Talk:First Italo-Senussi War

Is it a senussi victory

@R Prazeres the sources conclude a major losses from the italian and senussi advancement even surrounding Tripoli as we see they recognized and were pushed in ww1 they were forced to recognize the senussi as independent state as this would cause the second italo senussi war Jamalie7 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Jamalie7 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:OR, as was previously indicated when it was added by another account and removed (). R Prazeres (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres i mean maybe the other person also put what happened i mean i put two source ! and they both recognize Italy force by senussi and tribes rebels to recognize the senussi order as independent it really isn't that much if the tribes rebelled and Italy forced to fight senussi again in the second war and also the Tripolitanian Republic Jamalie7 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

They don't, and it's your responsibility to convince editors otherwise and to build consensus, which you haven't done, so stop repeating this addition to the article. R Prazeres (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres wait wait you mean that my writing isn't convincing? or do you mean my sources don't say that? Jamalie7 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I mean both, but more importantly, you should read Wikipedia:No original research and make sure you understand it completely. You should also read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, since you also keep citing websites whose reliability is not established, which is even more of a problem if you're using these to support a disputed point. Citing published academic sources that clearly state the same point would make the proposed content acceptable; extrapolating your own interpretation, while citing random websites that don't support your interpretation, is not. R Prazeres (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres ..... go read the source now Jamalie7 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop pinging other editors multiple times in a row; we can already see when a talk page has been updated, and we'll read it when we have time and respond if needed. The only time it makes sense to ping someone is if they're not already participating in a discussion or if you think they're likely to miss your response for some other reason. In this case, I have already responded, and you haven't presented any new evidence or given any indication that you better understand Wikipedia policy, so I see nothing else to add. R Prazeres (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres what do you mean by new evidence exactly? okay how is the first italo senussi war observed as and Italy victory which doesn't make sense as they recognized both Tripoli Republic and senussi and lost fezzan ?! is still don't understand why is it considered a senussi victory Jamalie7 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres i meant why is it considered Italian victory Jamalie7 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

29 May 2026

@Plasticwonder you have removed my infobox with the reason of "No need for this" with what reason you think there is no need for an infobox that summarizes everything which is what Wikipedia is built on? per WP:INFOBOX i believe it should stay. What are your thoughts? Seshneg (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Similar content had been added by a sockpuppet, and was swiftly reverted. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 04:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just about to remove it myself. We have two pages about this, this works a redirect to two pages with infoboxes and more details. Furthermore, both campaigns (Italo-Turkish war and WW1 Senussi campaign) were won by the Italians and British, the result cannot be Senussi victory. I think it's fine as it is. ~2026-31953-74 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

