Talk:Libya/Archive 3

Jasmine Republic 2
Tunis is  the  capital  of  the  Jasmine  Republic  they  use  a  seprate  system that  is  independent  from  the  internet this helps  keep  commmiucations  free  from  the  regime(s) control it  should  be  porely  represented here to acess  such  commmunications  dirctly you  can  buy  a  XO-1b Or compatable  system  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancalred (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that verifies your assertion? Otherwise, it cannot be added to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am  refferning  to  The  xo-1.5 not  a  exoplanet the infomation is  only  available  on  the  mesh  network  not  the  internet you need  spiecal  eqipment to  acesss  it (until  firefox 6  comes out) Rancalred (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Firefox Sync
firefox 6 has  come  out this  page  is  superseeded by  the  xo  version  this  shall  be  accomplised  by  uploding the page  from  the  tech city  archives Rancalred (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, no it won't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi = Sharia???
In section "Libya under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi 1969–present", it is written: "He [Muammar al-Gaddafi] announced the suspension of all existing laws and the implementation of Sharia." At least a quotation is absolutely needed and maybe much more information about this sentence: this is absolutely not clear, not proven in the article and probably completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Este0077 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi Ousted
It appears that, as of today at least (August 23, 2011), the Libyan Republic has ousted Gaddafi from Tripoli. Several news stories confirm this (source 1, source 2, source 3). I think we are giving too much credit to Gaddafi, at this point at least. To declare that his government has decent control over any area of the country is an hyperbole at best. We should begin removing his "government" from the page and begin recognizing the NTC.--Drdak (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * International recognition is split at this time, as is control of Libya proper. We should wait to do so until it is clear that Gaddafi is no longer in control, meaning he's either dead, in custody, or in exile. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is probably premature to call the NTC the government but to continue to call Gaddafi's faction a government is begining to look a little strange. A lot of UN states for who relations with Libya is not especially critical will like as not take some time to get round to revising their recognition.Dejvid (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2011

"Where's Muammar?"
Given that he's got miles of tunnels, it could take several days to find him. Wikipedia stands the risk of losing its credibility and its stature if it continues to recognize two governments claiming the mantle of "Libyan government". "he's either dead, in custody, or in exile" could take quite some time. Granted, Tripoli is not secure; but aside from a score or so scattered snipers, the control of the city is in rebel hands. This is not a fluid situation as the time of the 1991 army coup in the USSR.Dogru144 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gaddafi continues to enjoy international recognition as the leader of Libya, and he remains at large and in control of parts of the country. This is still a country divided, at least for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody knows, what happened with the formal head of state, al-Zwai? --84.155.210.188 (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi's son = nonsense
He has at least three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.16 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Map with international recognition of the NTC
The legend has to be changed. Currently that is the legend: -Libya -Countries that have recognised the National Transitional Council as Libya's sole legitimate representative -Countries that have permanent informal relations with Benghazi but have not granted official recognition -Countries that have relations with Tripoli only

I think the word "Tripoli" has to be changed into "the Jamahiriya", and the word "Benghazi" into "NTC" or "the National Transitional Council" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.192.26.177 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would support this change. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, pretty logical. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It don't Matter anymore
The rebels have taken Tripoli, Gadaffi is now a fugitive, and the Transitional Council is now the undisputed government. The "Jambalya" crap is now historyEricl (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's the exact phrase I was gonna add above "it doesn't matter anymore," since things started to run fast after Zawiya. I just deleted the template sandbox I was working on.    ~ AdvertAdam  talk  18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It does matter! Is this an encyclopedia article or a student blog trying to keep up with current affairs? I am sorry to use such a strong word but editing on this article is a disgrace and it has clearly shown that Wikipedia can't deal with civil war situations. The readers have been failed in a big way here. albert humbert (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a civil war. It baffles me how Wikipedia is the only place on the internet that refers to it as such. FizzBrine (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad your side lost. The NTC is the government of Libya - PERIOD 208.127.128.16 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They're the de facto government of Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrakeBake (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NTC anthem
Much as I would like to see the infobox of the NTC filled out, I can't find any evidence that the NTC has adopted Libya, Libya, Libya as their anthem. It is true that the song was sung by some rebels during some of the riots, but that does not make it their anthem. -- leuce (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The NTC website does call "Libya, Libya, Libya" as the anthem of Libya. But their website is down as of no. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, guys! -- leuce (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NTC name for the country
According to this document the direct equivalent of the term Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is Libya. There is no mention of a Libyan Republic in this document; it appears it has fallen into disuse, more or less, though the NTC website's flag section still refers to the tricolor as "the emblem of the Libyan Republic". The document also strongly suggests that the position of chairman is actually the office of president, though it does not explicitly name Mustafa Abdul Jalil as president. There is no mention of a prime-ministerial position, nor an Executive Board. Brian Whitaker has verified the authenticity of the document and offers more thoughts on it here but I wanted to bring these particular points to attention for the purposes of this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC) has whats his face gone hope so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.130.52 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet you persisted with defending 'Libyan Republic' and wasted our time and energy which could have been used elsewhere. Well done. albert humbert (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I represented the available facts at the time; the body of evidence has changed. I have no personal affection for the term, despite your repeated claims that I was editing to push a particular point of view. You've conducted yourself poorly in your discussions here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and unfortunately, you continue to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Libyan Republic from the NTC infobox since the evidence for the NTC using it is very very tenuous at this point. The info is still in the body of the article, though. I feel like this is a reasonable solution. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Usage appears to now be historical, with an asterisk for its usage in reference to the tricolor flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never enough evidence to support 'Libyan Republic' being in the infobox and the fact that it was allowed to stand for so long shows how poor the quality of editing on this page has been since the civil war in Libya started. albert humbert (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I think that the two lower infoboxes for each government should be changed into a single infobox mentioning solely the NTC. Gaddafi's government has ceased to exist, his military has been reduced to pockets of resistance, and the rebels more or less rule the country.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then who is in control of Sirte, Bin Jawad, Sabha, and Abu Salim? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's wait for a week on this. People don't know where Gaddafi is now plus if he has been killed or flees, another leader may take control of his government. In addition, in a week's time Gaddafi's forces may surrender or collapse, resolving the problem presently here entirely. Nevertheless, it is very likely that the National Transitional Council will be recognized as the legitimate government of Libya by the United Nations and Gaddafi's Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya will be removed from the UN. After all, Gaddafi's regime has already been kicked out of the UN Human Rights organizations and it is apparent that his regime is now a pariah state.--R-41 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A single infobox mentioning solely the NTC seems now to make sense. The groupings of Gaddafi loyalists that still exist hardly constitute a government. But, on the other hand, waiting a few days would hardly be the end of the world.Dejvid (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I contend with Dejvid. Keep in mind that the NTC is in control over virtually all of Libya, functions as an organized government, and maintains diplomatic relations with much of the world. In comparison, the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" has effectively ceased to exist. It has been reduced to pockets of loyalists holding a few towns, virtually surrounded by rebel territory, and it is not recognized anymore.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 03:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it's still recognized by more UN member states than the NTC is. It's also recognized by the UN itself (at least for the time being), the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, and the African Union. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. For my part, I think it's obvious Gaddafi is finished and his government has been reduced to a rump; I suspect there will be a final action at Sirte, maybe one at Bani Walid if necessary, and after that, Sabha and the rest of the desert towns will probably give up without much of a fight. But right now, even if it's the truth that the era of Gaddafi is over and the NTC is the new government of Libya, it's not verifiable and it's not undisputed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic Article
How exactly a country can un-recognize a given government is quite unclear. This article has been littered with false claims and sourced with irrelevant information. I will simply take one example: It is my own observation that this is highly unlikely, and is more likely due to Gaddafi's economic policies, namely the nationalisation of libyan oil and the absence of any indebtedness to the International Monetary Fund. Unfortunately the sources cited fail to prove this, instead they are simply records of various nations oil reserves and oil production. I really could go on about the failures in this article but it doesn't really matter because wikipedia surely has acquired a low standing when it comes to issues of politics or economics. 130.56.90.134 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Before the outbreak of the civil war (as of 2009), Libya had the highest HDI in Africa and the fourth highest GDP (PPP) per capita in Africa, behind Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. These were largely due to its large petroleum reserves and low population."
 * Do you have sources that say the contrary? WP:V makes it clear that verifiability and NOT truth is the criterion for inclusion.
 * The sources of the information you dissected are:
 * http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/interactive/2004/FileZ/XL/T33.HTM
 * http://www.imf.org
 * So it's the IMF and OPEC.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Stefano Virgilli, 30 August 2011
The article refers twice with different dates to the change of name:

"In 1977, Libya officially became the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya."

and: "On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers.[44][133] Gaddafi announced that he had won a spectacular military victory over the United States and the country was officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah"."

It could not have happen twice. One should be removed.
 * The article as currently stands is mistaken. The title of the state in 1977 was "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". The word "Great" was added in 1986. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting this. --dab (𒁳) 14:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Capital of old regime
Col G has announced the capital of the old regime is now Sirte. Does this need to be changed? 86.177.241.119 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.38.143.81, 2 September 2011
Change capital city from tripoli to two claimed capitals: Interim Capital at Sirte claimed by Gaddafi and Rebel claimed Capital at Tripoli.

68.38.143.81 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Infobox
Should there be a single infobox or two separate infoboxes (as it is now)? I think a whole, separate infobox for the NTC is not needed. The National Transitional Council have their own page with a comprehensive infobox so what is the purpose of repeating it here?

I don't agree with a view that the readers need to be patronised by indiscriminately dotting the Libya page with repeated information. And I don't think it is up to Wikipedia to try to interpret the day to day balance of power in the Libya Civil War - doing so surely violates WP:NOR policy. We should just present the facts as they are.

And the fact is that there is a state of Libya in a form that existed for 40 years. That country has all the statehood attributes and it is as such recognised around the world and is a member of the international community.

However, as a result of Libya Civil War, the leadership of that country is contested and an alternative, opposition governing body has emerged. This body, the National Transitional Council, should dully be acknowledged and it should be ensured that the readers of the Libya page are clearly informed about them.

So the article should contain numerous references about the NTC, as it does, while the standard infobox should also note that the current government is contested and the adequate link etc. needs to be provided. Readers who would like to know more about the opposition governing body will surely follow the link(s) to the NTC page.

