Talk:Libyan genocide

(wider definition of genocide) Based on the death toll and what the UN and other Arab historians said, the genocide should cover 1911-1943 no?

I think my revisions were good based on this fact. Or at the very least maybe the article should be made similar to the Bosnian genocide article where it states the total deaths of Libyans under Italian rule as (wider definition of genocide) alongside the death toll from 1929-1934. NuancedProwler (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Gaddafi's statement about 750,000 deaths is considered exaggerated; how can a propaganda be encyclopedic? Also, I don't understand why the sources I inserted about Angelo Del Boca's estimates have been removed, being him among the main scholars of Italian war crimes. Caffeinate Mac (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Angelo Del Boca’s figures are not reliable/usable here for a couple of reasons.

1. His figure of 100,000 doesn’t even cover the entire Italian colonial period (1911-1943) which is what is being covered in this article. His figure only covers 1922-1932, which closely aligns with the Second Italo-Senussi war (which you yourself inserted into the article when you made these unwarranted consensus-free edits btw), which has been covered here already. Del Boca’s figure at best can be cited within the 80k-120k scope of the 1929-34 period as in the article.

2. He is a biased Italian scholar, and especially when he claims 100k total deaths from 1922-1932 (which is an odd starting year). The UN estimated a minimum of 250k Libyan deaths from 1911-1943, therefore Del Boca’s figures are nullified. 2600:1012:B18B:25C2:F16C:6E5D:9340:C76 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of Ghaddafi’s figure is a separate issue. However, you are not wrong to call it into question and open a discussion about it, that is what Wikipedia is about. If, keyword if, consensus is reached here that Ghaddafi’s figures are not reliable, then they will be removed and the death toll for 1911-43 will be placed at 250k-500k instead. That being said, please do not make anymore changes to the article until consensus is reached here. 2600:1012:B18B:25C2:F16C:6E5D:9340:C76 (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Caffeinate Mac I would be interested to know why the source and figure were removed. Wikipedias of other languages, which (aside from Spanish) lack a 'Libyan genocide' article per se, reproduce the number in relation to the Second Italo-Senussi War. The supposition about Del Boca's bias in the other replies is peculiar, especially in light of who he is.

The number of 250,000-750,000 in the wikibox is taken, it appears, from the "necrometrics" source, but it apparently concerns deaths from all causes including combat, as does the smaller number of John Wright, whom the "necrometrics" source cites for the UN number. The current article and wikibox are unscrupulous, to put it mildly, and do not explain what sources actually say, nor distinguish when the numbers pulled from them are said to relate to those who "died", or "were killed", or so on. Zusty001 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Concerns over use of "Genocide" in wikivoice

I've done a quick survey of some of the major academic books and papers that discuss the history of Libya and the events of this article, and have tallied whether or not they classify it as "genocide". Here's the results:

Explicitly states as "Genocide": A. A. Ahmida various (e.g. 1994, 2006, 2023); A. d. Boca various (e.g. 2005); G. Rochat various (e.g. 1980), E. Salerno 1979, I. T. Powell 2015

"Some have described as Genocide" or similar: R. J. B. Bosworth 2006, A. Baldinetti 2010, D. M. Smith 2004, N. Labanca 2007, M. Ebner 1972, G. Finaldi 2019, M. Jerary 2005

Does not mention "Genocide": D. Vandewalle 2006, N. Labanca 2005, M. Mann 2004, C. Duggan 2008, J. Wright 1981, F. H. Dotolo 2015, E. Ryan 2015, 2018; L. Anderson 1986, I. Pappé 2005

I'm not at all convinced that the broad scholarship allows us to state in Wikivoice that the actions are definitively classified as genocidal—title of the article notwithstanding, I think it would be prudent to state throughout this important caveat, which is currently completely ignored. Meluiel (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Meluiel (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of 20,000 in death toll