What about between 1912 and 1915? Italo Turkish war ended in 1912, and senussi campaign started in 1915. This event should have its own page and infobox per WP:NOTABILITY since this is an actual recorded and explained historical event. And per WP:RS, it's a Senussi victory with them forcing Italians to recognize their gains in Cyreneica. Seshneg (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Per the sources used at Italo-Turkish war and Senussi campaign pages: the Ottomans and Senussi (aligned with them) were already in Libya/Cyrenaica, the ones who made some gains compared to the pre-1911 period were the Italians. the Italians invaded Libya in 1911, grabbed some land, mainly the chief provinces on the coast (Tripoli, Homs, Tobruk, Derna, Benghazi,etc). Then there was basically trench warfare until the 1912 Lausanne peace ended Ottoman Libya and recognized Italy the ownership of it (technically of all Libya, but the situation on the field was that the Italians controlled the coastal cities and not the interior). After the war, Italians did not expand much in the interior, when they did advance (like in 1913-1914) it was purely temporary and usually returned to their main 1912 bases as they could not hold onto new territories. Then, in the context of WW1, from November 1915, the Ottomans (with the Senussi again aligned with them) declared a jihad to liberate muslim territories and the end of Italian Libya, trying to recover what was lost and expel the Italians. So from then on, they put the Italians on the defensive. Most notably, the Italians initially abandoned Zuara but then recovered it in 1916. In 1916, the Italians occupied Bardia to defend themselves better, but not much more. So broadly speaking, again, the situation remained how it was in 1912, while Ottoman-Senussi waged war from the interior how they could to free Libya, the Italians (and the British in Egypt were also involved as the Ottomans declared jihad on them too) holding onto the coast. Then a deal was reached with the Senussi (Acroma treaty, see the page detailing this British-Italian-Senussi agreement) in 1917 that made a truce and ended Senussi alignment to the Ottomans. Both the British (in Egypt) and Italians (in Libya) struggled with the Senussi but found a way to stabilize the front and keep their African presence, putting an end to those attacks/revolts. For the Italians, it meant they remained in their coastal possessions. In short: in this 1911-1917 phase, the Italians had some gains (the coast, but not yet the interior) followed by them holding their presence in Libya, so calling it a Senussi victory is not it ( it's an Italian, and British, "partial" victory; war resumed in the 1920s when the Italians went grabbing the interior). This was agreed in past discussions in various pages. But I don't think we need a new infobox, with yet another result, we already have Italo-Turkish war and Senussi campaign. As for the 1912-1915 period , it's covered in background at Senussi campaign page.~2026-31953-74 (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw your edit was blocked by the filter, which is what alerted me to this article. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 05:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Weird. Could it be because of the frequent distruptive edits in this article? But i must say i have no idea who they are. Seshneg (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Why the fascination with this battle being a Senussi victory? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 05:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry i couldnt understand it can you make it a bit more clear Seshneg (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The thread above is literally about the same debate. Both show a need to portray this battle as being a Senussi victory, and to an outsider they look like they may be correlated. Am I wrong in this? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 05:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There are good amount of academic works about this war and they all say that the treaty was more favorable to the Senussis to Italians. What is your source that the war was not a Senussi victory? Seshneg (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question, see this comment right above us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Italo-Senussi_War#c-R_Prazeres-20230526181500-Jamalie7-20230524141100 Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 05:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed the similarity, but I believe it is merely coincidental. My intention is not to push a particular outcome. The point I am raising is whether this conflict can be treated as a distinct historical event and whether it merits its own infobox. If there is a disagreement regarding the outcome of the war, I believe that issue should be discussed on the basis of reliable academic sources. Therefore, I would prefer to evaluate this matter through sources and content rather than through perceived similarities with previous editors.

(I have written the text myself but since my grammar isnt the best i asked AI to translate it for better understanding ) Seshneg (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Both additions added an infobox, even with the same text. That is infinitely hard to do if you are not connected in any way to someone. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 05:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Adding an infobox is pretty common since its in almost all of the articles. I have checked his edits and its definitely not the same text and even if it is similiar its just a coincidence. Seshneg (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If the discussion is settled, can you allow me to place the infobox? If not, infobox inclusion is determined by editorial consensus. Please explain what policy or guideline issue the infobox creates so that we can discuss it. Seshneg (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I have checked it and i do think its similiar. Though the style and sourcing is different violates WP:RS and WP:OR. Thus, this topic is not related to them. Per WP:INFOBOX i believe it should stay. Seshneg (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Why did you change the article if more people in both talks were ok with the OG redirect-like version? (I count on one side me, User:Plasticwonder and previously User:R Prazeres; I don't count User:Jamalie7 as he was a manipulating sockpuppeter). Anyway, if you create a consensus to have those changes and an infobox, the result has to be "Italian (and/or British-Italian) victory" since that's what it was agreed multiple times and the long-standing consensus at the Italo-Turkish war and Senussi campaign pages. It's impossible that an offensive Italian victory in the Italo-Turkish war and a defensive Italian victory in the WW1 Senussi campaign become an overall Senussi victory. It was not a defenitive victory and not fully satisfying for the Italians, sure, it took them another in the 1920s to fully conquer Libya. But still, the net result of this was that the Italians made coastal gains and hold onto them throughout the period; they did not take control of the interior but they still came out holding colonial territories that they did not have when they invaded Libya.~2026-32039-00 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

"the result has to be "Italian (and/or British-Italian) victory" since that's what it was agreed multiple times and the long-standing consensus at the Italo-Turkish war and Senussi campaign pages."

Previous discussions are relevant, but per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments and sources, not by how many editors support a position or how long it has existed. "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view."

Furthermore, WP:V states that when reliable sources disagree, Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say with due weight.

The war lasted from 1911 to 1917 and multiple reliable sources characterize the outcome in terms that are inconsistent with a straightforward Italian victory that ended with the agreement at Akrama.

