Talk:Italian settlers in Libya

NPOV violation

This article appears to be devoted to explaining Italian nationalism's claim to Libya rather than talking about Libyan Italians or Italian Libyans at all. It begins by speaking of the legitimacy of the Italian claim to Libya, saying it was taken away from the Romans by the Arabs while not mentioning that the Romans themselves took Libya from other peoples. It glorifies Italian colonialism of Libya with unvalidated statements like saying that Italians made Libya's economy equivelant to Libya's economy under the Roman Empire. This article is being used to glorify Italian nationalism and imperialism while saying nothing about what the article is supposed to be about, which is Italian Libyans and Libyan Italians. The layout of the page is currently unacceptable as of this critique by me being written.--R-41 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV removed

I have now removed all the nationalist POV from the article. It now simply states facts and focusly solely on the topic of the article, Libyan Italians.--R-41 (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Added data and references

I have added data about Italo Balbo, called Father of Libya in "Taylor, Blaine. 'Fascist Eagle: Italy's Air Marshal Italo Balbo'. Montana: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1996. ISBN 1-57510-012-6" and even references in a blockquote from Helen Chapin Metz of her book Libya: A Country Study. I don't see any glorification of italian nationalism and imperialism in the article but only an historical review of this disappeared community. Wikipedia must be free from fascism but even from antifascism in order to be an encyclopedia. T.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous edits looked like glorification because they give undue focus to Libya during the Fascist period. A large picture of Italo Balbo was shown at the top of the page, which called him the "father of Libya" and the most "renowned Libyan Italian" if this is not deliberate glorification, then it is a very poor choice of terms. Balbo died in Libya and was a governor, but he was not born in Libya and is not a Libyan Italian. Furthermore it is pointless and trivial to say what Balbo's nickname is. The previous edits claimed that Libya's economy during Italian colonization was equivelant to that of Libya during the Roman Empire, no reference was posted to clarify that. The article previously declared that Roman architecture "legitimized" Italian colonization, this is POV. The article is in serious need of spelling corrections as well, which I will change soon. More information should be provided on Libyan Italians themselves, more names of Libyan Italians, Italian Libyans in history, but not just talking about colonial policy and achievements of the Kingdom of Italy.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I find the article well written and referenced. I don't see any "glorification" of colonial fascism, but NPOV as written by Helen Chapin Metz.--Sabanglana (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Italian settlers in Libya. Aervanath (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Italian Libyans → Italians settlers in Libya — or Italians in Libya, Italian community of Libya, or any other suggested name which is not a neologism. Proposed title has several times as many GHits as "Italian Libyans" or "Libyan Italians", but other suggestions are welcome. The confusing "double-barrelled" forms Italian-Libyans/Libyan-Italians, or their Italian-language equivalents are barely seen in any reliable sources. 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

See some searches below:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (this is the name used on itwiki, but its actual usage in reliable sources also appears quite sparse compared to the below options)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks, cab (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see I was involved with renaming this article, and did so to match other similar articles. It seems that this is still the naming convention being used whether neologism or not. See the article names (when they exist) for the subcats of Category:People of Italian Descent. See also the many similar subcats/articles of 'people of xx descent' categories. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Even on Wikipedia, this naming convention is not as widespread as you seem to think. See Template:Immigration to France, Template:Immigration to Japan, Template:Ethnic groups in the Netherlands, or Template:Immigration to Germany, for example. Or if you want some examples which I didn't write myself =): Template:Armenian diaspora, Template:Greek diaspora, Template:Turkish diaspora do not follow this naming convention either — except for groups in those countries where real-world sources use this convention, like Australia, Brazil, Canada, or the United States.

