human beings than you are.

: Italian war crimes labeled as "Genocide"

Further details about Italian war crimes and genocide

Reference Arabic wiki to see how the the prominent Italian figures in North Africa are detailed as criminals who killed and slaughtered the native populace of Libya.

Fcmsaab89 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The relevant issue for Wikipedia is, what is the common name of the events? If scholarly sources refer to them as the "Pacification of Libya", then that's what we should use as the article title and as the main name to refer to the events by. Further, the policy says to use the common English name of the events, so how they are named at the Arabic wiki isn't really useful for us. Using your analogy of the Holocaust, that is the name by which the events are commonly known; both this article and the article on the Holocaust identify each as a genocide. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparing this to the Holocaust makes no sense. The Nazis were aiming at killing every single Jew, and would have done so had they not lost World War II. The Italians aimed at controlling Libya, killing anyone who resisted. Once the local resistance was crushed, did the Italians exterminate all the Libyans? No. How come most of the Libyan population was still alive in 1940? How come the Italians weren't massacring the Libyans in the late 1930s? --2.36.88.253 (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

They opened up camps and send people in Libya to fight wars for them. They worked with the nazis to fight wars on Libyan land in ww2. If they had the chance they would if made it like Italy. That is not a war if your in tanks fighting some horse riding people and sending them to camps. They also somehow killed a fourth of the population in Cyrenaica in a war. Cyrenaica is half the entire country. That is a geneocide. AhmedTMM (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The only question is what English language reliable sources call it, not whether we think it reaches the level of genocide or what we think it should be called.DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Many reliable English sources refer to this as a genocide, such as a book referred to as 'Genocide in Libya Shar, a Hidden Colonial History By Ali Abdullatif Ahmida'. That book was reviewed by reliable reviewers such as Noam Chomsky from M.I.T. Many people died in this genocide and it would be rude to not show its full extent.AhmedTMM (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion to change the name to Genocide of Libya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All arguments against changing the name hold no value and are inaccurate. One issue you brought up is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS , but according to the rule "Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them." That issue holds no value because many reliable sources state this event as a Genocide such as 'Genocide in Libya Shar, a Hidden Colonial History By Ali Abdullatif Ahmida'. That book follows all the requirements to be a reputable source according to Wikipedias rule about reliable sources. The source is also neutral proven by famous reviewers that are reliable such as Noam Chomsky from M.I.T. Therefore I do not see any reason why changing the name breaks any rules. If you want more sources about the book I linked to one is. In most normal day speech people refer to this as a genocide and it confuses people when its called a pacification so they will think its the wrong page, this happened to me. Therefore I see no good reason to not change the name.AhmedTMM (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Don’t edit war. You’ll end up blocked. If you are reverted you need to wait until consensus agrees with you before making that change. See WP:CONSENSUS. You can’t unilaterally make the change. You have to wait. There are several problems with your proposal:

1. It doesn’t make sense in English. In “Genocide of x”, the x has to be a word for a group of people, not an inanimate object such as the name of a country.
2. You can’t cherry pick one source(even if it is a reliable source) and claim that is the name it should be. The governing Policy is WP:COMMONNAME. It’s what reliable sources generally call the topic. This requires an analysis and debate on this Talk page of what the majority of sources call the topic.
3. The issue is not whether or not the Italians committed genocide in Libya. That can be the case whatever the name of the the article is. I think even if it is genocide (which I personally agree it is) that is a topic within the broader topic of the overall conflict. For example we would not change the name of Second World War to The Holocaust, even though genocide took place during the Second World War. The article covers aspects that are broader than genocide. I think your energies are much better focussed on adding sourced information as to why it should be considered as genocide rather than superficially changing the name. That would be a much more effective contribution. The war crimes section would benefit from some added paragraphs on that. I wouldn’t object to that section being re-titled ‘Genocide and war crimes’.
4. From a preliminary review, I don’t think either Pacification or Genocide is the most common description of the entire conflict. Most sources refer to it as a “war” or “conflict” of some type with a reference to “Italian” and “Senussi”. However, once you accept the principle of how this should be done (rather than edit war) I’m happy to get into the detail with you on the sources.

DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA / WP:COMMONNAME is the appropriate policy here. The issue is not whether or not the Italians committed genocide in Libya. Pacification and genocide were two aspects of the conflict. A normal convention for naming articles such as this would be "Second Italo-Senussi War" (eg: [[Second Balkan War], Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), First Boer War‎, Second Congo War‎ etc), but if RS indicate it should be named something else, editors should suggest them for discussion. I believe both the current or the recently moved titles to be ambiguous and neither meets WP:NAMINGCRITERIA.   // Timothy :: talk  09:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have this page watchlisted almost solely because the name is so hilariously one sided. What the Europeans chose euphemistically to call pacification all around to world would better be described as ethnic cleansing or genocide in most instances. Its a dated and racist term (I note that regardless of whether or not you want to keep it there is no debate on whether the term is dated and racist), we should do better. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

AgreedAhmedTMM (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t necessarily support keeping “Pacification”. I think there are better titles. However, there is, apparently, a misunderstanding that there is somehow a positive spin on the word, probably because it is cognate with words such as “pacify” and it has one meaning of ‘to bring peace’. But it also has a second distinct meaning which is quite separate: it has a specific and technical meaning which is the suppression or crushing of a whole people in revolt. There’s actually an implication of ruthlessness, even brutality, that goes with it. Per Merriam-Webster “the act of forcibly suppressing or eliminating a population considered to be hostile”. There’s nothing positive about it. Nothing about peace. It’s a lack of understanding of the word in the English language to believe that it does not highlight brutality and the effective elimination of a people. But I guess in a dumbed down world all that is irrelevant and half-understandings and ‘pop misunderstandings’ are more important. DeCausa (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually think its the understanding of Latin drilled into me over tedious years of schooling which leads me to believe that it does not highlight brutality and the effective elimination of a people but thats besides the point. Its not a technical term. Pacification is an euphemism, that language has caught up and added the real meaning to its use as a euphemism as a common definition doesnt make it any less of an euphemism. You're coming off a little overwrought, is what you wrote really what you meant? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you’re just wrong. Look it up. (Erras. Discere plus.) DeCausa (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CIVILITY and take the knowledge that you're coming off as overwrought to heart rather than resorting to pithy schoolroom taunts. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Take on board good advice: look it up rather than just going by what you think you know. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking over this conversation, I'm struck by how much agreement there is to build off of here –– despite the back-and-forth over tone just above. Thanks to AhmedTMM for raising this issue, and to DeCausa and Timothy for bringing up important procedural points. On the issue of "pacification" I think we should be able to agree that it has a number of shades of meaning. Certainly Horse Eye Jack is correct that the word began as a euphemism, and claiming that it has nothing to do with peace is overblown, while DeCausa is right that many fluent English speakers (or at least, I'd suggest, those with college-level education in history of similar disciplines) will be able to discern that the word refers to a suppression of rebellion that may amount to "the effective elimination of a people". The only point upon which I strongly object is the characterization "dumbed down world". That's not what this is about at all. English Wikipedia is a global resource utilized by people around the world with varying levels of English-language competency. I dare say that some of those for whom Merriam-Webster's definition of "pacification" would not be obvious far outstrip the intellectual capacities of anyone here in other ways. We should never compromise our standards because of the need to serve a global audience, but it's one more reason to avoid ambiguity wherever possible. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think an article specifically on genocide during this war would be clearly notable and appropriate - such as Genocide during the Second Italo-Senussi War. It's always helpful to remember Wikipedia summary style structure where different articles cover topics at different levels of detail, from general to specific. In this case might look something like History of North Africa >>History of Italy in North Africa >> History of Italy and Libia >> Second Italo-Senussi War >> Genocide during the Second Italo-Senussi War.   // Timothy :: talk  19:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should consider turning this into two pages with the name Genocide of Libyans and Italo-Senussi War. That would clear things up because those were two different situations according to DeCausa. People looking for things about the genocide go to one page while others can go to the Italo-Senussi War page. It would solve the confusion.AhmedTMM (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