Evans Pritchard, E. e (1949). The Sanusi Of Cyrenaica. Oxford University p. 144:

"The least satisfied party were the Italians. They had embarked on a colonial war and had not been successful in waging it."

The History of Libya by Bukola Adeyemi Oyeniyi, Bloomsbury Academic p.47:

"When Italy could not defeat the Order, it eventually agreed to a peace treaty—the Akrama Agreement of April 1917, which gave Cyrenaica to the Order."

Italy; a modern history by Denis Mack Smith, University of Michigan Press p.280:

By the beginning of 1916 the "rebel" Senussi were successful enough to have reduced effective Italian occupation to a few coastal garrisons again, and, by the Treaty of Acroma in 1917, Italy was obliged formally to admit their independence. Italian prestige never quite recovered from this setback in the eyes of the North African population

All of these are reliable secondary sources under WP:RS, and do not fall under WP:OR. Seshneg (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources on the related pages (Italo-Turkish war, Senussi campaign, Accords of Acroma) are more detailed than these ones (mostly brief comments focusin on what the Italians did not achieve, but not on what they achieved), and they view the colonial war as victorious for Italy (even when saying tant it was not a definitive success). Italians came into this war without colonial possesions and left with colonial possessions, it's hard to argue for a non-Italian victory. The source stating that "Italy gave Cyrenaica to the order" is just objectively wrong: the provinces of Benghazi, Tobruk, Bardia and others were in Cyrenaica and all were under Italian control. Danis Mack Smith is another one known for being sometimes too much of a popular historian making simplifications. But anyway, I am saying the result should be coherent with Italo-Turksih war and WW1 pages in case of an infobox, but in principle I think the article was better as a redirect-like page with no need to multiply content.~2026-32214-53 (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether Italy's territorial gains are sufficient to characterize the conflict as an Italian victory is a matter on which reliable sources may differ. What matters for Wikipedia is not the editors' own assessment of the strategic balance, but how reliable secondary sources characterize the outcome. If reliable sources differ, Wikipedia should represent those viewpoints according to their due weight in the historiography.

Whether Italy ultimately achieved some of its long-term colonial objectives is a separate question from how reliable sources characterize the outcome of the conflict in 1917. Wikipedia summarizes what sources state; it does not determine outcomes by weighing territorial gains and losses itself. Per WP:OR, editors should not substitute their own assessment of the strategic balance for the conclusions of reliable secondary sources.

In addition, WP:CONSENSUS explicitly states that "consensus can change" and that editors may propose changes to an existing consensus when new arguments or evidence are presented. Therefore, the existence of a long-standing consensus is not, by itself, a reason to reject reliable sources that were not previously considered.

WP:V further states that Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs or interpretations. If reliable sources differ, Wikipedia should represent those viewpoints according to their due weight in the historiography. Seshneg (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

You refer to a long-standing consensus, but I have not yet seen any sources or previous discussion demonstrating why an Italian victory should be preferred over other characterizations of the outcome. If there are specific discussions or sources supporting that conclusion, please link them so they can be evaluated.

At present, I have provided multiple reliable secondary sources that characterize the outcome in ways that are inconsistent with a straightforward Italian victory. Per WP:CONSENSUS, the strength of the arguments and sources is what matters, not merely the existence of an asserted consensus. Seshneg (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

"I have not seem any source or previous discussions demonstratiny why Italian victory should be preferred over other outcomes". Look at several previous discussions at Italo-Turkish war. Italian victory was always the preferred option among the alternatives, and British-Italian victory was also always preferred for the Senussi campaign. ~2026-32284-64 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue I am raising is not whether earlier editors preferred "Italian victory", but how the reliable sources currently before us should be weighed. The sources I cited explicitly state that Italy failed to defeat the Senussi, was compelled to recognize their independence, or was unsuccessful in achieving its colonial objectives. Those are not fringe or self-published sources, but academic secondary works published by academic universities or publishers.

If those sources are to be discounted, there should be a source-based reason for doing so. Otherwise, per WP:V and WP:NPOV, they remain part of the historiography that should be considered when determining how the outcome is described. Seshneg (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

also about Italo-Turkish war, the war ended in 1912 however the war with Senussis did not end so the Italian victory there (treaty of ouchy) was meaningless to the Muslims of Libya.

