Talk:Libya (GNA)–Turkey maritime deal

Edit regarding "Internationally recognized government" and why it is controversial
The Current government of the GNA ( government of national accord ) is a post transitional quasi government, and more of a Militia junta coalition, that has yet to become fully legitimate under legal process. There is no current consensus in Libya to give this legitimacy to the government of national accord. And at the current time, it is as legal, as is the House of Representatives of Tobruk. The "Libya's Internationally recognized government" is rhetoric stemming from supporters of this government, ie, Qatar, Turkey, and whom have interests to empower it. This statement is being repeated by the Aljazeera Network, and Turkish media outlets.

While the government of national accord may have international recognition within the UN, so does the House of representatives, as actual political bodies, but not as the "Sole governing body" within Libya. The UN does not have that right.

AlJazeera has continuously referred to the GNA as "The government of Libya", and as "The internationally recognized government", and as "The state of Libya", sowing confusion among its viewers, despite Libya being politically fractured between three governments, and having two central banks, and no legal consensus to whom IS the legitimate government. I would recommend viewers, editors, and readers to be vigilant, as there is a very active media war campaign underway with plenty of disinformation to "mould" the Libyan identity; most of it being foreign. Biomax20 (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Unrequested move
While most news agencies calling it Libya Turkey deal, you can not move the article by not requesting others. Open a thread. Beshogur (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beshogur, the sources are referring to it generically, not specifically. In Wikipedia we ought to be precise as to avoid such ambiguous terms which may mislead or give a false impression to the readers that the agreement was between the two countries instead of between a single side in a country divided in two by a civil war and another country. The deal was signed by an non-popularly elected interim GNA government, representing the one side of the civil war, and is opposed by the House of Representatives, the country's democratically elected Parliament which represents the other side in that war. When GNA, which controls only 30% of the country, signed the deal, it didn't had the required support of the rest of the country, including the Parliament (which refused to ratify it, and filled a lawsuit at a Court of Appeals which cancelled it). To claim otherwise in the title, that the deal is not between GNA and Turkey but between Libya as whole and Turkey, not only misleads the readers in Wikipedia, but also is a gross attempt to give the deal a false light of legitimacy where there isn't any, and this goes against Wikipedia's rules. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * your reason seems to be wp:or. In terms of population GNA controls the majority of the population and they're recognised by the UN. Who says to become a legitimate government, you have to be a democratic state at all? Beshogur (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am talking about controlling the country, both institutions and territory. GNA doesn't control all the institutions required to verify the deal (such as the Parliament, whose verification is mandatory for it to go to effect), and also it doesn't control the whole country either; only a portion., with the Libya's shoreline (which is used in the maritime deal to draw the borders) not being in its control at all. Since you pointed to about population, I am not sure if this really matters at all, because the GNA (which signed the deal with Turkey) is an internationally-recognized interim government, not a democratically elected one, while the internationally-recognized Libyan Parliament (which opposed the deal) is the country's democratically elected institution. So I guess, if it even matters at all, this is one more reason to rename the article.
 * Now, if you allow me, I will be clear that we editors ought to not misrepresent a deal as being a deal signed on behalf of Libya and not just GNA, when the opposite is true. The facts speak for themselves: 1) When GNA's Prime Minister signed the deal, not all government cabinet members consented to it, and this violated article 8 of the [|Skhirat Agreement] which formed the GNA in the first place. 2) The deal was subsequently rejected by the country's elected Parliament. Per international law, parliamentary approval necessary, yet only Turkey's Parliament ratified it, while Libya's Parliament opposed it. 3) Last, (today) a Court of Appeals declared it invalid. A deal that has none's support outside of GNA (be it governmental, legislative or legal), may not be misrepresented in Wikipedia as being a deal representing the country. This is WP:OR and this is unacceptable POV-pushing attempt to give something more legitimacy than it has. The article's title ought to be more precise to avoid such POV-pushing misrepresentations, no matter how much we may agree or disagree with how "big" GNA is in terms of population control or whatever. So, I would like to ask for any name proposals for the article that can solve the issue? IMO, "GNA-Turkey maritime deal" is precise enough, avoids any POV misrepresentations, and is concise and reflective of the events from the moment it was signed to its cancellation by the court. Plus it is the name used in the Aegean dispute article without any problems for a very long time, (and which predated the use of the article title in the present article). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem using in articles, but the title is misleading. How does Turkey make an agreement with a non country then? Doesn't make sense. Beshogur (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I am afraid, the question here is... is GNA and Libya one and the same thing? Nope. Everyone who has access to reliable sources and follows the civil war in Libya carefully, knows that the country is divided into two opposite factions: GNA and LNA. These factions fight each other and there is no united country. The sources all confirmed that Turkey picked one of the sides and signed deals with it (note: one of the sides, not the country as whole). Simple as that. So, don't get me wrong but there is a big difference between making an agreement with a country that isn't divided by civil wars and making an agreement with just one of the parties in the civil war. A very big difference, IMO. When the current article was created, it has, unintentionally, caused a WP:POVFORK of the Aegean dispute since it is falsely representing the GNA as being the whole of Libya, which isn't true and Wikipedia needs to avoid such assumptions. Its important that we clarify this and avoid neutrality problems. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * falsely representing huh? All news outlets calling this Libya Turkey deal. And I did not find any international outlets except some Greek and Egyptian news agencies. And how is this agreement internationally cancelled if it's registered by the UN. Looks like a POV pushing. Beshogur (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like how the admins themselves have explained in many cases, (such as in the WP:ARBMAC), is none of Wikipedia's business what UN does call things and bits. The United Nations may call, lets say a country, with a different name than Wikipedia does, as was the case of North Macedonia. (If you read WP:ARBMAC's history, you will notice how Wikipedia preferred the name Republic of Macedonia when the UN used the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Wikipedia's naming policies (see Article titles) are independent of UN's naming policies and article naming conventions are quite clear in that, besides using a WP:COMMONNAME name for article titles, a title name must also be neutral and in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies which cannot be superseded by other policies, even WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia about NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.. For NPOV reasons, the article's content has already been clarified in that the deal was signed between Turkey and the interim GNA (not "Libya"). The same WP:PRECISION is required for the the article name as well. You have argued that being more precise is misleading and POV-pushing but that doesn't make sense at all. Plus none else views it like that. The name "GNA-Turkey" is already used in the article Aegean dispute to describe the deal, for a long time already with consensus, long before this new article here was ever created. You should respect how things were done and use the same name anywhere for consistency instead of WP:POVFORKing the title.