The country infobox as a standard contains information about the particular country's government, not about the government AND the opposition, in whichever form that opposition might be, does it not? Wikipedia relies very much on such uniformities on various issues of formatting and presenting information. So when and why can this practice be abandoned? Is there a clear consensus on this?

As far as the Kosovo analogy is concerned, I would like to point out that at the heart of the Kosovo issue is the question of sovereignty while the Libya is all about the governance. Kosovar Albanians didn't fight to overthrow Serbian government and they never sought to rule Serbia. It was a separatist war - which Libya war definitely is not.

If I may be bold, politically speaking, the Libya civil war would be better compared to a process of change of government by means other than a process of democratic elections (which in Libya does not exist). The NTC is simply an opposition coalition which, unable to seize power by peaceful means, resorted to doing so by other means. Very many of the NTC's leaders were at one point part of the Gaddafi's regime but have now joined the opposition. In the same way as in a democracy politicians might switch their party allegiance, form factions, brake up political parties and such. And if (and when) the rebels become the rulers of Libya, that fact should be clearly reflected in the country of Libya's infobox. albert humbert (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your premise has merit; you are, correct me if I'm wrong, favoring my second proposal above (restoring the former single-infobox format and leaving government-specific data like official long-form names, flags, and symbols for the body of the article). But I have to dispute your argument about "if (and when) the rebels become the rulers of Libya", because they already claim to be the only legitimate representative of Libya and they are recognized as its sole legitimate government by over 30 countries. This article does have to recognize that even if it means some facts will be shared between this page and the NTC page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to see how a similar article fared during a recent civil war, I just finished reviewing how the Ivory Coast article handled that country's recent civil war in its info-box. There, any fact that was disputed such as who the president was, was simply listed as disputed, without any attempt to play favorites. In the Ivory Coast article, it was only after the former president Gbagbo was finally arrested that this disputed tag was replaced with the new president's name, and Ouattara was finally listed as the President. I would suggest that it is not Wikipedia's role to favor any particular side in an undecided and stalemated civil war. Should Qadafi's side, or the NTC side be favored in any way, that would amount to a sort of favoritism. I say, just as the Ivory Coast article did, leave it clear which items are disputed, and which aren't, and don't favor either side in any way until the results of the actual conflict are final. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the recent edit war that recently took place regarding the article's info-box, and Zscout370's resultant intervention. Glad that the info-box was left as it was, and that Zscout370 ended the edit-war as he did.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The infoboxes as they are now do not offer the information that anything is disputed!

In the current form it looks as if there are two parallel sates (the other being 'Libyan Republic', a state invented by Wikipedia editor(s)), when there is only one state. However the government is contested and that should be reflected. We have to view this trough the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about the Libyan conflict.

As for giving more weight to one or the other side in a civil war, I fully agree that Wikipedia should not favour either side. However, sometimes giving undue credit to one side - although it might look as even-handedness - might actually be favouring that side.

And are we saying that governments lose (some/all) legitimacy as soon as the first rebel gun is fired? Because I just wonder, in any civil war or conflict, at which point do we say the government is disputed? I just looked at Afganistan page and, by looking at infobox, one would think the country is in a state of blissful peace!

So there is obviously no Wikipedia uniformity in this regard and either some sort of rule should be established that applies to ALL civil wars (in which case we also have to establish a rule which defines at which point an armed protest becomes a war), or we have to examine each case on its own merits. albert humbert (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ivory Coast example is useful, but the circumstances here are much different. Not saying the same approach can't be used here - just saying the circumstances are different. In Ivory Coast the presidency was contested after the elections when both candidates claimed victory.

In Libya there were no elections and the Gaddafi's government is not disputed in the same way as the presidential office in Ivory Coast coast was. Saying that any government loses legitimacy as soon as the opposing party (which happens to use violence and arms to achieve their political goals) says so would not be in the best interest of Wikipedia. albert humbert (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Kudzu1 infobox proposal, I have some reservations. They are (in part) addressed in my comments directly above. albert humbert (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no undisputed official flag or coat of arms of Libya at this time. I firmly oppose any effort to violate WP:NPOV by putting either the green flag or the tricolor in such an infobox. Ditto coat of arms, and ditto official name. -Kudzu1 (talk)

01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position and my intention is not to propose a solution whereby WP:NPOV would be violated. But there is no justification for removing the attributes of the sate of Libya which in this form has now exists for 40 years, it's a member of the UN etc. etc. etc. Saying that this state somehow does not exist is as wrong as saying 'Libyan Republic' exist.

I'm all for even-handed approach but that means we present fact fairly and without giving preference, not that we engage in administering what we feel is justice. The rebels have still not prevailed and they have a long way to go before Libya is changed according to their goals and wishes.

At this point I would rather support the current infoboxes but the second one, of course, having the 'NTC' instead of 'Libyan Republic' as the entity name. That would be, in my view, less wrong than your proposal although certain question would still have to be answered.

Please also look at Yemen whose situation is comparable to Libya much more than Ivory Coast. The Yemen infobox does not reflect the fact that there is a serious insurgency with a goal to overthrow government in other words that the government is contested. Why double standards? albert humbert (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What questions would have to be answered to make status quo acceptable to you? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, the comparison to Yemen isn't quite apt, as the opposition in Yemen has not claimed to be the sole legitimate governing authority in the country, much less received significant international recognition as such. As such, the government isn't disputed between two entities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebels claim they are the sole legitimate governing authority in the country. So what? It's just a claim and should be reported as such, as a claim. We shouldn't try and interpret it, we should just report it. That is why I suggest that the standard country infobox for Libya should include a clearly visible note/footnote/reference (whatever is needed) to indicate the rebels' claim, with links to 2011 Libyan civil war page AND the National Transitional Council page. Those two pages should then have all the information about the rebels' claims, who supports them etc. etc. The readers can than make up their own mind about the value and legitimacy of the rebels claim, it is not Wikipedia editors who should interpret it for them.

In the Ivory Coast example the result of the presidential election was disputed and since this couldn't be resolved peacefully the country sided into the civil war. On what grounds are the Libyan rebels basing their dispute since there were no elections? That Gaddafi is a bad man? Well great number of the rebel leaders worked for Gaddafi. What, he used to be good than? Do rebels have majority support of Libyans? We don't know. We don't even know if they have majority support in the territory they control as there were no any kind of free elections there and also there is evidence that if you publicly oppose rebels in Benghazi you might be killed.

If we are to preserve standardised presentation of information on Wikipedia, we should not invent new rules when it suits our own political agenda. The rebels are Libya's opposition. Opposition is not part of the standard state infobox. In democratic countries we have numerous examples when the opposition claims that the government has "lost legitimacy" and should cede power. By your logic, we should immediately go and add another infobox when that happens?

I think one of the problems with editing Wikipedia is that people often can't relinquish their beliefs (political, moral, religious etc.) and than edit (consciously or subconsciously) according to those beliefs. So we either have standardised country infoboxes or we go and discard the infobox template and tweak that box from case to case. I think wherever we have a civil war situation, we should refrain from promoting the rebels claims (no matter how valid and morally right they can be) and should, instead work on presenting the details about that conflict on a dedicated (civil war) page as best as we can. albert humbert (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If there one thing that I have noticed when it comes to international disputes like who controls what piece of land, there is never a template to do exactly anything because the element of the users is totally unknown. In the past (maybe 2006 or 2007) I dealt with the issue of the Laincourt Rocks fending off emails to move the article to the Korean name "Dokdo." In 2008, I been figuring out with other admins and users on what to do with Kosovo and we had the same exact problems; what infobox is used, what flag is shown, etc. Now I am dealing with the Senkaku Islands and figure out to keep it there or pick a NPOV name. There is no guidelines, other than NPOV, that can help in the terms of what is displayed here. If you take a look at the disputed countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Osettia), there is no set rule. For Kosovo and Taiwan, they are both treated as "region articles" and the countries that control them (or areas that dispute such claims) are made elsewhere. For Abkazhia and South Osettia, they are treated like regular country articles even though the 90% of the world believes they are still Georgian territory. For the Taiwan issue, I think it was history that let us be the guide to figure out what to do with the article. With the other three; it was purely user driven. Now with Libya, you have about 30 someodd that support the Bengazi Government while others still have their diplomatic relations with Tripoli. So if there is any infobox made for Libya, a lot of things will have to be stripped out. I would suggest nothing on leaders, nothing on state capitals (but mention largest cities) and a minor sticking point is maybe use a map of Libya that is differently colored (I don't care but people have made edit wars in the past to remove any hint of green from the Libyan map due to the Gaddafi-POV view.). If there is something about leaders, then what I can suggest is to put Gaddafi first because he is technically the head of state of Libya before all of this happened, but made sure an icon is noted of the Tripoli Government; the leader of the Bengazhi Government (I don't know what the real name of this government is, but that is where they are located so that is the name I will personally use) can be listed as second. I am not sure what other suggestions can be made, but a lot of the edit wars I seen were talked about and debated before in April when much of the battles were first going down. There is a lot of information that is rapidly changing about Libya that we need to add and I really want to unlock this page as soon as we figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't accept that as it would place undue emphasis on the claims of the Gaddafi government. The NTC, representing Libya, operates foreign embassies; it is a member of at least one international organization (the Libya Contact Group); it has been recognized by 32 countries as Libya's rightful government; it controls about as much of the country as Gaddafi does. There is no undisputed long-form name for Libya, no undisputed flag, no undisputed government. You're wanting this page to be made up like this country is still unequivocally the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the civil war - the fact that about half the country is controlled by a rebel government recognized by a significant portion of the international community - is just a footnote. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV and I don't think you're going to get popular support for that position. That would turn this page from an encyclopedic article into a propaganda leaflet for Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to come up with a possible solution and the only thing that pops up is maybe do what Kosovo and Taiwan is like. I would suggest for all parties to just look there and see what could be done. I do agree that both sides have to be presented equally. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Libya is in the midst of an active civil war and the "Libyan Republic" is embryonic at best. I don't think splitting the article into three makes particular sense at this time and would prefer to keep the status quo. I also feel like Albert Humbert and Kudzu1 have said their peace on this, and it would be helpful if they both took a bit of a break from this discussion so that other people could chime in. It's getting to be a bit of a wall of text in here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also if we are going to keep the phrase "Libyan Republic" in the rebel infobox we need a reliable, secondary source which supports the interpretation that the rebels claim that the current official name of Libya is "Libyan Republic". I really have to stress secondary here. We can't make interpretations of primary sources on our own. If we can't find a source then we are violating WP:OR and WP:V. We could revert to "National Transitional Council" or "Libya" or some other name, but whatever it is it has to be supported by sources. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry Orange Tuesday, I was just about to post this when I saw your comment. So I will go ahead and post it nevertheless but I don't mean any disrespect.)

