Talk:National Transitional Council/Archive 1

Formation of an interim government
The situation regarding this interim government remains unclear, I have changed the content to read that it is only a proposal at the moment. I beleive that this page should be maintained to document the former justice ministers attempts at forming an interim government. I will add to the formation section as the situation develops.

The latest sources appear to indicate that a provisional government will not be formed until Tripoli is under opposition control and that "bitter feelings" will mean that it will not be led by the former justice minister. He had made the announcement without obtaining a proper consensus of all rebel groups.

I am now unsure what to do with this page, i could leave it as a historical record of an aborted process - but what title could i use? - i could add it to Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil personal page.

I have done this now, this page is no longer needed and could be deleted by an admin.
 * says who? Lynbarn (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

We should move our focus onto the National Libyan Council, which we know does exist and work to write an appropriate article for that body.

Name
The name should be Opposition to Muammar al-Gaddafi's rule in Libya. Because there may have been other opposition like Omar Mukhtar --93.137.26.108 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

or Anti-Gaddafi forces Dn9ahx (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have split the opposition groups section off into a new page = Anti-Gaddafi forces Dn9ahx (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Provisional government
Media is reporting that a provisional government is being formed, following on from bayda meeting, this page could be transformed into a page for that government when it is created Dn9ahx (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One source on you tube suggests "Libyan People's Provisional Government" Dn9ahx (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An interim government has now been formed, will move this page to a more appropriate location once i find out the name of the interim government - i am currently using "Libyan Interim Government" as a place-keeper name.Dn9ahx (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That seems like an appropriate name to me. I am curious to see if any source lists the members of the interim government, which could help give some insight into how it is organized and what other leadership roles exist. --Henohenomoheji (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * that is pov. its only self-proclaimed at the moment and they dont even have writ over the country they claim. for the time being at least it should be "libyan rival government"Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Used italic text and lower case letters as a generic description of the interim government, have added that it is an alternative government to the infobox. Hope this resolves this issue. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * have added the statement "This government is an alternative government to that of Muammar al-Gaddafi which remains the de jure government of Libya." - cant see any pov issues now - will remove the pov message now. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I was shocked by which remains the de jure government of Libya. This is non-obvious enough to require an attribution, with mention of a source. I suppose some do exist, but this is typically something where a source is required. French Tourist (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Libyan National Council
I posted this on the main Libya talk page but it's worth repeating here. According to the Guardian, the "Libyan National Council" and Al Jeleil's "interim government" are not the same thing.

"3.01pm: Some clarification from anti-Gaddafi forces in Benghazi, where the revolt began, on that interim government. They say the National Libyan Council they have formed is not an interim government but the "face of the revolution". At a news conference, they said an interim government announced by the former justice minister was his own "personal view". Reuters reports that a spokesman for the new council said he saw no room for any negotiation with Gaddafi's government. One of Gaddafi's son's, Saif al-Islam, has offered to start talks with the opposition."

We should be careful here that we don't start conflating multiple different opposition groups. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

the situation is very confusing at present - i have reverted my recent edits but cant move this page back to Libyan interim government - how can I do this move?Dn9ahx (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I will make a A LNC page when the move has taken place.Dn9ahx (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And from the BBC: "1454: Gaddafi opponents in eastern Libya tell Reuters they have formed a National Libyan Council - this is not an interim government, they say, but the face of the revolution." Flatterworld (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: speedy close. Requested move discussion is unneccessary. Will ask for a G6 deletion of the relevant page. Dpmuk (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan interim government → National Libyan Council — Talk page should match the article, gave me an error when I tried to do it myself. So Say We All (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move to Transitional National Council? or Interim Transitional National Council?
The Council itself calls itself the Interim Transitional National Council - http://www.webcitation.org/5x0wuZ8r2 in English on its website. (As of 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC), probably better to view the archival copy unless you're suspicious about webcitation.org or worried about updates. The website responds slowly and is probably overloaded with http requests.) Under WP:NAME, that probably means that Interim Transitional National Council should be the main name here, and others should be redirects, unless there is a widely standard English version used in the international press. Common sense says that a lot of the press fail to try to "go to the English source", and if their line of sourcing goes to the Arabic version, it's not obvious which order of the adjectives they should prefer (transitional national vs national transitional) and whether or not to include Interim as part of the official title.