They’re not two different topics - one is a subset of the other. That could be a solution. But do you have enough material to create the new page without just repeating what’s on this page? I suspect a Genocide section within this article works better. DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This event has lots of documentation especially on the genocide part so I think it would be fair to make it a separate page. I have enough sources to make a new page. If I were to make a new page I would like this page to be renamed to Senussi Rebellion since that's what most sources call it. It was a response to the Italian occupation.AhmedTMM (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

On this point I suspect that DeCausa is right. I'd suggest a robust section on the genocide (i.e. as robust as RS allow). I'd further suggest that Second Italo-Senussi War is the appropriate title for the article since it seems to me to capture the appropriate level of specificity for the content we currently have, per Timothy's point above. Generalrelative (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Generalrelative that we should change the name to Second Italo-Senussi War. I also agree with DeCausa that we should make a Genocide section. Would everyone agree on that.AhmedTMM (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's great to see such willingness to compromise in an effort to find consensus, and such broad agreement despite our differences. Does anyone object to the name change (to "Second Italo-Senussi War")? Generalrelative (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be a party pooper but there is the question of WP:COMMONNAME. A rough and ready Books google search gives 2,600 returns for “Pacification of Libya” and 200 for “Second Italo-Senussi” leaving it open for “conflict”, “war” etc to be added. Of course, that’s not definitive on RS use but it does point in the general direction. I don’t have any personal objection to changing the name of this article but we surely must do it in line with policy. If anyone can put forward a justification/evidence under COMMONNAME for a name change I would happily support it. DeCausa (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a fair point, though I'd say there are a couple reasons that add up to "The Second Italo-Senussi War" being the better title under WP:COMMONNAME.

1) "Second Italo-Senussi War" may be less common in popular press, but it seems to be preferred by high-profile reliable sources. For example, the U.S. government's official site countrystudies.us gives the title of the conflict as "The Second Italo-Sanusi War" (note the alternate spelling of "Senussi").[[1]] Indeed, when I Googled "Pacification of Libya" just now, that page was the fourth result, which suggests that it's completely normal to redirect queries about "Pacification of Libya" to "Second Italo-Sanusi War". This is also the term for the conflict used by the eminent anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard in his book The Sanusi of Cyrenaica.

2) As discussed above, there is some ambiguity in the term "pacification" and at least the possibility that it can be read as non-neutral. This is not just the personal opinion of a few editors here. E.g. when the Brookings Institution discusses the conflict they put the term "pacification" in scare quotes.[[2]]. Note that WP:COMMONNAME instructs us to take both ambiguity and neutrality into account: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered (emphasis added). With regard to neutrality in naming, WP:NPOVNAME states that Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include . . . Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious. I could go on but these seem to me to be the main points in favor of the change. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with both points.