If you take a look at the disputed countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Osettia), there is no set rule. (Zscout370)

My point is that Libya is not a disputed country. The rebels don't dispute Libya's borders - it is the governing of Libya which is in dispute. Or, to be more precise, they dispute Gaddafi as the leader of the country, since the rebels indicated several times they are happy to work with some members of his government but not with Gaddafi and his family.

Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Ossetia wanted and (to a degree) succeed to brake away from the state they were part of. Kosovo was part of Serbia. Ask any Kosovar Albanian whether they feel as Serbian: not a single one of them feels Serbian or wants anything to do with the sate of Serbia, regardless who governs. Than ask Libya rebels whether they are Libyan. Libya rebels do not want to carve a part of Libya which they would than rule. No, they are essentially an opposition movement looking to overthrow the current national government, which is the Gaddafi's governement.

Let me offer few quotes from the Q&A section of the NTC's official website. According to the NTC:

- Libyans are yet to choose their government

The National Transitional Council of Libya is building the necessary institutions and mechanisms as well as electoral and representative processes to ensure the transition to a democratic process is swift, stable and fair and that the Libyan people are able to choose their government without any coercion.

- they can start improving the country only after Gaddafi is removed from power

Therefore, the rebuilding and development of our country needs to be undertaken on a massive and intensive scale and this will only be possible with the demise of the Gaddafi regime.

- they can prevail only by the help of foreign military help (on the other hand Gaddafi's government does not need foreign help to govern)

Q. What do you need to win this war?

''A. We need the fullest military support possible from NATO and we need it to be as quick and as precise as possible. However, this is not just a military battle. Gaddafi has instigated a humanitarian crisis. We need military equipment, food, medical supplies, and fuel.''

- they themselves don't claim to be Libya's governement

Q. How do you define yourselves – fighters, revolutionaries, opposition?

''A. We are the people of Libya. We seek to create a new Libya that ensures freedom, democracy and justice to all. We oppose Gaddafi, but we are more than opposition, we are also creators of a new future that promises hope and equal opportunities to all.''

Q. Is the NTC actually a government?

''A. No. In accordance with the wishes of the Libyan people, the NTC is the transitional governing body in free Libya. The NTC has avoided internal chaos by creating structures that organize the various political/economic/social sectors. It is also the face and voice of the Libyan people outside Libya, by leading the diplomatic efforts necessary to put an end to the war, and to prepare the ground for a new role and image for Libya within the international community. Once Libya is freed, and the transitional period ends, the only legitimate government will be the one democratically elected by the Libyan people.''

So I conclude:

- the Gaddafi's governement - official governement

- the rebel's transitional governing body - the opposition

As Wikipedia country infoboxes feature details about the countries' governments, not about the opposition, Libya infobox has to list Gaddafi's government as Libya's government BUT, as I said several times, the infobox has to also include clear notes, references and links to the NTC, Libya's Civil War etc. Strictly speaking, Libya country infobox shouldn't even have to contain those notes. Normaly, the country infoboxes do not have notes about the opposition and the politics of the country are discussed in the appropriate article(s), not as notes in the infobox. At the moment there are civil wars in Yemen, Afghanistan and Syria which are very much comparable to the war in Libya. Yet all the infoboxes there list only the official government and there is no indication in the infoboxes that the respective governments are not disputed. What, 200 demonstrators who were just killed in Syria don't dispute Assad's rule in the SAME way Libyan opposition disputes Gaddafis? Of course they do, yet it is not reflected in the infoboxes.

Some people abhor Gaddafi and his rule of Libya and, on the other hand, vehemently support the rebel's cause and allow for this to influence their editing decisions. Some editors are opposed that Libya is represented by the green flag? Well tough, beacuse at the moment that is the flag of the state Libya. Opposition have their own version of Libyan flag? No problem, let's report that, as we did here: National Transitional Council The facts about both sides in the Libya conflict have to be presented equally - I agree. But that doesn't mean that we should give Libya rebels' cause more weight than they actually have. They are not a parallel to Gaddafi's government, thy are an opposition to it.

Great majority of countries that support the rebels' claim that they are the sole legitimate governing authority are either NATO countries, which is directly and actively involved in the war, or Arab countries that have sent arms to the rebels, thus are also (indirectly) involved in the war on one side. Remove those countries and support for the rebel's claim is minuscule. The Libya Contact Group is a body set up by those countries and saying the NTC's membership of that body somehow gives another layer of legitimacy is naive.

Gaddafi's claim that his government is Libya's government is based on the fact that it was the government of Libya for more than 40 years and as such recognised by virtually every single country in the world and that it controlled 100% of Libyan territory during all that time and is still holding capital Tripoli. (Libya rebels also claim the capital is Tripoli yet they have never controlled it in any shape or form.) Like it or not, Gaddafi's government is still recognised as such by almost all the countries in the world outside of the anti-Gaddafi block I refereed to earlier.

On the other hand, Libya's opposition's claim that they are the government of Libya is based on: "We say so!!!" (Correction: the NTC don't claim that they are the government of Libya, they explicitly say they are NOT the government of Libya. Rather they claim that they are the sole legitimate governing authority in the country - claim which they base on "We say so!!!" albert humbert  (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)) They never took part in any elections, they were never acknowledged as the Libyan government by any verifiable number of people and their military success by which they control part of Libya is only possible by the help of NATO.

Patrick Cockburn in his latest piece for The Independent why-the-west-is-committed-to-the-murderous-rebels-in-libya claims that:

''The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognise the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields. (..) In one respect, the foreign media has been more culpable than governments in giving credibility to the TNC as an alternative to Gaddafi's regime. Official rebel statements and claims have been treated with respect, as if they were not geared to winning the propaganda war. (..) How could it be that for month after month Gaddafi's forces were still fighting when he was meant to have no support? (...) In contrast to their limited military capabilities, the rebels have proved extremely effective in cultivating the foreign media.''

Wikipedia has to avoid by all means doing what the media Cockburn refereed to is doing! Nobody is disputing that the rebels represent the views and aspirations of many Libyans (although we don't know precisely of how many) which is what the opposition does in any other country, but Libyan government they are NOT (yet) and the infobox should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cockburn's opinion isn't material. The opposition isn't like a political party, it's a movement to fully actualize throughout Libya what they see as their legitimate position as the sole governing authority overseeing a political transition. That's basically what it says on their website. This isn't a political spat within the same legal framework that has existed for 42 years; Libya is disputed between two entities that both claim they are the sole legitimate authority in the country and they are rightfully in charge of its affairs. It's just false to say otherwise. And now I've said my piece and I'll turn it over to other editors for a little while. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I know about the Tripoli situation is that the NTC stated that they want to move into Tripoli and use that city as their capital because of historical and cultural factors, but they are based in Bengazhi. What I am thinking is something like this; Tripoli will be listed as the capitol, but make a note saying that "under the control of the Gaddafi Government; the NTC Government is based in Bengazhi yet has stated that it will intended to have their government relocated to Tripoli." I am going to have a copy of this infobox in my userpage and make some changes to it so this page can be unlocked. But I would like to ask other than this infobox issue, what other issues are present in this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also what I meant by looking at those pages was in the terms of an infobox layout. Some are set up like countries even though they are recognized by like....3 people or areas that have a ton of recognition are not treated at all due to POV issues of some users. Anyways, going to make up something. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I object that the NTC is listed as Libya's government in the infobox and I think I tried to elaborate why. The NTC is and can only be (for now) the rebel's government, although it would seem at the moment they can't even govern themselves Benghazi Clash Exposes Cracks in Rebel Ranks' BTW the second part of this sentence from the quoted article speaks volumes about why is the NATO suporting this fallacy about the rebels being a sole legitimate government of Libya:

The developments come at a time when many foreign governments, including the United States, are recognizing the rebels’ governing council as the legitimate government of Libya, with the possibility of turning over to the rebels millions of dollars in frozen Qaddafi government assets.

It's all about finding a way to transfer Libya's sovereign funds to the rebels, isn't it. Those billions of dollars have a rightful owner and can't just be given to some insurgents. But if the insurgents became the government, well than...

The rebels claim they are Libya's government? Let them show it, not just say it. I think we need some secondary sources calling the NTC Libya's government or Libya's parallel government or Libya's other government or something along those lines. For now we only have their wishful thinking. Group of people starts shooting and Libya as it existed for 42 years is suddenly no more by the will of Wikipedia? I really don't see how Libya differs from Afghanistan and other examples I gave.

If you would like to unlock the page I think you should revert the infobox to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libya&diff=406417618&oldid=406115538 as no one can dispute that those facts about Libya are correct. And than we can see how can that infobox can be adjusted to take into account the current events but we agree that we can change the infobox further only by consensus, step by step if needed. albert humbert (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I strenuously object. Wikipedia is based off verifiability, not your personal opinions about how fit the NTC is to lead or whether the diplomatic recognition conferred by over 30 countries and the European Union "counts". I can absolutely dispute that those facts about Libya are correct because my government doesn't recognize Muammar Gaddafi as the leader of Libya, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as its name, or the green flag as its official emblem. You can speculate all you want as to its motives for not doing so, but the proper place to do that is on a blog, not on Wikipedia. We have plenty of secondary sources, cited multiple times throughout multiple articles, and obviously if you insist on selectively ignoring the ones you think are biased in some way, we'll end up with a version of Wikipedia that could have come straight off of Al-Jamahiriya TV. And of all the editors who have contributed to this page in the past few months, you are the only one who seems to seriously think it should regard Gaddafi as the undisputed leader of Libya and the jamahiriya as its undisputed government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When it came to the recognition of the NTC, my government sees it as a rival government in opposition to Gaddafi. But from other nations, it is different. The Japanese consider the NTC to be "リビアにおける正統な対話相手" (Legitimate discussion partner in Libya; translation used by the Japanese MOFA is "the legitimate interlocutor (one who takes part in dialogue or conversation) of the Libyan people"). So regardless of what we feel about the NTC, there are some governments who see the NTC as the sole government of Libya, some who stuck with Gaddafi or trying to talk with both sides. Having anything related to symbols or governments or any "official names" will be not neutral; the infobox needs to be something where information that isn't tied to one government or the other is presented. The issue with Tripoli is that even though Gaddafi controls it now, the NTC really wants to run their government there once Libya is unified. I also think that maybe the capitol information could be moved to the specific infoboxes of each competing government and just leave Tri@poli as the largest city (but the infobox on my userpage is giving me hell). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(I wish other editors would take part in the discussion. In the meantime, I feel I have to defend my position.)