As per WP:BRD. Denis Mack Smith was a highly respected scholar of Italian history and I see no reason to not include his work, which remains relevant and widely cited. It's not a question of the source being too old, either—he was publishing at the same time as Rochat and del Boca, both of whom it would be entirely reasonable to cite in this article (and frankly I'm shocked that they aren't already here). For those who wish to remove the number: please can you more fully explain why he is not a reliable source? Thanks. Meluiel (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not that he’s not a reliable source; as me and User:Skitash both stated; it’s that per Wikipedia policy, one substantially lower estimate by a single author does not belong in the infobox but rather should remain in the death toll estimate section. Read WP:FRINGE. 2600:6C51:427F:2100:84CC:4D3B:55C8:D10F (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so we both agree that it's a reliable source. That's good. As such, it should be included in this article, which the first paragraph of WP:NPOV makes clear:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

While I absolutely agree that the 20,000 figure is low (it's the lower bound of the estimate after all—some number has to be) I don't think that's much of an argument against inclusion in an area that already has large variations and difficulties in estimating casualty numbers, especially when the figure is coming from someone like Mack Smith, who is very well regarded in the field. Again, we both agree it's a reliable source—so why exclude it from the infobox? Surely we want consistency throughout the article?

Infoboxes should reflect content that's already reliably cited in the article: 20,000 is just that, and as such should remain in the infobox. Intentionally creating a disparity between the infobox and the body of the article seems like an odd choice to me.

Finally, with regards to your suggestion that I should read WP:FRINGE, a section from its lead:

For writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.

I think this makes it pretty clear that the 20,000 figure should stay. Meluiel (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Well hold on a second, I have recently read Smith’s book, and in it states that 20,000 Libyans “died in concentration camps” but 100,000 died overall during that span. If we are going to include the multitude of sources and figures that you did, I think we should take into account that the 1929-1934 genocide takes into account *all* killings against Libyans, not just those who perished in camps. 2600:6C51:427F:2100:21E8:E367:B3A2:53E4 (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(And if that is the case, then Smith’s figure should simply be applied as another source to the 100,000 estimate, rather than 20,000, as again, that *only* covers deaths in concentration camps). 2600:6C51:427F:2100:21E8:E367:B3A2:53E4 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect, the 100,000 figure is not just the number killed by the Italians directly or indirectly, but also includes losses due to emigration and exile, which is clear if you check the sources that it is citing. Note that the phrase "the population was reduced in number by" instead of "killed". It's a pretty common thing across the sources to discuss both total population decrease as well as actual deaths, and it's important to distinguish the two—definitely gave me some headaches when I was rewriting the death toll section! Meluiel (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah alright, well as I said, I am not trying to discredit Smith at all, but I still do believe that the best solution to this disagreement would to make a minor rewriting at the beginning of the article that states 40,000 to 100,000, and include Smith’s estimate in the death toll section, but separately, while noting that 20,000 is a substantially low figure and is not really in line with all the others. I also think that having in the infobox such a huge gap in estimated deaths makes it look sloppy and confusing, visually and logically speaking. 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D62:80D:7E76:7679 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If reliable sources give a range of values between 20,000 and 100,000, then we should abide by their estimates: that's not "sloppy and confusing", that's accurately reporting what reliable sources say without prejudice or cherry-picking—especially when there are such known difficulties in casualty counting. A "huge gap" isn't a problem if reliable sources back it up, which in this case, they do. The various wiki policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc are clear on this. Meluiel (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but if we are going to include substantially lower estimates in the infobox, per WP:NPOV, then we should also include a higher estimate as well, , John Wright estimates that up to 125,000 Libyans perished. I think this is the fairest and most reasonable compromise to this dispute. 2600:6C51:427F:2100:215A:DC3B:4F3B:BBEF (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect in your reading of the sources—your cited source (Wright) does not support the figure of 125,000 dead between 1929 and 1934. As you haven't provided a page number, I have to assume exactly what you are referring to; a quick ctrl-f shows you likely mean p. 42, n. 10, which is already cited in this article.