 * The official name of the deal is Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of National Accord – State of Libya on delimitation of the maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean. A good idea in overcoming this disagreement is to use a title similar to it. So how about Turkey - GNA maritime memorandum for article title? Is WP:PRECISE and WP:NEUTRAL. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

, I know this is an agreement with the GNA but the agreement tells it´s with the State of Libya. So the title should remain imo. By the way, what´s authority of al Bayda court, and what makes this agreement invalid? Did not find any international source expect Greek, Egyptian and pro LNA sources claiming it to being this agreement becoming invalid. I did not even see any reaction from Turkish government. Also for the move, I wont decide, let other people also suggest on titles. Beshogur (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now the title has only the "Libya" part but nowhere the "GNA" part in it. I was trying to find how this article title was chosen, only to find that a Single-purpose account created it and chose the current problematic article title which is unfit considering how sensitive topic issue the deal is for several parties, The SPA account appears to have absolutely no contributions whatsoever in Wikipedia other than creating the particular article using a title that conforms to a certain POV, (which is often the case with SPΑ accounts): . The article's title cannot stay as is. I am afraid it will have ot be changed into something more specific to reflect the content in main body of the article which explains that the deal is between Turkey and GNA, not Libya as whole and meet Wikipedia's NPOV rules. How is the Turkey - GNA (State of Libya) maritime deal for the title? This should address adequately the NPOV issues the SP account has caused when they created the article and picked that title. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * from the agreement itself, Turkish version does not include the name GNA see Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Hükümeti ile Libya Devleti Hükümeti Arasında Akdeniz’de Deniz Yetki Alanlarının Sınırlandırılmasına İlişkin Mutabakat Muhtırası, it says Government of State of Libya. I still don't understand why we should add GNA to the title, everywhere in the article, it says that it's made by GNA. Beshogur (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So if "everywhere in the article, it says that it's made by GNA", then that's one more reason why the title should be changed to "GNA-Turkey" maritime deal. I would support such a move.Khirurg (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The original deal uses THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY AND THE GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL ACCORD-STATE OF LIBYA. You think we should add Government of Turkey too? Beshogur (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Turkish version does not include the name GNA Sorry but we are in the English Wikipedia, not Turkish Wikipedia. The localized Turkish name for that deal can not take more precedence than the English name if applicable. The deal's official English name is Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of National Accord – State of Libya on delimitation of the maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean. Per naming policies, the English names, English terms and English language descriptions are used for article titles in the English Wikipedia. Be it either English WP:COMMONNAMEs, either English common variations of these names, or more WP:PRECISE English descriptions when/if ambiguity or POV problems arise.
 * You think we should add Government of Turkey too? The article title's ambiguity problem isn't stemming from the absence of the term "Government" for Turkey, nor addressed by adding it, since Turkey is a unified country having only one government, while Libya is a divided country having 2 governments, the GNA and the LNA. The article title's ambiguity is stemming exactly from that absence of the term "GNA", one of the agreement's signatory parties. The deal's official English name is already precise by mentioning which side of Libya signed it, and the article's content too reflects on that, but the article title the SPA chose when creating the article, doesn't reflect precisely none of them. Neither the official name, nor the content, and that's a problem. Since you reverted the article move from the more precise "GNA-Turkey maritime deal" back to the more ambiguous "Libya-Turkey maritime deal" the SPA used, you reinstated the problem and this goes against Wikipedia's rules. Like I said: the title will need be carefully named, in compliance with Wikipedia's standards and reflect unambiguously (per WP:PRECISION) on the article's topic. This, or we return to the "GNA-Turkey maritime agreement" used already in other articles of English Wikipedia and which is in compliance with the rules. Your call. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * seems comonname to me dw, reuters, alarabiya refers to it as Turkey Libya deal. while Libya is a divided country having 2 governments, the GNA and the LNA LNA is not a government, it's an armed group. The important thing here is recognition by the UN. Beshogur (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beshogur, no editor disagrees that that the "Libya-Turkey" is a WP:COMMONNAME. However, is ambiguous and doesn't meet all the criteria and I cannot consent to what the Single-Purpose Account has chose as a title for it. There is already a rationale for the deal's name in the English Wikipedia, which is to use the term "GNA-Turkey" and you ought to respect that. For more info please check here. The Aegean dispute article covers the deal by carefully using the term "GNA-Turkey" to describe the deal and avoids any misrepresentations. You may not like it but sorry, that's how things are done. The SPA's actions lack consensus and the article title violates Wikipedia's neutrality rules by making GNA appear as if it is Libya's sole government while it is not. Libya has 2 governments, a Tripoli-based one (supported by GNA) and a Tobruk-based (supported by the Libyan Parliament and LNA) but thats not the present article's concern. If you want to argue about Libyan Civil war, this isn't the place for that; Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. Now, back to our subject: like I said, the title lacks consensus and cannot stay as is, and will need to be clarified in line with how it was done in other articles, no matter how you see it. Thank you.
 * Khirurg, thanks for your support. I will wait and see if more editors also agree or disagree with the move.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 23:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the move. I noticed it the other day and was quite surprised myself that GNA wasn't used instead. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