And should Wikipedian-invented names really override real-world usage in reliable sources? Seems like a violation of WP:V to me. cab (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - From the ghits given above, it does seem that Italian settlers in Libya is much more commonly used than Italian Libyans. Somewhat non-standard, but when it comes to nationality names, we don't really have a consistent standard. Please do not move to Italians settlers in Libya, though, as spelled (typoed?) in the move request. -kotra (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italian Libyans

I believe the move is a mistake, because Italian Libyans are not only Italians settlers in Libya but even those "born" in Libya who consider themselves as a group of Libyans (with italian roots) different from Jewish Libyan or Arab Libyans. In plain english: a settler is a foreigner, while an Italian lybian is a member of a group of Libyans with italian roots! G.F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.51 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The move is a mistake! In plain english: a settler is a foreigner, while an Italian libyan is a member of a group of Libyans with italian roots! I want to introduce asap a move request in order to go back to the old name "Italian Libyans".G.F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.51 (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for this, such as books and academic papers which use the term "Italian Libyan"? Or are you just reasoning by analogy to U.S.-centric terms like Italian American? cab (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Italian Libyans is the right name for the descendants of Italian settlers who were born in Libya. While Italo Balbo, the Father of Libya (because he created Libya with the union of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and Fezzan), can be defined as an "Italian settler in Libya", all those born in Libya like Gentile and others are actually "members of a group of Libyans with Italian roots" and so are called "Italian Libyans". Anyway, here it is a legal evidence: [1] from a google book (International Law Reports of E. Lauterpacht). Sincerely.--Rew48 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

EVIDENCE: Here it is a legal evidence:[2] from a google book (International Law Reports of E. Lauterpacht). --Rew48 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That book uses the term "Italian Libyan citizen" to mean a person with a restricted form of Italian citizenship given to people of Italian-controlled Libya. In fact the person in question in that case was of Arab and not Italian ethnicity. So you haven't shown any evidence at all that the term "Italian Libyan" is being used to refer to Libyans with Italian roots. cab (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest CalAlibaba to use google translator (or something similar) to understand Italian. The example in the "International Law Reports" is clearly about a son of Italians who was born in Libya in the thirties and fights the Libyan-arab hate against Italian colonists and their descendants (like him). The sentence of the Italian Court clearly defines him: Italian Libyan. No doubt about it.--Triasm (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "International Law Report" is IN ENGLISH (did you read it, or just assume it is in Italian?) and states in the very second line: "Italian Libyan citizens of Arab race" --- if "Italian Libyan" were a term only used to refer to people of Italian descent, this would very clearly be an oxymoron ... if you would like to return this article to the previous title, from which it was moved away by a consensus of interested editors, then raise another requested move. cab (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CalAliBaba, but I had on my computer the Italian version of the ILR and I did not realize that the example in this talk page was in English. Anyway, the fact that the ILR states "Italian Libyan citizens of Arab race" means that there are Italian Libyan citizens of other races, don't you agree? So, by simple deduction, the term "Italian Libyan" exists. In my Italian version I have found a reference to the fact that this Kemali was of Italian mother...like many other Italian Libyans born from mixed marriages (some even illegally): how do you call those persons? They are not "Italian settlers"....Furthermore, I don't understand why you erase the fact that governor Italo Balbo "created" Libya (with the union of Tripolitania, Cirenaica and Fezzan) in 1934 and erase -with other things- even the template "Italian people" (that is different from the other two templates). --Triasm (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found, reading now the english version of the "International Law Report", this sentence: In the absence of any such express provision all Italian Libyan citizens, and thus the respondent in the present case, retained Italian citizenship... To me this is a legal confirmation of the existence of the term Italian Libyan citizens. Sincerely. --Triasm (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because the term "Italian Libyans" exists, it does not mean that it is unambiguously used to refer to the topic of this article, which is persons in Libya of Italian descent (not of Arab or other descent). I can prove that the term "Iceland" exists, and I can also prove that there's lots of ice in Greenland. That doesn't mean Greenland is called Iceland. cab (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So, CaliforniaAliBaba, finally you admit the existence of the term "Italian Libyans". Alleluya!! But now don't start with a byzantine game of words....The topic is about persons in Libya of Italian descent and they can be with a father Italian and with a mother Arab/Berber (or viceversa, like the Kemali of the "Internationalk Law Report"). IMHO the best title for the article is the original Italian Libyans, because it seems there were some thousands of illegitimate children born in Libya from Italian soldiers/colonists and Libyan women....and they cannot be called "Italian settlers in Libya"! Don't you agree?--Triasm (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you cannot simply appropriate a term which has one meaning (like "Italian Libyan", which we've already established to mean "a person with citizenship of Italian Libya, regardless of ethnicity") and suddenly apply it to a different concept (Libyan people of Italian ancestry).