1. I’m not sure why you refer to “popular press”. The google search I carried as was of Books, not the general one. There may be the odd self-pub in there but certainly no “popular press” or any press at all. 2,600 v 200 is quite a hefty ratio in Books in favour of “Pacification”. There is no evidence and, in fact you offer no evidence, to support the claim that Second Italo-Senussi war is favoured by “high-profile reliable sources”. I’d recommend look at the Book search results. There is certainly multiple academic and scholarly uses of the term “Pacification of Libya”. For example, Prof. John Gooch’s 2005 article “Re-conquest and Suppression: Fascist Italy's Pacification of Libya and Ethiopia, 1922–39” in Journal of Strategic Studies, 2005:28(6):1005-1032 (DOI: 10.1080/01402390500441024). I note that the Brookings piece you linked to is not a peer reviewed academic article. Gooch’s article is. Certainly the weight in terms of published academic books and articles clearly favours “Pacification”.
2. It is only a misunderstanding of what the term “Pacification” means that might give rise to “ambiguity” and a belief that there is a neutrality issue. It’s a straightforward point. Both dictionaries and historiography give a clear definition of the word: violent suppression of a people. There is no NPOV issue, just misunderstanding. We have multiple articles using the word in this sense e.g. Pacification of Manchukuo, Pacification of Tonkin, Pacification of Algeria, Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia, Pacification of Wujek, Pacification of Sarhad etc. The reason is it’s a widespread term of art used by historians to refer to suppression. Again, I refer to Merriam-Webster’s definition of “pacification” (1b): “the act of forcibly suppressing or eliminating a population considered to be hostile”. “Eliminating” a population is quite a thing. That’s very close to being a synonym for genocide. I don’t think raising an NPOV issue against that flies.

DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, okay. I'm willing to argue this out a bit if that will be helpful. Ultimately, though, I suspect that it may be up to other editors to weigh in here and settle this.

1) A quick Google search gives the definition of "popular press" as "material written for the general public", which is mostly what you get from a search of Google Books, so I'm confused why you would want to argue otherwise. (And your statement "no 'popular press' or any press at all" seems to me incomprehensible.) But yes I did do the comparative search of Google Books before writing my previous reply, and noted that searching the alternative spelling "Second Italo-Sanusi" yielded twice as many results. But that's really beside the point per WP:NPOVNAME and the exceptions discussed in WP:COMMONNAME. My point about high-profile sources referred to the countrystudies.us article and the book by Evans-Pritchard I mentioned above, the former because it's a government synthesis which ranks very high on Google searches, even when searching the alternate name for the conflict, i.e. "pacification of Libya", the latter because it's a foundational work in the field of anthropology. But another, more salient thing that a Books search of "Pacification of Libya" shows is that the Brookings piece is far from the only source to put "pacification" in scare quotes when referring to this conflict. See e.g [[3]], [[4]] and [[5]]. That should be a red flag to us that this term may not be encyclopedic (despite how often it is used), and that an alternate, unambiguous/NPOV name is to be preferred (per WP:NPOVNAME). Which leads me to:

2) You state that "pacification" is in no way an ambiguous term. This really is false. Note that you cite only one of its definitions in order to make your argument. But your own source, Merriam-Webster, also defines pacification as "the act or process of pacifying : the state of being pacified" which they define as "to allay the anger or agitation of : soothe", etc.; and also "a treaty of peace". Even if other articles use the term "pacification" to refer to military repressions, that doesn't make it a norm. On this point, note that WP:NPOVNAME gives "Boston Massacre" as an example of an article with "massacre" in the title despite the fact that normally this word is to be avoided as POV. When an alternative name exists, the policy clearly states that we should use it. You also state that the sense of "pacification" in "pacification of Libya" is a term of art used by historians. Yes it certainly is (I should know because I am one; though really it's a "term of art" used by politicians, with historians following suit). But Wikipedia's mission is not served by gearing our articles toward those who already have high-level competency in related fields. When more accessible, unambiguous terms exist as alternatives, policy tells us that we should favor them even when they are less common in the RS. This has absolutely nothing to do with dumbing things down as you suggested above, but rather with serving the goal of creating an encyclopedia that can be used as a resource by the widest possible audience. Generalrelative (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think your mind is made up, and there’s nothing I could say to persuade you. There’s no point going round in circles. I don’t think saying 2,600 book results including multiple academic works has got anything to do with the popular press. Did you see in the search results the standard histories of Libya using the term? They’re there. I don’t think 200 book results compares - even if you change the spelling it’s still only 400. I don’t think a widely used historiographical term with an appropriate dictionary definition can be dismissed in the way you attempt to. Like I say, I have no personal objection to the name change - but it’s not within policy. DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to leave it to others to judge whose arguments have been based on specific discussion of policy and whose on personal opinion. Certainly debating the meaning of basic terms like "popular press" is beyond boring (though for the life of me I still can't wrap my head around why you would think that Google Books doesn't list any "material written for the general public" even if some are from academic presses, nor what you could possibly mean by "no 'popular press' or any press at all"). Regarding the disparity in number of results that come up in a Google Books search, as I've stated above, policy is crystal clear that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources and that Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include . . . Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious (emphasis added). The question then becomes whether "pacification" is ambiguous and/or non-neutral –– a position for which I've provided plenty of substantive reasons, including the scare quotes surrounding the term in [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]] –– and whether "Second Italo-Senussi War" is therefore far more encyclopedic. The only thing I have left to say is to remind you that statements like "I think your mind is made up, and there’s nothing I could say to persuade you" is an accusation of bad faith. Despite how intensely you may feel that you are right, we don't speak to one another that way here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m only going to address your last commenent which is beyond absurd and you should withdraw it. To say your mind is made up and I’m not going to be able to change your mind is absolutely not bad faith. What are talking about? Why shouldn’t your mind be made up and why shouldn’t I accept that?? There’s even a widely quoted essay on it: WP:STICK. Throwing around such a random accusation of bad faith based on that is poor. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As Horse Eye Jack requested of you above, please respect WP:CIVILITY. If you go back and read what I wrote you will see that I was asserting that your statement was tantamount to you accusing me of bad faith. Not the other way around. Now that that's settled, let's make every effort to move forward collaboratively to the extent that we need to interact here in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I know. That’s what I was responding to and that’s what I think you should withdraw. I see that you won’t. So be it. WP:CIVILITY indeed. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose change to Genocide as it isn't the common name.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Bob not snob. Just FYI that proposed name has already been withdrawn by the OP. I know it's confusing given the title of this section. Generalrelative (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

At this point it looks like it's three to one in favor of the change to "Second Italo-Senussi War". (Four if we count @Horse Eye Jack:, though I haven't seen them weigh in on the alternate name, just the consensus that the current name is inappropriate). If no one else has objections I'll make the name change in the next few days. Or would you like to do the honors, @AhmedTMM:, as the OP here? Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the name change to "Second Italo-Senussi War". It is a clearer name and, as discussed above, in lines with Wikipedia naming conventions. We need only note that has also been commonly referred to as "The Pacification of Libya". Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Great, that makes 4 to 1 for a rough consensus. FYI I've put in a technical move request since I wasn't able to do the move manually. Cheers! Generalrelative (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding of featured badge for the link to German Wikipedia Article

Hello everyone! Could somebody add the golden featured badge for the Link to the German Article? It was decorated a few days ago. Regards, --3mnaPashkan (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also greatly appreciate that, but I don´t know how this should be done. Simply, the fact that the German article is featured (and rightly so!) is not obvious to most en.wp readers because of that. 2A02:AB04:236:E600:6163:6A7D:23A3:8157 (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Libyan genocide into Second Italo-Senussi War

As it is currently written, the article is a WP:POVFORK. It presents the interpretation of the Italian wars and colonization of Libya as a genocide. However, this is not a particularly mainstream belief, and in fact most results for Libyan genocide on Google Scholar relate to the 2011 military intervention in Libya, not this event. I think we could have an article titled something like Libyan genocide question that covers the debate over whether a genocide occurred during the Italian conquest of Libya, but that is not what we have in this article. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I notice that the creation of this article occurred after a title change to "genocide" was rejected in a discussion above—a classic POVFORK situation. (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, the article’s content is sourced, and from my point of view this requested merge simply constitutes WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

Moreover, it is a rather silly argument that this article should be merged because “on google the 2011 Libyan conflict comes up when searching this and not these events!” If anything, it just highlights how these events and this genocide as a whole especially are hardly known or discussed in the west due to heavy bias.