As before, his figures include the very significant quantity of exiles, and it also refers to the total population decline between 1911 and 1934. I will let the quotes speak for themselves:

In a speech in September 1979, Colonel Gadafi claimed that 750,000 Libyans had died in the struggle against the Italians and Major Abd-al-Salam Jallud, in a speech in May 1973, claimed the loss of 'no less than 750,000 fighters'. These claims, and other frequent assertions that ‘half’ the Libyan nation died during the years of Italian occupation — either as a direct result of the fighting, or by execution, or as a result of disease and deprivation — are not borne out by the available statistics. Many ‘losses’ were in fact exiles.

and

Without belittling the undoubted sufferings of the Libyan people, it seems only fair to note that available figures — approximate though they are — show no evidence of the enormous population losses in the period 1911-32 claimed by the Libyans. A fall of some 125,000 in the population between 1911 and 1934 is a possibility, and to this figure should be added Italian immigration of some 50,000 up to that date. Thus a net fall of some 175,000 in the native population up to 1934 seems possible.

These very clearly cannot be used to support a total death toll of 125,000 for the period 1929-1934. Meluiel (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

And why shouldn’t exiled/deported Libyans who perished because of their expulsion be included in fatalities? To me, that sounds like one of the main tenants of genocide (violently deporting natives to make way for military and colonial presence/settling), no? 2600:6C51:427F:2100:215A:DC3B:4F3B:BBEF (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You are conflating those who left Libya in exile with those who died during the deportations. It is quite obvious that persons living in exile (e.g. in Egypt) cannot be counted among the dead, although they would be counted as part of the population decrease in Cyrenaica during the period in question. Many Libyans were killed during the deportations to the camps but that is not and has never been a point of contention. You are absolutely correct that they should be included, but your mistake is in assuming that they aren't already. My point—that Wright does not support 125,000 for the death toll—still stands. Meluiel (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You make some convincing and respectable arguments. What would be your view of compromising by instead doing a makeover of the infobox, perhaps something like where the section labeled genocide (1929-1934) 20,000-100,0000 dead, and then a separate column listing the estimated 250,000-500,000 Libyans died from non-natural causes due to Italian rule (1911-1943)(750,000 is an unreliable figure from Gaddafi, so that obviously won’t be included and I’m not sure why it was before to be honest)? I feel that this would be a great solution, though as you rightly stated in previous edit summaries from this summer, it should be clearly and definitively stated that the 1911-1943 deaths were not all genocidal-remember the purpose of an info box is to summarize key information / highlights of an article.2600:6C51:427F:2100:9D7:183D:35EC:D99 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

For the infobox I'd propose to have it as "20,000-100,000; see death toll" (as seen on pages such as Holodomor) to indicate to the reader that they probably shouldn't just read the infobox and call it a day. An alternative range we could use is 40,000-70,000—though it discounts a few sources, it (I believe originating from Rochat, though I can't verify) is the only range I've seen that's been cited multiple times by other scholars (e.g.) Either is fine with me, don't know what you prefer.

I think that the 250,000-500,000 figure for total deaths 1911-1943 should probably stay out of the infobox: it's obviously very important information to have as context in the article, but strictly speaking those totals don't fall under the banner of "Libyan Genocide 1929-1934". Perhaps in Italian colonization of Libya or something, where it definitely would be a key highlight of the article, but I'm not sure it fits here. Meluiel (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be best to simply restore the death toll to 20,000-100,000. Discussion closed for that part. As for the 250,000-500,000, how do you propose factoring that / alongside the atrocities / mismanagement that caused those fatalities and sufferings into the infobox of the Italian colonization of Libya article? 2600:6C51:427F:2100:D0D9:4DA9:DF55:97F5 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll make the change to the infobox then. Thanks for the discussion, it's been excellent :)

With regards to the Italian colonization of Libya page I really have no idea, especially given that total deaths is not even mentioned in the article yet! I don't know what procedure or formatting for a revised infobox on that page would be either, to be honest. From a brief look it seems like most "X colonisation of Y" pages don't actually have infoboxes, so not a lot of places to draw templates from. Unfortunately with this I'm a bit out of my depth—content I can do, but the specifics of WP:MOS aren't my forte! Meluiel (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)