Modern Libya : a study in political development p.11:

"Libya by a peace treaty (1912), the legal transfer of sovereignty from Ottoman to Italian control in accordance with international practice seemed meaningless to Muslims, who fought the war not in the name of Ottoman sovereignty over Libya but in the name of Islam." Seshneg (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

The consensus was built by editors after looking at the various sources used in the respective bivliographies, it wasn't an invention. Generally speaking, it's viewed as an Italian victory because it was a colonial war and due to it Italy held colonial territories. Not a definitive one, but still counting as a victory. ~2026-32214-53 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

which sources? You keep mentioning them yet you have not shared any. Seshneg (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

For sources about the beginning phase you can see the Italo-Turkish page. For the remaining years, A history of modern Libya (2006, Vadewalle) says "the agreement of ‘Akrama, signed in April 1917 served the Anglo-Italian aim of neutralizing the Sanusiyya order and thereby forcing the Turkish and German officers operating in Cyrenaica to leave." + "Essays on Italian History (1911-1920)", p.27, by Andrea Carteny: "The peace negotiations of 1912 marked Italy’s victory....the following years, the Italian government had to engage in efforts, with limited successes, to normalize the situation in the Libyan provinces." From "Africa and the First World War", by De-Valera N. Y. M. Botchway , p. 179. "The acroma pact was a strategic success for Italy as it eliminated a war front". From "a history of Italian colonialism, 1914-1919" by Giuseppe Finalsi. Page 51. "With the acroma accords, Idris was left with control over inland Cyrenaica while Italy was left with various possessions along the coast. Italy could now breath more easily. It preserved its coastal strip". ~2026-32122-81 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

About the first source, it concerns the Italo-Turkish War rather than the Senussi–Italian conflict itself, since the war between Italy and the Senussis continued until 1917.

Regarding the second source, the quotation you provided is incomplete. The full passage states:

"The Acroma Pact was a strategic success for Italy as it eliminated a war front, but a political success for the Senussi who reorganized themselves under a stronger leadership."

Therefore, the same source explicitly describes the outcome as a political success for the Senussis. Omitting the second half of the quotation changes the meaning and presents only the portion that supports your interpretation.

As for the third source, retaining coastal possessions or obtaining strategic advantages does not automatically make the overall outcome an Italian victory. That conclusion is not stated by the source itself and is an interpretation drawn by you. Per WP:OR, Wikipedia should rely on what reliable secondary sources explicitly conclude, not on our own assessment of which side benefited more from the conflict.

My sources are reliable secondary sources under WP:RS and explicitly discuss the outcome of the conflict. In contrast, I still have not seen a source from you that explicitly characterizes the war as an Italian victory or demonstrates a clear Senussi defeat. Seshneg (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

also in the first source, it also claims that the war in some aspects was a pyrrhic victory for italy."However, in a certain way, it was a " Pyrrhic victory.." Seshneg (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I see but in wikipieda they don't go "strategic victory for Italy, political victory for the Senussis" or "something of a phyrric victor, something of a limited success". Editors assess all the sources and bibiography and go for "victory of X" or "indecisive". In those case they summarised it like that.08:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32122-81 (talk)

But then why did you send that source if you already knew you could only put X victory? Seshneg (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually I am not the kind of person who is fond of the "victory of X" thing. It's another reason I am not a fan of putting infoboxes everywhere. I myself would not even be against having an Infobox result saying "strategic victory of Italy and political victory of the Senussi" and/or "Italy in control of the coast, Senussi in control of the interior". But usually there's always people saying that the infobox is done precisely to simplify and give a quick result, while it's basically always the case that source do not simplify and do not give a quick result (and if they do, there can be contradicting sources, as in this case and as it's common when you look at details). So usually (not just on this topic) editors reach a consensus to see how to "translate" the more nuanced or contradicting sources into a simple infobox-like result. And in this case I was mentioning that there is already a long-standing consensus that the Libyan war is best "simplified" for infoboxes as an Italian victory. So my argument was: best to avoid infobox, if there is an infobox we ought to be coherent. But, again, if people not only want an infobox but also accept an infobox with a result like "strategic victory of Italy, political victory of the Senussi" and/or "Italy in control of the coast, Senussi in control of the interior" then I would not be the type of person against it. ~2026-32289-76 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)