Also, it shouldn’t need to be said that there is hardly a “consensus” that these events don’t constitute a genocide when again, it is barely discussed in the west at all, and again, proper sources and citations are present throughout the article. 2600:1012:B12A:21AD:3C14:8C16:9221:87A6 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't address my argument. The POVFORK issue is not about sourcing. I am not saying that there is a consensus one way or another about the genocide issue. We can only say there is a genocide in Wikivoice if a significant majority of reliable sources on the topic consider it a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 06:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but nevertheless the article is properly sourced and cites as I said. Perhaps, as somebody I believe proposed in the talk page of the second Senussi war article, we can rename the Libyan genocide article to “Libyan genocide question” or “Italian atrocities in Libya during the colonial period” or something of the sort. But I believe the deletion/merging of an entire article that is properly sourced and cited is unfair and over the top. 2600:1012:B106:E972:C5F9:49EF:42D3:69DE (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, we should wait for the creator of the Libyan genocide article, Skitash to address this discussion. I believe that is more than fair; as it stands currently English Wikipedia in general seems to have a very belligerent bias when it comes to addressing atrocities towards muslims 2600:1012:B106:E972:C5F9:49EF:42D3:69DE (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

To address your claim that this is a pov fork article, you simply claim that somebody tried to rename the Seconf Italo-Senussi war to “Libyan genocide” and after this was rejected this article was created. That is applying assumption and automatically assuming the worst with prejudice and is not how this site works. You’re applying a “guilty until proven innocent” logic here it seems. Not only was it not the same user that did so, but even if it was, that is far from proof of a pov fork, given that it is also largely covering a different issue. The second Italo senussi war and the Libyan genocide are a separate topic, thus the claim that it is a pov fork is baseless 2600:1012:B106:E972:C5F9:49EF:42D3:69DE (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I must disagree with your assertion. Firstly, this is not a WP:POVFORK, and I was not aware of any prior discussions on this topic that took place here prior to my creation of the Libyan genocide article. This article on the Second Italo-Senussi War primarily focuses on the military and combat aspects of the conflict, offering limited coverage of the numerous atrocities or war crimes that occurred. Furthermore, its scope is limited to the period of warfare with the Senussi Order between 1923 and 1932, when genocide against the Libyan people actually intensified by the end of the war and continued on until as late as 1943, well after the end of the Second Italo-Senussi War. I would argue that it is widely accepted that a genocide occurred in Libya. There are multiple English-language sources documenting this particular event (such as Genocide in Libya by Ali Abdullatif Ahmida). Several scholars and historians have characterized it as a genocide, and Fascist Italian officials have explicitly declared genocidal intent (see Libyan genocide#Prelude). Many more foreign-language sources, including Arabic, describe these events similarly. Skitash (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this proposal. First of all, as User:Skitash, the creator of the Libyan genocide article pointed out, they were not even made aware that any prior discussion on this topic took place prior to the creation of the Libyan genocide article. And second of all, again, as pointed out by User:Skitash above, this article (Second Italo-Senussi War) primarily covers the militaristic and combat-related aspects of the conflict, not the numerous and extensive atrocities that occured, and, most importantly as multiple reliable sources, both English/Italian (western) and Arab pointed out, the genocide that took place during the Italian colonial period from 1911-1943, with the most intensive atrocities occuring during the span of this conflict. This article makes no attempt to cover that whatsoever, thus there absolutely needs to be a separate article covering this, which User:Skitash and other users did an exceptional job at with the Libyan genocide article. In no way shape or form does the Libyan genocide article constitute a POV Fork. JeanCesarGraziani (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. This is an important topic that deserves an article. There are various information on this topic. The errors in the article can be fixed.Kavas (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)