The question is very simple: what makes a group of people the government of some country? I find it interesting how some Americans, normally the greatest believers in democracy, have no problem with a fact that in some foreign country it is the will of the US which decides who is and who is not the government, not the will of the people of that country.

I can absolutely dispute that those facts about Libya are correct because my government doesn't recognize Muammar Gaddafi as the leader of Libya, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as its name, or the green flag as its official emblem. Kudzu1 says. No problem. As soon as Wikipedia adopts rules which stipulate that the US government policies are to be treated as divine, indisputable truth I will give way. Until than I will treat any information by the US government with the same caution and examination I treat information by any other source. Groups of people do not become governments because the US says they are, we need to find adequate support for those claims before we can treat them as facts. Until than we can only report, not conclude. Example:

- the US government says the NTC is the government of Libya - a report

- the NTC is the government of Libya - a conclusion

Infobox is where we place our conclusions, isn't it? We conclude certain things and enter them as facts. Please do. 35.13.179.22 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For the claim that the NTC is Libya's government to become a fact we need sufficient secondary sources saying the NTC is Libya's government, period. But when we read news reports they conspicuously avoid to name the NTC as Libya's government. They only report which countries consider them as Libya's government but article after article fails to say something along the lines: "The NTC, who act as Libya's government, did this or that..." Why? Because the NTC is not Libya's government. They are challenging Libya's government, but they are not the government yet. The most they can be is 'the shadow government', the 'government' of the opposition but not 'the government', regardless of what their military allies call them.

I can see in the Talk page archives that there were some intense discussion on practically the same subject Edit_war:_Libyan_government. It is evident that Kudzu1's position was in a minority than and since there was no visible consensus (if I'm not mistaken) I wonder on which basis did he change the infobox info? And once he changed it, where is explanation why he did it, which should have been given in some detail here since it is a very controversial subject? albert humbert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As to your present complaint, I am strongly opposed to this page being made up to claim that the NTC is Libya's only legitimate government. That may be the position of over 30 national governments, but it would violate WP:NPOV to not present information that the government is disputed between two factions who both claim exclusive legitimacy. As to your past rooting around, if you were actually diligent about checking the edit logs, I think you would find that I wasn't the one who changed the infobox info, which happened over a week after that discussion. A new consensus developed after France recognized the NTC, and editors eventually settled on the current infobox configuration. But it seems more like you're interested in trying to discredit me than you are in the history of the article. I hope I'm mistaken in that conclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If the US had their way, as you mentioned Albert, Kosovo would be about the country and Abkazhia and S. Osettia would be region articles. And while it is true we do have a lot of people that don't believe in the Gaddafi government, if we have everything just about the NTC I would be against that too. But, leaving the article the way it was before said civil war in the terms of leaders and symbols would also not be NPOV since there are two governments competing for control of the country (and we have at least 30 that side with Bengazhi). I really want to come to a solution so I can unlock this article. It seems the infobox is the only main issue I see since we all agree about the non-use of the Jasmine Republic name.
 * As I pointed out from two different governments, each has their own feelings. The Japanese (I am ja-3, so that is why I used them and they are outside of NATO) didn't say anything about the NTC being recognized by them as the Libyan Government and they still will use "Libyan authorities based in Tripoli" and still refer to Gaddafi as the leader. I know the US (my country) is heavily biased against Gaddafi so anything they will say or do, except for their notice of recognition of the NTC, needs to be looked at with a grain of salt. I would say for the UK too. I would not call the NTC a shadow government because this implies they support the leadership of Gaddafi but differ on ideas for improving the country. I would not call them the Libyan Government either since they control about half of the country and Tripoli has more diplomatic recognition than Bengazhi does. I would use competing government because this is an active force that is trying to topple Gaddafi and their government by setting up their own bodies in another part of the country. This is similar to the PRC/ROC split in the 1950's that lasted until the 1970's when all of the recognition shifted from Taipei to Beijing. I would still try and focus on the infobox to be neutral and the three infobox solution is the best we can come up with (similar to what was done early on with Kosovo in 2008). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that great number of my comments, arguments and offered evidence were disregarded without being answered. The infobox, as it stands, clearly violates WP:NOR as (some of) the details in the infobox are not supported by sufficient secondary sources but, rather, are a result of original research by the editor(s) based on information provided by primary sources.

I strongly feel that with the current infobox Wikipedia has gone out of the encyclopaedic remit and has, instead, turned into a biased commentator of current events. Animosity of some editors towards Gaddafi and his government has been allowed to shape this article, which is simply wrong. There was a dispute on this subject already which wasn't resolved with a compromise and I note the same has happened again. albert humbert (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to answer them. I know you said only 30 countries recognize the NTC as the government of Libya as a whole; the world doesn't. We need to reflect that somehow; having it showing pre-civil war infobox exclusively won't sit well with NPOV and having it exclusively as NTC won't be NPOV either. Now, you mentioned the current infobox has a lot of Original Research; what key parts of it are original research and I can see what I can pull in the terms of sources. I personally don't care who is in charge of the country (still waiting for my Green Book) but I want to come up with a solution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I want to put on record that I don't agree with the article lay out. The UN still recognises the "Great...Libyan Arab what have you" as the name of the country. A mere 15% of UN members recognise the TNC. Thats likely to rise...and in time they may become recognised at the UN...just like the Taipei Chinese Government was replaced by the Beijing Chinese Government so many moons ago.......but until then, we should have greater credibility and objectivity and be consistent. Treat Libya in the same way as all other states. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia were an organ of the United Nations, I might agree with you. But it's not, so the UN doesn't trump all other sources. Its position is duly noted, as are the positions of the 33 states recognizing the NTC and the 162 states recognizing the Gaddafi government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting WP be an "organ of the UN"; its an amateur encyclopedia, the UN would not accept it as an organ....what I propose is objective standards.....and that the right objective standard is to accept the Government accreditted to the UN as the Government of Libua....The position of the 15% of the world's states can of course be mentioned in the article. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree with that, and I don't think that proposal commands anywhere near consensus support. The government is actively disputed and there is no sole arbiter in this matter - not the UN or anyone else. This article should reflect that, and it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370/LY here is where yall can try and come up with an infobox of what should be added or removed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my attempt at a single infobox - it is based on the infobox used on the Libya article on the German Wikipedia. Dn9ahx (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with this is if we display both symbols, which ones will be listed first? People will just remove Gaddafi (or the NTC) symbols so it displays just one. I honestly believe if there is a solution for the main infobox, no symbols from either side must be included. However, I do like what changes you did with the leaders and would support that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not make the changes to the leaders, Kudzu did in the section above, I used his suggestion as a starting point. We could use placeholder images for the national symbols which link to the articles on those symbols allowing readers to see why no symbols have been used in the infobox.
 * I would even say remove the placeholders too because that will tell them to add something. You can always use both flag images in the article text regarding the civil war. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support Dn9ahx's initial version. I'm fine with any single infobox as long as the symbols are displayed somehow. I think the concerns about edit warring the orders of the symbols are a bit overblown. Something always has to come "first" if you're listing two things, and most people won't care about the order (the two sub-infoboxes on the current page have gone for months now without much in the way of edit warring). If it really comes down to it, disruptive edits can be reverted and people who insist on edit warring can be blocked. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I just been on Wikipedia for too long and being cynical. Well, I do like the version from Dn9ahx and wouldn't mind being tried out on the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good improvement. If we have to pick which symbol is on top, if that's important, I suggest we just use what's below, with Gadaffi's on top, even if that's just because it's older. It's what the current article has anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we have sufficient evidence of secondary sources naming the NTC as Libya's government or Libya's other government or something along those lines please? At the moment we only have primary sources information. The current and proposed Libya infobox is a result of Wikipedia editor(s) using those primary sources and interpreting them, in violation of WP:NOR! I made numerous points that haven't been answered - this is not how disputes should be solved on Wikipedia. albert humbert (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We have tons of newspapers etc. reporting that suchandsuch country recognises the NTC as Libya's government. What kind of source do you want? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the rebels' military and political allies say that the rebels are the government is a primary source. What "tons of newspapers etc." are reporting is simply to confirm the existence of those primary sources. So all we can say on this page is "these countries recognise the rebels as the government". But to say here that the rebels ARE the government we need to have secondary sources saying so. I made this point numerous times on this talk page but is blatantly disregarded! albert humbert (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am thinking is having something like "Since the start of the 2011 Libyan civil war, X countries have recognized the NTC as the sole legitimate government of Libya and Y countries recognized the NTC as a representative of the Libyan people." I know the Japanese and the Canadians fall into the second category so that should be important to note, but we need to have a clear declaration from the foreign ministry themselves. I also think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_National_Transitional_Council (well sources IMHO) would also work. The wording could also say "As a result of the 2011 Libyan civil war, various nations of the world changed their diplomatic recognition from Gaddafi to the NTC or recognized the NTC as a negotiating partner." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You just stole the idea from my mind, jkjk. Seems good, and I was thinking of also adding them as flags in the CivilWar-related articles. Do you think we might use one template, so the continues editing stays in one place (if it's possible to stick a template with an infobox)?
 * Yep, we should only use official announcements from the foreign ministry of each country. I was thinking of adding the countries denouncing Gaddafi's government on one side, and announcing NTC as the official government on the other. Some countries denounced but hasn't announced.    ~ AdvertAdam  talk  21:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm good like that ^^ Anyways, I would not mention anything about denouncing of the regime but focus on the actual diplomatic recognition when it comes to this article (and use that one article as a link, along with other sources). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LibyanGreek, 30 August 2011
please replace the part of "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya " with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibyanGreek (talk • contribs)

not done, we already have that infobox. Regarding the "Al-Ǧumhūriyya al-Lībiyyah", we do not have any evidence that the NTC is using this name. Correctly so, because a "Republic of Libya" will only come into existence once a constitution has been drafted and approved by a referendum. --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Morever in interim constitution NTC reffers to Libya as State of Libya, not Libyan republic. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of governments
I note that over 60 countries now recognise the NTC. It might therefore be sensible to remove the comment in the lead about a majority of state recognising Gaddafi's government given that it could very quickly become incorrect. That or it needs up-to-date citations. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Once it becomes out-of-date, it should be removed. But WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except it is probably already out of date. It can't be assumed that all those states that have not made formal recognition actually still recognize Gaddafi.Dejvid (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Afaics, nobody is positively recognizing Gaddafi's regime at this point except for Hugo Chavez. --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That isn't true. Zimbabwe, Ecuador, and Nicaragua have all explicitly said they won't recognize the NTC, and a number of countries have said they still recognize Gaddafi for the time being. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of name edit
I thought that maybe I should explain why have I changed name of Libya under NTC control from Libya to State of Libya. Although in Interim Constitution there is no article which deals specificly and only with name of the state in several articles, like article 17 it is reffered specificly as State of Libya. Since Interim Constitution is for the moment supreme document of NTC-controlled Libya I believe its only appropriate to refer by its name. Also I believe I screwed up romanization so if someone could patch up that state thing I´d appriciate it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Three things:


 * 1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the new constitution still just a draft? That's how I'm seeing it described in news articles.
 * 2) The only English translation of the document I can find does not contain the phrase "State of Libya".
 * 3) I can't find any reliable source which describes the official name of Libya as "State of Libya". We need a reliable source before we can add this information (ideally a secondary source).
 * I'm going to revert your changes for now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. You´re wrong. Its interim constitution which was passed on 3rd August and it will be replaced once new parliament is elected. This only oversee transitional period. 2. Look again, english translation got few things mixed up and Article 17 is there as Article 16. Also I gave also Arabic name of state which is in constitution. 3. Constitution itself which is located on webpage of supreme authority of state is Reliable Source. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3rd of August? Do you have a source for that date? Wasn't the draft only circulated in late August?
 * I see the phrase state now, but I don't think it's clear that this is an official name. I admit that it could be, but some things are making me think it isn't. The word "State" is always capitalized in that document, even when it's being used as a common noun. And if you look at article 35 of the English document, you can see that the equivalent of "Great Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya" is said to be "Libya".
 * The constitution itself is a primary source, and if we're interpreting a primary source we need a secondary source which backs up our interpretation. In this case we don't have a reliable secondary source which says that the current official name of Libya is "State of Libya", so we can't add that information to the article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.Check the main article. 2. As I wrote before, in arabic version its clearly written State of Libya, not just state as in most articles. Also in Article 30 (or 29 in that English version) word State of Libya is used once again (although its not presented in that semi-english translation): ٠ قبل التحرير يتم استكمال المجلس الوبكي الانتقالي المؤقت حسب ما اقره المجلس، ويبثي هو الذي يمثل اعلي سلطة في الدولة الليبية والمتول عن إدارة البلاد حتى انتخاب المؤتمر الوشي العام. In bold is State of Libya. And as for Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Well official name was Great Socialistic People´s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, while Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was just a short name. Same goes for Libya and State of Libya. 3. wikipedia is using primary sources in next to all articles, quoting directly US consitution in dozens of pages. So it´s not like we can´t, it´s about wether we will. And I´m sorry but I do not expect articles poping out about interim libyan constitution and the naming of state in it any time soon. Or rather ever. Plus what we´re dealing with is not NPOV, those are just and only exact facts. Naming of state is always sourced by supreme legislation, be it constitution or in countries without constitution (Libya under Gaddafi) some law. In this case Constitution exists, reffers to country as State of Libya and that´s all we need. If we´re goign to use sources we may as well use sources from ministry of Bosnia and Hercegovina which during its recognition reffered to this entity as Libyan Republic. It wouldn´t be correct a bit but it would be sourced. --EllsworthSK (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The main article in question also doesn't include a source for the August 3 date. Where does that come from?
 * But in the constitution "Libya" is being set up for the equivalent of "Great Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya". It's not being used as an equivalent for "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya".
 * It is in fact like we can't. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is venerability, not truth. You are making an interpretation of what the constitution says, but unless you provide us with a secondary source we have no way of verifying whether or not your interpretation is correct. This is the reasoning behind WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. And yes, the U.S. Constitution is quoted on Wikipedia, but if you look at the types of articles where it's quoted (like Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution) you will see a whole raft of secondary sources backing it up. If "State of Libya" is indeed Libya's official name, then that information will appear elsewhere and at that time we'll be able to put it in the article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Beats me, NTC official webpage presents day of publication as August 3 however it´s experiencing some problems while in article is August 10. Strange enough.
 * No it isn´t. Once again, it´s sloppy translation. This is written there: التنفيذي او الحكومة أو أعضاء الحكومة كل في حدود اختصاخه، وكل إشارة إلى رالجمانيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الاشتراكية العظمى) تعتبر إثارة إلى رليبيا) meaning that Each reference to (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) shall be deemed as reference to Libya. As I said before, I´m using as source original constitution in arabic, not would a translation by an editor.
 * As I said before, secondary sources which works directly with interim constitution are non-existent, sources quote only several parts which they take as interesting (sharia as source of law, election et cetera) but if you insist so much than for example this . --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That site isn't loading for me right now but the date of publication is different than the date where a constitution goes into effect. Burma's most recent constitution was published in 2008 but didn't come into effect until 2010. Do you have a source which says the constitution came into effect on the 3rd?
 * I'm looking at an Arabic document right now and I can clearly see (الجماهيرية العربية الليبية الشعبية الإشتراكية العظمى) in Article 35.
 * I think we're going to need something more definitive then those. We had nearly identical evidence for the term "Libyan Republic" and that turned out to be entirely erroneous. Ideally we would want some kind of country profile (e.g. a CIA World Factbook entry, something from a news outlet, something from the UN) which explicitly describes the official name of Libya as "State of Libya". Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OT has it dead on. As well, would a translation by an editor here not be OR?  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital DISPUTED?!!!
Capital has always been Tripoli, what made it disputed??!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.255.162 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gaddafi declared the capital of Libya to be Sirte on September 1 of this year. The NTC still considers the capital to be Tripoli. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The body of the article still states, unequivocally, that the capital is Tripoli. I have reverted the infobox for consistency's sake. If you want to include the allegedly disputed nature of the capital, please correct the article body as well as the infobox. Quantum Burrito (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you could cite a source. But for the record, the source, which could be found at History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, is here. --Quintucket (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(1) Single Infobox (2) ordering of dual infoboxes
Now that Gaddafi is out of power, what do people think about a single infobox with just the NTC symbols and info? Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would love to see that happen, but I think we need one more decisive event from libya, involving some form of (voluntary or involuntary) transfer of power. I want to note that Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has been changed from a redirect to a bare stub with a "former nation" infobox. There is obviously a very strong desire on the part of editors supportive of the rebels/new transitional government to make this change happen. As long as news channel consensus supports these changes, I dont see a problem.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this will be the obvious result of the end of the civil war, but let's hold off till sources say the Rebels control all of Libya. There is after all still some fighting in the capital. IP is right, there is a rush to support the rebels. I notice the Green Square article has already been moved to Martyrs' Square, Tripoli, a great example of recentism if I've ever seen one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At this stage, what I can support now is the flipping of sections regarding politics, so that the NTC goes first. I have no intention to push POV here, but this is because of the recognition by major states: remember that Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, and the US only recognises the NTC. --Marianian(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please figure out how to use the Template:Infobox country parameter "symbol_type" correctly, so that the NTC logo will not wrongly be called a "coat of arms"? Compare USA, where the symbol (also not a coat of arms) is designated "Great Seal." "NTC logo" is the best label I can think of; I tried to implement this, but I got a blank white space instead of an alternate label. This also applies to the National Transitional Council page. Wareh (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried something. Any comments? — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 22:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's great. On the wider discussion, FWIW, I think the current arrangement (two infoboxes, with the NTC one below) is a good compromise until things are better resolved. Merging the two into a single infobox would seem to invite misunderstanding. Wareh (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So we are jumping into conclusions based on biased media reports that change every hour, are we? Editing of this article does disservice to Wikipedia! Misrata rebels, who spearheaded the push to Tripoli, don't accept the NTC as their governing body. So what now? They are still Libya's government? Why? Because Obama says so? Yet, report after report Gaddafi's forces are termed "Government forces" while rebel forces are termed "rebel forces". My repeated requests for the secondary sources have been left unanswered. It is almost as some editors work in NATO's propaganda department! albert humbert (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there something in particular that makes you think I jumped to a conclusion...? — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 01:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Albert Humbert, you need to cool it. If you can't manage to be civil then you should take a break from editing for a while. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree trans. govt should be listed first. After all, Wikipedia is not censored, lol. That is, in addition to all the provinces, per rebel leaders 80% of the capital is controlled by forices in opposition to G  .--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current arrangement now until we figure out what is going on with the battles in Tripoli and if/when Gaddafi gives up power. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In the United Nations the country is still officialy the Jamahirya, the Gaddafi Libya, until that changes the green one goes first. EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lede states that that is the name Libya goes by at the UN still. Nonetheless, ongoing statements coming from the UN in actual fact reference the transitional government of the country as its de facto rulers (eg, in just one of many current examples, the most recent headline indicates that Security Council member China just petitioned this international body to, quote, lead post-war reconstruction in Libya, urging a smooth political transition, end of quote; another article reads, "Mr. Khatib and Ian Martin, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on post-conflict planning in Libya, are in Doha, Qatar, today for discussions with the National Transitional Council’s leadership on the form assistance the UN can lend to the transitional authorities and the people of Libya"). We go by the preponderance of reliable sources.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is all this impetus to announce the events before they even happen coming from? I think some editors need to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia article, not open ed piece. For the NTC to be(come) the sole governing authority of Libya we need few more things to happen. For starters, they need to start governing the capital:

''Osama Bilil, one of the doctors, told the BBC: "These bodies have been here in the hospital for five days. Nobody has taken care of them - to bring them to the mortuary, to identify them, to bury them." "We need help. It is very urgent. There is no government here. We need professional help, from the International Red Cross, because there has been a massacre in Abu Salim," he added.'' BBC albert humbert (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Albert humbert, I agree that there should not be a single infobox yet. (Btw, this discussion is a little confusing because it keeps changing between one about whether there should be dual infoboxes below the main infobox and, granting that there should remain two of them, the ordering of them. I've changed the talkpage section's heading to reflect this.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody knows, what happened to the formal head of state, al-Zwai? --84.155.209.119 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera reports he's in NTC custody and apparently turned himself in: -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Make her wet
Grun's Timetables of History says something about water first being drilled for in Libya in 1891. Is he right?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  06:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Human Right
There is many information and accident not mentioned in this article. Muammar Gaddafi start hanging people from his first year of ruling ... and he start his Ritual with on university students in Benghazi and tripoli by hang them in public squares and stadiums every year and broadcast Execution on TV to terrified people ..