If you don't like the current title, one alternative is that the article be titled "Italian settlement in Libya". This is a widespread pattern in Wikipedia when we are discussing migration from a colonising nation to its colony (e.g. Japanese settlement in the Marshall Islands, American settlement in the Philippines). It also gives a framework for discussing topics like mixed-race people --- who aren't settlers, but who are obviously a side-effect of the colonisers' settlement. cab (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not again with your "byzantine game of words". Listen, Cab: settlers is for people, settlement for villages/cities/etc.

Americans settled in Philippines in small numbers (may be some hundreds or a few thousands; of course not the contemporary US citizens, in many cases military personnel or Philippinos with US passport), while Italians moved to Libya by "colonization migration" and they were more than 110,000 (or 13% of the total population of Libya) in 1940: these are two totally different situations.

But what strikes me is your opinion that "Libyan Italians", who you admit are "persons with citizenship of Italian Libya, regardless of ethnicity", is a different concept of "Libyan people of Italian ancestry". I sincerely don't see any difference...unless you cannot accept that some Libyans can be not arab/berbers and do not want to accept -like colonel Gheddafi's supporters- anything related to Italy in Libya. We all know that even the cemeteries of Italians disappeared in 1970, by order of a (in those years) fanatic leader[3]................

Finally, as an example, allow me to remember that there are millions of "Italian Americans" in the USA, but nobody calls them "Italian settlers in USA", not even in the Census where are officially called Italian Americans.--Triasm (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this conversation is going nowhere, I referred it to WikiProject Ethnic groups for a third opinion. cab (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Cab. But I don't see anything offensive with pinpointing that you use "byzantine words games"...it is a normal comment. And furthermore I don't see what has to do "racism" with my comments about Gheddafi's fanatism. I assure you that I believe you are a clever and educated wikipedian. Indeed, I have added a reference about what has happened (and the actual reconciliation tentative) with the Italian cemetery in Tripoli. Sincerely.--Triasm (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Cab, I am going to post in the article the reference about the Italian cemetery in Tripoli, and -in a friendly way- I am going to add (even called Libyan Italians) to the introduction. For me it is OK to finish in this way all this mess about the title. Sincerely.--Triasm (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why has been moved the title?

Last June 2009 was done a move that seems "strange" to me. Just one or two voted and quickly appeared a new title..... Anyway, I sincerely don't understand why Italian Libyans cannot be used as a title, like Irish Americans or German Australians. Furthermore, German Namibians is related to colonial times like Italian Libyans, but it is accepted without problems. Just see Template:European Americans. Sincerely.--Triasm (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Italian Lybians"

Why is the only article regarding a minority that it's called "XX settlers in Y"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.68.79 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly "the only" article. Nova Scotian Settlers (Sierra Leone), Pakeha settlers, Category:Settlers of Australia, Category:Settlers of Kenya, American Indians and settlers of the Smoky Mountains. Not to mention History of German settlement in Eastern Europe, American settlement in the Philippines, Mexican settlement in the Philippines, Japanese settlement in the Philippines, Timeline of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain, Italian settlement in Uruguay, Japanese settlement in the Federated States of Micronesia, Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan, Early history of European settlement in Zimbabwe, et cetera. cab (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So, why some articles have the "X settlers in Y" title, e some others have the "Xer-Yer" title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.70.1 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Because reliable sources do not call every group "Xer-Yer" in English. It is not a universal pattern of the English language, just a convention used by a few countries (including the US, Canada, Australia, and some countries of southern Africa --- but not including Libya). cab (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Italians in 1970

Doesn't this event in geopolitical history warrent an entire article. It constitutes an act of ethnic cleansing in relatively modern times, but is barely mentioned over the entirity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.55 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do you have sources about it? Maybe somebody has written books, journals, or newspapers about it? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italian settlers in Libya. 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/20110720153207/http://www.architecturebeyond.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/vittoria-capresi_I-centri-rurali-libici.pdf to http://www.architecturebeyond.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/vittoria-capresi_I-centri-rurali-libici.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324073409/http://www.airl.it/photo.php to http://www.airl.it/photo.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)