Talk:Italy–Libya relations

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italy–Libya relations. 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/20140815204546/http://m.thelocal.it//20140729/renzi-calls-for-ceasefire-as-italians-flee-libya to http://m.thelocal.it//20140729/renzi-calls-for-ceasefire-as-italians-flee-libya

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

An Italian towboat that saved 100 migrants in the Mediterranean may have violated international law by returning them to Libya

An Italian towboat that rescued 100 people stranded in the Mediterranean returned the people to Libya in accordance with the Treaty between the nations. This act, according to the United Nations, may have broken international law. The law states that migrants rescued in international waters may not be returned to a dangerous country. According to the United Nations and the European Union, Libya is considered unsafe. This situation is a reminder of the complex geopolitical ramifications of the Friendship Treaty between the countries.

References

References

An Italian towboat that saved 100 migrants in the Mediterranean may have violated international law by returning them to Libya

An Italian towboat that rescued 100 people stranded in the Mediterranean returned the people to Libya in accordance with the Treaty between the nations. This act, according to the United Nations, may have broken international law. The law states that migrants rescued in international waters may not be returned to a dangerous country. According to the United Nations and the European Union, Libya is considered unsafe. This situation is a reminder of the complex geopolitical ramifications of the Friendship Treaty between the countries.

References

References

History

@Joy: I don’t want to start conflict where there needn’t be, but why are you reverting my edit? I realise that states like the Vandal Kingdom aren’t the same as modern Libya, but they are related enough to be considered as part of the same lineage.

You stated in your edit summary that the examples of Ireland–United Kingdom relations and France–Germany relations as articles representing predecessor states doesn’t make including them warranted. Does that mean Hungary–Poland relations, Romania–Russia relations or Greece–Turkey relations are also in violation of this? I spent time on my edit, and I think the aforementioned articles show consistently that including relations even if not between the modern states is just, but if you have a good reason for reverting the edit, I’d like to hear it. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the examples listed above are neighboring countries, so it makes more sense. The contrary example is Russia-Romania, where the article starts in the 15th century, which is sketchy and unreferenced. The first referenced sentence mentions how the countries started to share a border in 1774.

So that's a far cry from this example where you start in the antiquity. --Joy (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d argue that the maritime boundary Italy and Libya share is close to a border, and the reason the other articles don’t start in antiquity is because there wasn’t established states there at the time — besides, where did you get the border rule from? I don’t think it’s written anywhere that countries have to share a border to write about their history. Like I stated in my previous comment, I put effort into my writing, and I’m unwilling for it to be shot down without good reason. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's just the common-sense argument, but ultimately any final argument should be based on what the reliable sources say about the same topic, not what any individual editor thinks. If we look at the sources in your edit, the only link you have is [1] which doesn't mention the term Italy at all, and it appears to be a WP:BLOG that isn't even signed. Please review the WP:Verifiability policy. --Joy (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So, all you wanted me to do was source it? You didn’t have to beat around the bush so long. If you didn’t think my source was good, you could’ve tagged it — please review Template:Better source needed page. —𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, you still don't seem to understand the point - both the individual claims in the article and the article content as a whole needs to be verifiable. You've sprinkled a bunch of links to verify individual claims, but the contention that these sources verify Italy-Libya relations is entirely unproven.

There's more information about this in the WP:No original research policy, and please pay close attention to the description of synthesis of published material. --Joy (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To be even more plastic - find a secondary source that describes Italian-Libyan relations. If *it* has a background section that discusses relations, then find another one to corroborate it. That sort of sourcing would be grounds to make a background section that summarizes that sort of knowledge. If instead you find sources do not talk of some historical periods while describing Italy-Libya relations, then omit that, or if there's ambiguity, summarize that. Don't do original research, rely on existing published research. --Joy (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)