And most terrorist mascara was happened in 1996 by Abdullah Senussi Gaddafi right hand when he execute 1200 prisoners Abu Salim prison in few hours .. --Salem F (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Abdu.aoun, 12 September 2011
Hello Dear established User

My Name is Abdul Ben Oun im a Libyan citizen, and i would to notice that are some mistakes in the Page of Libya , for example the Capital of Libya is not disputed its Tripoli , and all the Libyans know that , saying that the Capital is a disputed matter is a Temptation. I ask for your understanding. thanks ahead.

Sincerely Yours

Abdul

Abdu.aoun (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Abdul, this was discussed here several times. Gaddafi proclaimed Sirte as new capital, hence the dispute. Every Libyan may know that but apparently Gaddafi didnt get the memo so we are where we are. --EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A simple grammatical error.
The last sentence of the section entitled, "2011 revolution and coalition intervention" reads as follows: "September 2011, Chinese arms dealers were implicated in attempting to sell weapons weapons to Gaddafi forces." The duplicate word, "weapons", should be deleted. Iitywybmad (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Single Infobox?
With the NTC being represented at the United Nations and the rebels controlling the vast majority of Libya, I feel like now might be a good time to switch back to a single infobox. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. Not yet. Gaddafi still has some international recognition, and Bani Walid, Sirte, and Sabha are proving very difficult for the NTC to pacify. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * International recognition for Gaddafi is now considerably in the minority. The General Assembly vote was 114 to 17, with 15 abstentions (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/09/201191623155222805.html) - which means that a majority of the world's sovereign states voted for recognition while only 17 UN members were willing to oppose it (all relatively powerless states).


 * As this map shows, the Gaddafi regime is essentially lacking for international recognition. All world powers of any significance now recognize the TNC, regardless of their stances during earlier UN debates, or during the uprising/intervention. --Archimedean (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think that the rebels need to control 100% of the country before they get a single infobox. Large swathes of Afghanistan are under Taliban control but they don't get an infobox. Same with Somalia and Al-Shabaab. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah Mo and his crew should be mentioned for sure, but not in the info box any more I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But they don't have any international recognition. The AU still recognizes Gaddafi as the legitimate leader of Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The AU is fairly alone in that respect. Even the Arab League has recognised the rebels. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until it's clear that Gaddafi lacks international support, or that if he has it, it's only from delusional cranks like Chavez, Castro, and Mugabe, who are international pariahs anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That response is unbelievably inappropriate for Wikipedia. I hope you don't edit political articles.  Night  w   06:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How so? That's not the way I would phrase it in an article proper, but on a Talk page, I don't feel like I need to be overly conciliatory to a thimbleful of tin-pot dictators. The facts are: Chavez has said his government won't ever recognize anyone who isn't Gaddafi (which is a categorically unreasonable position somewhat akin to the North Korean government insisting Kim il-Sung, who is dead, is still the "Eternal President"). Mugabe and Castro tend to follow Chavez's lead on foreign affairs. All of those governments have very, very limited international followings and tend not to be taken seriously at the United Nations. If they're the only ones keeping Gaddafi's government in the infobox, then I will support a single infobox for the new government of Libya. As it is now, though, I think there are enough major states that are taken seriously that do not recognize the NTC (South Africa voted against; Saudi Arabia and Indonesia abstained), as well as enough of Libya under Gaddafi's control, to merit the continued split. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorting the "tin pot" states from the "serious" states seems like a murky game for us to get into. The rebels have taken the capital, they control the majority of Libya's population, they're accepted by a majority of states, and now they have Libya's United Nations seat. I think those are four very clear criteria that indicate that the NTC is the government of Libya. It's time to change the page around accordingly. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudzu, you just labelled several country's leaders as "tin-pot dictators" and "delusional cranks". You may not agree with their politics, but many people do and would object to that. There'd also probably be a large amount of people in those countries who would take offence at you mocking their governments. See WP:SOAP for where it applies, and keep the insults to yourself.  Night  w   22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, in Yemen, one third of the districts are out of government control, in Afghanistan, whole south is basicly under control of Karzai administration only on paper, in Somalia TFG control only vast minority of the country, most is controlled by allied quasi-states and al-Shabaab etc. NTC is now recognized not only by major powers but also IMF, OPEC, AU and now even largest of them - United Nations. Also Gaddafi has now defunct government, all he´s waging now is insurgency which is under his and several his military aids command. --EllsworthSK (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that now is the time to update the infobox. At the very least, the main Libya infobox should contain the NTC's flag. Bazonka (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that gadafii shold'nt be listed as the govermnt of libya but the ntc  is  not a  government it is just ther to protect democracy in we should wait until a long-term goverment has been established/renstated also can we  lower the protecion of  this article? --Rancalred (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've put a proposed infobox up here User:Orange Tuesday/Libya. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. All my arguments against this have, well, become rather obsolete. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree but Id remove the seal and leave it vacant for the time beeing. Its seal of governing authority, not of country itself. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to hold up consensus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm Gaddafi is still holding some teritories in Libya and there is numerous of contries that still recognise old Libyan govnerment I think that it's to early to remove second box... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.212.40 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

UN and the Name
Near the top it says: "Until 16 September 2011, Libya under Gaddafi was officially known as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya by the UN.[11]" Footnote 11 then explains that the UN still uses that name. Given this is the sentence not completely misleading. Indeed inaccurate. It clearly suggests that the UN stopped using the name "LAJ" on 16 Sept....when it didn't? 84.203.72.5 (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2011/ga11137.doc.htm Might be a clue. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The new UN resolution on Libya (SC/2009) uses the term "Libya" for the state. The previous resolutions 1970 and 1973 used the term "the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". Ibrahim Dabbashi made comments during the discussion of the new resolution about the "restoration of the country’s original name". The name plate infront of Mr Babbashi also simply read "Libya" rather than "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" which was used before. - see http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10389.doc.htm - http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement - http://www.unmultimedia.org/photo/detail.jsp?id=484/484559&key=6&query=category:"Security%20Council"&lang=en&sf= Dn9ahx (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty conclusive to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Zscout370 - Thanks for the link; it definitely explains where the editors here are coming from;
 * (2) Dn9ahx - Thanks for the other links too; it gives even more explanation as to where you guys are coming from;
 * I certainly no longer think the sentence is "completely misleading". But I still thought it was not correct; or at least no one has pointed to a source that shows it to be correct. I was going to write that "You can call me an anorak if you like but there are formal procedures which must be followed where a State changes its name..."...But having checked the UN website today, it has been updated TODAY to include the following note:


 * Thanks - Hope some of you will build in suitable reference to this into the Article. 84.203.72.5 (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think I should point out a technical point. I point this out more so that people don't get pushed aside as "anoraks", "pedantic" or indeed "disruptive" or some such (not that I am saying either Zscout370 or Dn9ahx would do that) just because they disagree with things.
 * If Dn9ahx you had based your argument on the official name having changed on UN resolution on Libya (SC/2009), you would have been wrong. Note what the UN note above actually says. It states that FOLLOWING the UN resolution, the UN was notified by the new Libyan representatives of the new name. It was only from the moment that the UN had been so notified that for the purposes of the United Nations, the name had changed to Libya. There was a short gap, seconds, minutes or hours - who knows, where the NTC representatives had been seated to represent the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (in the eyes of the UN). Hope you see the subtle distinction. 84.203.72.5 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally...I do not know if the notification from the Libyan representatives was lodged with the UN on 16 September, 17 September, 18 September or today (19 September - the date the UN website was updated). 84.203.72.5 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Represention of Freedom House or lack therof
Per WP:BRD I have reverted these edits. I do not think they belong here, but perhaps in the Freedom House article. But not here, this is to be an article about Libya, not about the sources. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. A monologue by Ron Paul on the merits of Freedom House's work in Ukraine isn't really relevant to Libya. It's not an invalid criticism of the organization - but this isn't an article about the organization. It belongs elsewhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are excerpts from the Freedom House article. The source is questionable and if it is not portrayed as such I will not have it. That's fair enough isn't it? Where is Amnesty on the matter? Are you following my chain of thought? It should affect nothing of the veracity and in fact bolsters it through questioning. What do you think yourself? It's probably surprising. For me it certainly is. ~ R.T.G 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed reference to Freedom House noting that it is under evaluation. As this article implies heavily on a current controversial event it was best to remove while evaluating. Text is preserved in the history. Why is Amnesty not quoted? ~ R.T.G 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please Kudzul, if you have something to say about the veracity and relevance of the source, this is the place to say it. Edit summaries will not achieve the same result. Please elaborate on your recent edit summary? ~ R.T.G 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose any move to remove Freedom House from the article. The "not free" information is clearly cited, and if readers are curious about the organization, they can click the wikilink to the article about it and decide for themselves. Freedom House is cited repeatedly throughout Wikipedia, and it is an organization of some prominence. There is no reason to remove the opinion of every organization with which we don't personally agree from articles so arbitrarily. I don't agree with the Vatican on much, but its opinion is often still relevant, and I've added the Vatican's take to more than one article myself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is important that this area not be vague at the present time. Why is there no quotes from Amnesty International? I want to see a reflection of that. Freedom House has significant question marks. Its use on Wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. Its use on Wikipedia does not change a damn thing about it except for the fact that it is used on Wikipedia. Wikpedia is not a reliable source. This is a key feature of Wikipedia. Can you address Freedom House with impartiality or can you only cling on to it in blind desperation? Sorry, but this is the way things are here. This is a place of open knowledge, not selective knowledge. ~ R.T.G 13:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to add relevant quotes from Amnesty International then feel free. But Ron Paul's thoughts on the Ukraine are not relevant to this article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * His uncovering of facts, combined with a litany of other relevant information, is directly relevant to the significance of Freedom House on this article. That should not be a problem. There is a veritable ocean of concern regarding NATOs motivations and actions. We are a pit of scrutiny. If we do not accept that we lose something immediately. Ron Paul is not the significant factor here. Freedom House is. Can you speculate on that? None of you can without being unfair or changing this article in relation to Freedom House. I picked this out within two minutes of opening this article and had never heard of Freedom House before. Have you read Freedom House? It goes to great length to point out that it is a non-governmental and international organisation, and also to point out that its most significant factors are in its foundation and relationship with the US government. That's a tooss up between feigned impartiality and open deception. Why can we not reflect it for what it is or discount it as irrelevant and unimportant? We do not buy it any worthy favours treating it in such a manner and I discredit that achievement as much as I discredit questionable use of sources. I say that Freedom House has not been evaluated reasonably for the manner in which it is used as a relevant source on this article. And I am absolutely right. ~ R.T.G 14:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like this would all be relevant to the Freedom House article, not the Libya article. All we're doing here is reporting what Freedom House claimed about Libya and attributing that claim appropriately. If there are other organizations that have contrary opinions on Libya then we can include those as well. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me be plain. Freedom House appears partisan here. Would they argue for that place? I'd hope not. ~ R.T.G 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Freedom House is a respected organization, the rating system of which is widely cited and used as a metric on Wikipedia and many other websites. The criticisms of a United States congressman of minor standing and importance should not prevent it from being cited where appropriate in this article. Every organization has a private agenda and POV; that's why we clearly cite ratings like "not free" as coming from Freedom House, or "developing country" as coming from the World Bank or the IMF. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is anyone going to go to Freedom House and read the criticism section? I, who instigated this debate, certainly see Ron Paul as a minor part of a wider picture. Please look it up and understand. ~ R.T.G 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not going to analyse every source we use on this page. In terms of international watchdogs, freedom house is quite a large and notable one. Its views are presented here as its views, so if readers distrust freedom house, they know which information is part of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why should any editor care about that? Readers laziness is not our problem. Article provides a wikilink to Freedom House article where criticism is included and wether someone will or will not use this opportunity is his royal problem, not ours. Now, name of this article is Libya and as such there are informations regarding Libya, not informations regarding informations regarding Libya. --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we *can't* evaluate each source on this page, but evaluate this one with more than opinion. It is ridiculous to ignore. From Freedom House where all of the sources are, "The Financial Times has reported that Freedom House is one of several organizations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities'", "Professor of Political Science Daniel Treisman from University of California has criticised Freedom House's assessment of Russia. Treisman has pointed out that Freedom House ranks Russia's political rights on the same level as the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Freedom House, is a federation of absolute monarchies with no hint of democracy anywhere in the system. Freedom House also ranks Russia's civil liberties on the same scale as those of Yemen. In Yemen, according to the constitution, Sharia law is the only source of legislation, and allows assaults and killings of women for alleged immoral behaviour. Criticising the president is illegal in Yemen. Treisman contrasts Freedom House's ranking with the Polity IV scale used by academics and in which Russia has a much better score. In the Polity IV scale, Saudi Arabia is a consolidated autocracy (-10), while the United States is a consolidated democracy (+10); United Arab Emirates has the score -8, while Russia has the score +4.[30]

At a minimum, an acceptable cross-national rating of democracies should be able to distinguish between the kind of system in Russia and government by a federation of dynastic monarchies free from any checks whatsoever, as in the United Arab Emirates. This rules out the Freedom House index. —Daniel Treisman", "MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, University of Pennsylvania Professor Emeritus Edward S. Herman, and some nations[26] have criticized the organization for receiving funding from and allegedly furthering the interests of the U.S. government. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, in their book Manufacturing Consent, wrote that in 1979 Freedom House monitored the election of Ian Smith in Rhodesia and found them "fair", but found the 1980 elections won by Mugabe under British supervision "dubious".[36] Chomsky and Herman further write that the group's history has been characterized as excessively criticizing states opposed to US interests and unduly sympathetic to those regimes supportive of US interests.[36] The authors suggest this can be most notably seen by the way it perceived the US ally El Salvador in the early 1980s, a regime that used the army for mass slaughter of the populace to intimidate them in the run up to an "election", but Freedom House found these elections to be "admirable".[36]

Noam Chomsky further claimed in 1988 that Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the World Anticommunist League [sic], Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."[27] He justifies this claim by presenting a series of national elections that he claims were staged and that the Freedom House observers praised. He also criticizes Freedom House's claimed expenditure of "substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states." Chomsky further argues that "Its most notable publication of this genre was Peter Braestrup's The Big Story, which contended that the media's negative portrayal of the Tet offensive helped lose the war. The work is a travesty of scholarship, but more interesting is its premise: that the mass media not only should support any national venture abroad, but should do so with enthusiasm, such enterprises being by definition noble."[27]

The organization states that its board of trustees contains Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are a mix of business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars and journalists.[8]

Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, wrote that the executive director of Freedom House told him in 2003 that the group decided to back off from its efforts to spotlight human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, because some Republican board members (in Murray’s words) “expressed concern that Freedom House was failing to keep in sight the need to promote freedom in the widest sense, by giving full support to U.S. and coalition forces.” Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan at the time included treatment of prisoners who were killed by "immersion in boiling liquid," and by strapping on a gas mask and blocking the filters, Murray reported.[37] Jennifer Windsor, the executive director of Freedom House now and in 2003, said Murray's "characterization of our conversation is an inexplicable misrepresentation not only of what was said at that meeting, but of Freedom House’s record in Uzbekistan." "Freedom House has been a consistent and harsh critic of the human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as clearly demonstrated in press releases and in our annual assessments of that country," she wrote." ~ R.T.G 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what we have here is a good source, used throughout wikipedia, that a few people don't like. Readers can of course click through and read about Freedom House if they wish.  This is not even remotely the article to talk about these criticisms.  I also see a consensus building here that agrees with this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern about the possible political agenda of Freedom House aside, I would rather see a comment/criticism of the Libyan record from an organization I've actually heard of, like Amnesty International. I wager most readers, & here I count myself, have never heard of Freedom House & so don't give it much credence.  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Freedom House is used on here a lot and seems to meet WP:RS. However, Amnesty, which I am sure have detractors as well, has a 2011 report on Libya, it took very little time to find. . Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm all for including the Amnesty report as well as the Freedom House findings. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, anyone who wants to add Amnesty International's opinion to this article is free to do so. I don't see what the problem is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag
For the rebels, there is the Which flag should be used? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Top. It says http://www.ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=25&ParentID=20&LangID=1 and we assume the construction details are the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Every other source I can find besides the CIA (including FOTW which I would consider pretty authoritative on the subject of flags) has a double-width black stripe. I would also note that the CIA World Factbook's description of the flag indicates that the black stripe should be double the width of the other two, and that would match the "1951" version rather than the "2011" version. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What about now? (I fixed the width of the stripes) Do we use the more "faded" colors, or the current one? Note the moon and star difference--Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Colors were never defined, but with the 1951 flag there was a specification sheet. What I am thinking is once we get not only more countries recognize the NTC, but also a detailed flag specification, we can just replace File:Flag of Libya.svg with the new design. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the one from FOTW and replace that file immediately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically we don't use CIA as a source for colours. See Solomon Islands for one of many examples. The crescent looks pretty wonky on the 2011 SVG too. Not very smooth. I say go with 1951 and its construction sheet, and only change the image if there's any new flag laws passed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A constitution was pasted on the NTC's website, but it is all in Arabic that happens to be one of the languages I don't know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the link in English:
 * http://www.ntc-media.net/Decisions/TempConstitution.pdf was what I was getting at. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The CIA World Factbook is not a valid sourcing for colours. They have countless errors when it comes to both proportions and colours of flags.  Fry1989  eh?   00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not over yet; the legitimate Libyan government is still strong and resisting colonial forces in every corner of Libya. I therefore suggest putting (at least) the combined flag back on this article.--94.217.202.235 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. Masses will march on Tripoli to recapture it from ze evil French, British and Qatari mercs, blah, blah, blah. Gaddafi government collapsed with fall of Tripoli and so did his whole state aparatus. NTC was granted seat in all important international orgnaizations and Gaddafi is just leader of insurgent militia, just as it was in case of Baath loyalist after fall of Baghdad. Get over it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should notify the NTC that Gaddafi is using a German vodafone IP? Those sneaky Germans, first witholding support from the UN resolution and now secretly providing safe haven for the fugitive dictator :oP --dab (𒁳) 12:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, confirms that the top image is the flag of Libya, the ratio of the stripes is 1:2:1 and the flag ratio is 1x2. I still believe the dimensions will be from the 1951 law, but just have to wait and see. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.89.31.81, 20 September 2011
Hello. I am requesting for someone to change the National Anthem listed on Libya's wiki page. It should be switched to Ya Biladi. If the flag was changed, I believe the anthem should be changed as well. Thank you very much.