, thanks for support? This isn´t voting, and I don´t see any explanation on two users´ support. You say comonname, I´ve showed news outlets using Turkey Libya. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME: (I am copy pasting it here for your inconvenience): "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.". That's how Wikipedia works. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 18:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * huh, you still failed to reply on the sources I've put, they all refer to as Libya Turkey deal, not GNA Turkey deal. Beshogur (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beshogur, my apologies, but I am not sure what do you want me to reply? All the three sources you provided here, are confirming that the deal is between Turkey and the Libya's GNA, not just Libya. 1) alarabiya: "The two agreements [...] are a military pact and a maritime deal, signed in November by the head of Libya’s Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.". 2) dw clarifies it is the GNA: "Government of National Accord (GNA)", 3) reuters also does the same: "accord with Libya’s internationally recognized government" (GNA). If you have trouble understanding a particular policy such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION or WP:NEUTRALITY, then feel free to ask for help (and considering your responses here, maybe it is a good idea that you do). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, moving from Libya–Turkey maritime deal to Libya (GNA)–Turkey maritime deal. Given that User:Demetrios1993 and User:Khirurg also voiced their support for a move to a less ambiguous title than the one the Single Purpose Account had chosen for the article, there is a majority WP:CONSENSUS in favor of the move and for adding the clarification "GNA" to it, in line with Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:PRECISION policies.
 * Reasons for the page move:
 * 1)Previous title (Libya–Turkey maritime deal) used the ambiguous name Libya without the "GNA" clarification anywhere in it, even though Libya is currently divided by a Civil War and controlled by two governments: the one being the Tripoli-based internationally recognized interim government (GNA) and the other being the Tobruk-based government supported by the internationally recognized democratically-elected parliament of Libya (HoR), and the Libyan National Army (LNA). By avoiding calling any of the sides with the ambiguous term "Libya" from the moment none of them controls the whole country, Wikipedia avoids picking sides in the war and WP:NEUTRALITY in the title is maintained.
 * 2) User:Beshogur argued that the article title remains unchanged, in its previous name which was "Libya-Turkey maritime deal" because it is a WP:COMMONNAME seen in the sources. Indeed it is a common name. However the sources do make the effort to clarify to the readers that the deal is between Turkey and GNA specifically. The same sources also often explain how Libya is divided into 2 governments which fight each other for the country's complete control. So should we editors consider all these parameters when creating an article, per WP:COMMONNAME. Per policy, we: "Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.". Something the SPA failed to do when they made the article and Beshogur failed to justify adequately.
 * 3) Last, the move from "Libya–Turkey maritime deal" to "Libya (GNA)–Turkey maritime deal" is in line with the rationale in Wikipedia, where the clarified title is already in use in other articles, such as Aegean dispute (which covered on the deal long before the present article was created by the SPA). The move does not contradict the full official English name of the agreement either, it reflects better on it. The full name mentions GNA as one of the two signatory parties: "Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of National Accord – State of Libya on delimitation of the maritime jurisdiction areas in the Mediterranean". Last, and more importantly, the new article title reflects the article content which was already clarified, in line with Wikipedia's rules. Thanks everyone and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is majority consensus Beshogur per the points addressed by ❖ SilentResident ❖, that's how Wikipedia works. Furthermore, the new move continues to include "Libya" within it, but with an elaboration in parenthesis that the agreement was between GNA and Turkey. Libya is under civil war, with the GNA's mandate and legality having expired in 2017, therefore it cannot be equated to the whole of Libya. Libya is also represented by the House of Representatives which doesn't agree with the agreement. The current version meets the WP:NEUTRAL guidelines. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)