Talk:Italo-Turkish War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contradiction[edit]

I've added the Contradiction template here and on Balkan Wars because both are claiming to be the first use of aerial bombardment. --Stlemur 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Raheel Ubaid AliReply[reply]

This "record" was set in this war.--FoxyProxy 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
can you cite that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.22.70.201 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

According to Biddle, Rhetoric of Air Warfare, p. 19, the first ever aerial bombardment took place in 1849, when the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, during an attempt to suppress an Italian revolt, attacked Venice from the air with "projectiles carried by small linen and paper balloons."Xiphophilos (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it could, but Italo Turkish war is the first war, that airplanes used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.147.198 (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naval actions during the Italo-Turkish War.[edit]

On January 7, 1912 the Italian cruiser "Piemonte", with the destroyers "Artigliere" and "Garibaldino", sunk in the battle of the Kunfuda Bay (Red Sea)seven Turkish gunboats ("Kastamonu", Ayintab", "Ordu", "Bafra", "Refahiye", "Gökcedag", "Muha") and a yacht ("Sipka"). On January 24, 1912 the Italian armoured cruiser "Giuseppe Garibaldi" sunk in the harbour of Beirut the Turkish armoured gunboat "Avnillah".

citations please[edit]

Nothing on this site is cited anymore, wikipedia is useless without citations.

Treaties of Lausanne[edit]

I think this article should more explicitly mention that the 1912 and 1923 Treaties of Lausanne are different. --Rajah 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Contradiction[edit]

First of all, thanks for creating this article in the first place! Some more references would, of course, be appreciated. To come to the point, the caption of the dirigible picture and the text contradict each other regarding the question whether air attacks "determined the outcome" of the war (photo caption) or " had little effect on the outcome" (text).Xiphophilos (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Halil Paşa[edit]

As I recall, Halil Paşa, uncle of Enver Paşa, was among the young Ottoman officers sent out to Tablusgarp (Libya) to organize the Arab resistence to Italian invasion there. His memoires make much of his war experience there (with little mention of M. Kemal!) and tere is good amount of interesting detail from the "other" side. Should have been included here somewhere.--Murat (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undoing attempt of renaming the article[edit]

Alex2006 2006has suggested me to comment on the talk page about renaming article but I am not managing to undo my last change.
Sorry about it.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor edit request (Aug 2013)[edit]

The page Italian invasion of Lybia is redirected to this page. However, in the title of the redirect page, there is an obvious misspelling: Lybia (wrong) --> Libya (correct). Someone please fix this problem. FootballStatWhore (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter, does it? If someone meant Libya but mistyped it, the redirect takes them to the right place. Italian invasion of Libya also redirects here. Howicus (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

Why is Libia aftermath judged so negative,while for others colonies of others countries(France,UK)who suffered even more colonisation is seen as improvment? This is bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.196.196 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why so negative? Because of this "The result of the Italian colonisation for the Libyan population was that by the mid-1930s it had been cut in half due to emigration, famine, and war casualties." Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links? British and French colonisation was way worse but is n't view as negative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.65.249 (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italo-Turkish 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:

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) 01:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italo-Turkish 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:

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) 20:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Balkan war as a result[edit]

I don't think this belongs here, while yes the Balkan wars started during the Italo-Turkish war, was this a direct result of it? SJCAmerican (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious Claims About Italians Being Welcome[edit]

There is very little to support this claim. Especially "Indeed many of the 14000 Jews living in Tripoli -according to the Alliance Israélite Universelle- supported Italy, and some actively contributed to their war effort (one of the reasons behind their support of Italy were the recurring pogroms the Jews suffered from at the hands of their Muslim neighbors and the wave of anti-Semitism that spread through the Ottoman Empire during the early XX century". Patently false, and not even referenced. Jews in the Ottoman Empire were highly integrated and had very few problems. Unlike Greeks and Armenians, they had no outside "sponsors" and had thrown in their lot with Ottomans. In fact, they were highly placed in the ruling party at the time. Selanik, Ottoman city with the largest Jewish population in the World at the time was a cultural and political center of the Empire. Ataturk grew up there. Frankly, rest of the article has a particular slant to it too, does not read objective. Bulk of the population clearly detested the Italian invaders and even a few Ottoman officers were able to muster a small army of locals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.210.73 (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zulu[edit]

sewabhubha 197.90.52.200 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belligerents Infobox: Asir[edit]