174.89.31.81 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Source for the anthem change? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The page for Libya, Libya, Libya says that it and Ya Beladi are the same song. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the Transitional Constitution said that the anthem and seal would be determined by law. The only symbol described in some detail is the flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * indeed. The flag is defined in the Constitutional Declaration. The anthem is at least featured on their homepage, but under "history", not as the current official one. No seal is specified at all. The logo of the NTC is just that, the logo of the NTC, not the "seal of Libya". --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

coat of arms
Ok, since I dont want to slip into editwar Id like to know opinion of editors wether official seal of governing authority (NTC) should be used as coat of arms of state following no logic at all beside "something should be there". --EllsworthSK (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to have it there. We use seals when there's no "coat of arms" to speak of. See the United States, Burma, Palau, and Japan. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My point isnt wether we should have coat of arms or seal but wether we should include seal of governing entity as seal of state. In all examples you provided seals are used on all official documents like passports, military insignia, documents issued by executive body (not only by legislative body) and such while in this case this seal is used only on official NTC documents alone. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But the NTC is the government of Libya. How else does this seal need to be used besides on official government documents? Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to sound Occident-centric, but when it comes to developing countries, I think those are minor quibbles. It's obvious the NTC isn't as well organized or established as the governments of the U.S. or Japan (and arguably not even Myanmar or Palau either), but I think the seal serves mostly the same function. I say include it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And as an aside, OT, can you please be careful to merge edits when there's an edit conflict? I believe you inadvertently deleted something I said above. I've readded it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I did. Must have confused the text boxes or something. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Libya is in a transitional position, they wouldn't have a national symbol anyways. As this is the symbol of the Transitional Government, it should be shown. It also links to the article about the national emblem of Libya, and the current position of what that is.  Fry1989  eh?   21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth EllsworthSK, I agree with you....Libya does not currently have a coat of arms (unless the old one is still valid? is any one sure its not?)...When it adopts a new one, it should be added, not before. A coat of arms is something formal...Until it has been formally adopted, we should not represent that Libya has one! 84.203.72.5 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, not that formal. The National Emblem of France is displayed on the France infobox and it doesn't have any official status. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the Japanese seal is that of the Emperor, not of the state itself (but used on their passports). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the Japanese seal is the symbol of Japan. The Emperor is the embodiment of State, same as Queen Lizzy is for her 16 realms. Therefore both Monarchs are formally the armigers of those symbols, but they are also the symbol of the nation. It's a complicated, but also rather simple concept, depending on the way you look at it. And Orange Tuesday, the French emblem isn't that simple. It is used on the Presidency website, and on plaques at Embassies, as well as passports, so it has atleast a quasi-official status. Fry1989  eh?   23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and the NTC emblem is used on the NTC's website. Sounds like quasi-official status to me. As for use on a passport, I don't think that's particularly relevant. El Salvador's passport doesn't have the coat of arms on it, for example. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because they are part of a passport union and have elected to use a map of Central America rather than their coat of arms. Some West African countries have done that as well.  Fry1989  eh?   23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand that. I'm just saying, just because something isn't on a passport doesn't mean we can't put it in an infobox. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, ofcourse not, and I don't think anybody is trying to say that.  Fry1989  eh?   00:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with EllsworthSK, for what it matters at this point. We don't always have to include seals in infoboxes, for example Turkey doesn't have one (I'm not saying whether this case is right or wrong, just that a situation has existed where editors have decided not to include one). I was under the impression that the NTC made it clear that they were just a placeholder government, so to say, and due to this I don't think a seal created by them explicitly saying NTC counts as a state seal. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with EllsworthSK. Infoboxes are nice-to-have, but as soon as their slots begin to dictate content, something is going wrong. WP:UCS. --dab (𒁳) 11:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So any further thoughts on this? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the flag and that is it, but I have to agree with Dbachmann that it is bollocks that content disappears just because a slot is not filled in the infobox. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 62.114.160.85, 26 September 2011
Please change:

Anthem: Libya, Libya, Libya "ليبيا ليبيا ليبيا"

to:

Anthem: Oh My Country "يا بلادي"

Source: http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/النشيد_الوطني_الليبي

62.114.160.85 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No confirmation of any anthem was selected officially, see the above request. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know "Libya, Libya, Libya" is normally officialy sung, not "Oh my Country" like here. Therefore I see no reason why should we change it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Recognizing TNC as Official Govt
Is wiki now following the agenda of certain nations in the world? Gadaffi is still the dejeur and the defacto head of the government of Libya, even if for a few hours more. Removing his name, and replacing the official flag is extremely partisan in nature. Even if most of us dislike him and support the rebels, they are called rebels because this is a rebellion. Let's be neutral please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.51.177.141 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Under what conditions and/or terms will Wikipedia recognise the TNC as the official government. Bit of a grey area. --19mjohns91 (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the criterion proposed by User:Kudzu1 for marking the country as revolution at Talk:Arab Spring are good. When either: 1. The TNC is admitted to the United Nations, 2. The rebels take control of the entire country, or 3. Qaddafi is captured or flees the country.  I'd actually stipulate that we should wait for two out of the three in this case, since we want to be quite sure MMQ's reign is over before removing the infobox entirely. --Quintucket (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The United Nations has admitted the TNC as of today (16 September). The General Assembly vote was 114 to 17, with 15 abstentions. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/09/201191623155222805.html --Archimedean (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that the United Nations, has officially recognised the TNC as the Government of Libya, shouldn't we change the flag and info box etc to accompany this. The rebels already control majority of the country, only 4 main cities left. How long exactly do we have to wait before accepting the new Libyan Government and infobox? 109.145.35.175 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the case of 'control of the entire country', while a good measure of power, is a bit unrealistic. Pockets of resistance could last for months while the majority of the country functions normally under the NTC government. It seems like the only places still under Gaddafi control are around Bani Walid, Sabha and Sirte http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya . I think having majority control of the country, Gaddafi exiled and in hiding and UN recognition should be enough to validate the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya. 68.37.161.91 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You change flag of Libya! On which base? Is there any Constitutional act? Change of law? Official decision?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.19.196 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a civil war
The February 17th revolution has been referred to as a conflict, uprising, but not a civil war. It started as a peaceful protest, and these protesters were met by government forces' heavy artillery and anti-Aircraft guns. The people were forced to rise up against these government troops and fight for their freedom. All this time it has been a struggle between the government army and their hired foreign mercenaries, against Libyan civilians, mostly young men, who were forced to fight, since protesting didn't work.

Wikipedia is the only place where I have seen this situation referred to as a civil war. Why are the editors here so blind to the truth and stubborn on insisting this is a civil war? "A revolution is when a mass of people rise up against tyranny by a suppressive government, a civil war is when a country is split on a political and cultural divide". In the case of Libya, it wasn't a group of people fighting another group of people who had different cultural/political opinions, it was the people themselves who rose up against the dictatorship government. This is the very definition of a revolution: "an overthrow and thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed".

I urge all the editors to do a little more research and realise the correct way of referring to the last 6 months as a revolution/uprising. If you want to call it a conflict that's just fine, but insisting on the term 'civil war' instead of revolution is blind ignorance. FizzBrine (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick Google News search reveals plenty of articles referring to the situation in Libya as a civil war. If you want to discuss the terminology we're using then the best place to do it is probably Talk:2011 Libyan civil war Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It meets the definition of both 'civil war' and 'revolution,' although the latter is of dubious neutrality provided we don't knoe\w if it's going to last. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a civil war as there are 2 well formed militaries fighting one another in their own country 68.39.210.172 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case we can call French_revolution are Civil war ..  why call  it revolution because it between the people and the regime ... and its start by national movement not military officers . so there no two sides here ... its People against the family which by controlled the country by the money and Mercenaries ... and most of rebels fighter was civilians before .. and I know college students and officer workers event doctors and football players have involve in the revolution in Libya..  --Salem F (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

-Gadaffi's supporter's are not mercenaries. thats a racist allegation used to discredit his supporters. All over libya people have come out to support the "March of millions" as seen here in Zawiya http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x44Hs1L8Js. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.164.35 (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This comment is out of place here. This is not a forum for opinions on the ongoing conflict, but to discuss the article and improve. Please find a forum that you won't be laughed out of. Tapered (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a civil war until, unless, the rebels win, when it becomes a revolution.
 * And seriously, "racist"?  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  19:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Libya Capital
The libyan capital is Sirte, it got changed by brother Gadaffi. Tripoli is merely a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realise that the NTC is recognised by the UN, AU, and 94 nations, right? And they consider the capital to be Tripoli. So yes, Tripoli is the capital of Libya. -- 48Lugur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC).
 * To OP. This Discussion is to improve a (Wikipedia) article, not disseminate propaganda. Please find an appropriate venue. Tapered (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The First Article of the Transitional Constitution states Tripoli is the capital; even before this constitution was issued, Tripoli was declared the capital while the NTC was stuck in Bengazhi until the August push into the city. I have not found anything in the news that says Gaddafi moved his central operations to Sirte or changed the capital of the Jamahirya to Sirte. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This claim of Sirte being the Capital is ludacris and unheard of. Libyans are proud of all their cities and all of them are of the same importance, but when it comes to the assigned and recognized capital, this would be Tripoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirajaborig (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tuareg & Tubu
This tribes/ethnic groups were described as "black African," a classification not supported by the reference cited, or by the respective Wikipedia articles. Therefore reworded article accordingly. Tapered (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

University
Alfateh university was the name Gaddafie(fallen dictator) had given to the university, it has now been renamed "University of Tripoli" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirajaborig (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Fall of Sirte
NTC presumably now control all the country... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955  DJR  ( T ) 13:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the war is over. Gaddafi and at least three of his sons are dead, Sirte and Bani Walid have fallen, and the rest is just a mopping-up effort and a struggle to control infighting between factions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Some qualified commentators consider that the place is going to go downhill even further and I will not be surprised if this odd assemblage of provocateurs, traitors and defectors from the original government, various ex-muǧāhidūn and so-called al-Qaeda elements don't go even more feral soon and start shooting at each other now that they are apparently running out members of the Libyan armed forces, Gaddafi supporters and angry residents to blaze away at. It would be naive to expect any democratic form of governance to emerge in Libya in the foreseeable future. As for the NTC, Mahmoud Jibril recently announced he is quitting. "We have moved into a political struggle with no boundaries," ... "The political struggle requires finances, organization, arms and ideologies,".... "I am afraid I don't have any of this." Indeed what the western press avoids reporting is that many of these so called rebels are not even part of the NTC and are likely to become combative if the current controlling elements of the NTC try to exert power as a national governing body. Indeed even putting the NTC flag in the article is highly questionable. It has every chance of turning into a madhouse of quasi corporate governance mixed up with combative and competing private militias and extremist groups squabbling, maneuvering, shooting at each other and assassinating their competitors. Libya is now a very unstable, fractured nation with seriously damaged infrastructure from the NATO aerial campaign and ground based conflicts and no established civil governance. I think there is a fair bit of unfounded optimism being shown here. Also, contrary to the myths promoted in the media, the NTC has never formally constituted a government. In fact they have formally announced on more than one occasion that they were postponing the concept of even forming a 'caretaker' regime indefinitely, and are no where near forming a cabinet and never have been. -- Felix (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)