@XavierGreen and محرر البوق: Re this revert and your earlier restoral on grounds it was removed by accident... as محرر البوق noted in this diff, this was far from an accidental removal, it cited the proper policy of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Infoboxes are a brief summary; they are not for every true fact. It is for the most important facts, not every side story, and currently Italy shipping weapons to Asir is worth a whopping one sentence in the article. It's also very suspicious that the source being cited is a source on Asir specifically, not one on the war overall. I'm sure this might be relevant for the very very short independent history of Asir (only from 1910-1921 or so, maybe), but it doesn't indicate that it's relevant for a history of Libya, Italy, or the Ottoman Empire. Whatever happened here seems to be an ongoing struggle that started before this war and lasted after it.

Apparently this edit war goes back some time - I see removals in 2020 as well. I cannot fathom what is going on here, but it seems like it should be discussed on the talk page to avoid a long-running edit war. I think that, based on what is currently in the article, it absolutely does not rise to the level of relevance required for the Infobox (and yes, I know, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there are other over-stuffed MILHIST infoboxes out there... and they should be trimmed, too.). Which is not to say that expanding things is bad; the Idrisid Emirate of Asir article is quite short and stubby. I don't want to discourage expansion efforts, but maybe the Asir article should be more than a Start-class article, and we can return to this topic then? SnowFire (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asir only entered the war because the Italians prompted it to. Asir had been at war with the Ottoman Empire until a short time before the outbreak of the Italo-Turkish War. The peace was only breached at the prompting of the Italians, who as you stated supplied arms to Asir but also attacked multiple cities along the Red Sea coast in support of Asir's forces. Your comments that Asir was "no different from any other hostiles they had to worry about on other fronts" is entirely wrong. There were no other "hostiles" on "other fronts". The Italian government had an immense worry that the Ottomans would launch an assault across the Red Sea into Italian Eritrea. The Italo-Asir actions along the Red Sea coast were a key part in the Italian plan to prevent that from happening (even though in actuality it was virtually impossible for the Ottomans to actually attempt such an invasion of Eritrea).XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also how is the infobox "overstuffed" with belligerents, when there are only a handful listed. This isn't the WWII or Thirty Years war infobox where it is impractical to list every combatant (like the hundreds of German states in the 30 years war).XavierGreen (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where are you getting this information from? What source? If it's a good source (ideally one on the war and not only on Asir), it might be worth expanding the Red Sea bit to "prove" that the campaign there mattered. The impression I get was that Asir didn't even "exist" as far as the Ottomans were concerned, they were de jure still part of the Ottoman Empire and were just very independent locals in an era when it would have made zero sense to send Turkish troops out on a snipe hunt into the Arabian desert, and could plausibly have been convinced to return in time if WWI & the Hejaz - Saudi war hadn't happened.
Also, please read the cited policy MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It's not about raw size, it's about relevance. The current article (i.e. not your talk page comments here) does not support the idea that Asir was a major player in this war, so therefore they don't go in the infobox, even if there were 10 major combatants on the other side and it wouldn't "stretch" the infobox any further. Take American Civil War for example - the belligerents are just the Union and the Confederacy. It doesn't include every single American Indian tribe that took sides, even though there absolutely was real fighting that tied down Union soldiers in the West. SnowFire (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments here don't really make any sense. Asir was a belligerent in the war, it entered the war at the instigation of Italy and conducted operations supported by Italian naval forces in the area. See here [1]. Your statement about the American Civil War is meaningless, the Indian tribes were not independent belligerents they either remained loyal and fought as part of the Union or the Confederacy and Indian territory received representation in the Confederate Congress. For example, the Cherokees who sided with the Confederacy were enrolled members of the Confederate Military, i.e. Stand Watie.XavierGreen (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (de-indent) First off, on a procedural note, since you're invoking "consensus" - multiple editors have removed this, not just me. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, the burden of inclusion is on the person adding the content. You can't claim consensus is in your favor when you're outnumbered 3-1 and also trying to add content and also not seeking more consensus yourself. Frankly, you should have been the one to do this, but I'll add a neutrally-worded notification at WT:MILHIST asking for input.
  • But more importantly, we should discuss the merits of the case. You'll note I mentioned American Indians in the "West". The fighting in the Arabian Peninsula was nowhere close to Libya. This is closer to the US cavalry maintaining scratch forces in Colorado / Montana / California. If it turns out that one of those Indian tribes had received a shipment of CSA weapons once and empty promises of aid... it still wouldn't be enough to elevate them to the infobox. It's good that you linked that book on Faisal, because it shows just how minor the issue was: it was dealt with largely by internal Ottoman forces and the Italians basically didn't do very much at all. Based on your own linked source, this was a minor, independent struggle that was relevant in Ottoman Arabia (you're citing a book on Faisal and on the state of Asir, not on Libya or the Italo-Turkish War), which is not under dispute (and totally valid to add to the article on Asir), but was a tiny sideshow to the main conflict between Italy and the Ottomans in the context of this war. Again, this is maybe more obvious with even larger empires like the British Empire: yes, it's understood that conflicts in multiple theatres of war can tie down troops, but that doesn't mean that the Afghans should be put as a co-belligerent in the Irish War of Independence in 1919 because they both fought the British at the same time. Your own source says that the Italians canceled their plans to land troops, so they basically had some ships drive by and do a bombardment. If you're familiar with 19th / early 20th century warfare, this kind of "gunboat diplomacy" was quite common. Again, the infobox is not for listing every single event ever; it is for major players. It's been linked to you by others in edit summaries and by me again, but just in case you didn't actually read it, let me quote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:
...keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. (Emphasis mine.)
  • Again, nobody is contesting this happened, but it simply was not a "key" fact. If this standard was used, then hordes of 19th/early 20th century wars would include tiny belligerents whose importance pales in comparison to the main conflict. Let me stress again that if you really care about this, instead of edit-warring over the Infobox of all things, you could use the source you've found to expand the article on Asir itself... SnowFire (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were three campaigns/theatres of operations to the Italo-Turkish War, libya was just one of them. The war was fought over a much greater area than just Libya. There was a campaign in the Aegean agains the Turks there, with the Italian navy attacking the Dardenelles multiple times and capturing Rhodes. Then there was the campaign in the Red Sea, in which the Italian navy wiped out all Ottoman naval forces and then proceeded to assist Asir in combatting the turks. The Red Sea campaign was part of the war, the sources say so, your assertions to the contrary are unsourced. I have provided multiple sources. There were only two belligerents on the Italian side, Italy and Asir. Your arguments that the "infobox would be crowded" are of no merit, for example see the WWI infobox where the Hejaz is listed as a belligerent.XavierGreen (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is it you're so eager to talk about the Red Sea theatre on the talk page but not in the article? And sure, the Italians fought in the Red Sea theatre, a fact so important it's covered by a single sentence in the current article. This is the Italo-Turkish War and I'm not complaining about Italy being in the Infobox. The question is whether the Asir-Ottoman struggle was a mostly separate revolt fought around the same time (like the Third Anglo-Afghan War and the Irish War of Independence) or if there was actual military coordination as co-belligerents (like the British and Hejaz during the Arab Revolt). The Hejaz during the Arab Revolt received major, gigantic British funding and supplies and direct military coordination and fought in multiple battles and actions against the Ottomans. From your own source, Faisal led an expedition of 1,900 locals to scare off Asir, successfully. The Italians' only instance of working directly with Asir is that they supported them with naval guns in a single battle as best I can tell from your source (which, again, is very common in the era and does not signify a particularly deep alliance). Compare that to the amount of people fighting and dying in Libya - it's a rounding error.
Finally, you clearly aren't reading what I wrote. I have never once said that the problem is that the infobox would be over-crowded and in fact specifically explained how that was not my complaint above and in edit summaries - please re-read them. There's no point in discussing matters if you can't be bothered to understand the basics of what I'm actually saying. (I'll be nice and repeat myself for what, the 5th time? The problem is not overcrowding, but relevance.) SnowFire (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Responding to post at MilHist. I have made myself familiar with the discussion and the article. I am quite familiar with the guidance. Unfortunately, too many editors try to write the article in the infobox. Asir has a passing (one sentence) mention in the article body and the long footnote in the infobox tells me we must try too hard to justify its inclusion there. I see a case being made here for the significance of Asir's involvement, which, if written into the article, would lend weight to the significance of Asir's involvement - but it isn't in the body. This war was between the Italians and the Ottomans. Asir was having its own stoush with the Ottomans. These two separate stoushes that coincided in time and space made Asir and Italy passing bed-fellows in matters that were otherwise unrelated. The essence though is that the involvement of Asir is not a key fact but an aside. The article does not show this to be otherwise. The inclusion is not supported by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]