As a concise compromise between media usage and the official name, probably Transitional National Council would be OK without the Interim.

Without having checked WP:NAME in full, i also feel that it seems strange to give this name without "(Libya)" at the end. Surely there must have been and may be in the future lots of transitional committees/councils/bodies with more or less the same name during revolutionary periods in many places around the world.

Anybody with WP:NAME experience or with the time to read through it properly? Boud (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We could move it to Libyan Republic - that is the name that the council uses to refer to the state they claim to control - the page could bring together all anti gadafi articles into one place, with a section for the council and peoples army Dn9ahx (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Libyan Republic sounds risky to me (BTW: do you have a source?). It should be wikipedia-uncontroversial that the Council exists and is notable. But whether or not the would-be state controlled by a body that says that it is not a government exists or not, or rather, whether it's WP:NOTABLE (yet) or not could be trickier. In any case, a pseudo-interim-government-that's-not-a-government is still distinct from the state it governs-without-being-a-government. Boud (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK- i will place the words Libyan Republic and National Transitional Council in the lead paragraph. I have added a new infobox and changed some of the headings. We could leave it at the current location.Dn9ahx (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Now the council has been officially recognized by at least one UN member country (France, on March 12th), shouldn't we write "Libyan Republic" as the main title ? SenseiAC (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.157.193.101 (talk)
 * I have made the Libyan Republic into a disambig page as "... Arab Jamahiriya", the official English name of Libya used by the Tripoli government means literally "... Arab Republic". It may be changed when situation settles, but I would leave it as disambig for the time being. Ihosama (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"National Transitional Council"
I think there are articles about several other "National Transitional Council"s... shouldn't this be called National Transitional Council (Libya) with a disambiguation page as primary? 184.144.160.156 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

British Recognition
Britain may have appealed to the EU for recognition of the NTC, but it itself has NOT recognised them: this from the day they're meant to have recognised them, and no word since. I've removed Britain until we get evidence to the otherwise. 92.238.94.60 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK has recognised the Libyan NTC as the valid "voice of the people" and have chosen to persue diplomatic relations with them rather then Gaddafi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.252.195 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That quote is not in the citation given. Neither of the two sources in the article make the claim that Britain has recognised the NTC (indeed, the link you give specifically says that the UK does not recognise governments, only states).  I have removed it on the basis that no cite has been provided that verifies the claim. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There still seem to be users adding the UK with insufficient citations. If the British really have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, this really shouldn't be hard to source.  Relying on an article that states that the UK and France called on others to recognise the NTC - and that says that the French have but not that the British have - and then drawing conclusions that are not present in the source is not sufficient.  The fact that you might call on others to do something does not reasonably imply that you have done it yourself - particularly in international diplomacy.  At the time the article was written the UK were also calling for a no-fly-zone, but had not already started to implement it. Pfainuk talk 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Today the BBC website reported that the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary William Hague said 'the NTC is the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people" '.the page is here Therefore could the UK be regarded as recognising it? Lemonade100 15:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was about to say the same, only with the official article on the Foreign Office website - here - I think the UK has recognised it back when France did, but people kept rejecting the citations given, especially given info on the Foreign Office page for Libya and on their news articles - here under "Diplomatic Mission and contact with the National Transitional Council" and here MILLANDSON (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

City infoboxes
I think that it is a little too early to start making changes to the infoboxes of Libyan cites regarding flags and governments, at least until the National Transitional Council receives some substantial recognition outside Libya as an official government. --Bejnar (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Republic owns some cities and — I would argue — it must change the flags and government and stuff. Thanks, Steve T. R. -- Some Dude With AUserName (talk with me!) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the TNC forces do not "own" anything. They do "control" the cities. And even that can be disputed considering the tribal nature of Libya. By you logic Baghdad would make for an US "owned" city.Ihosama (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A simple solution to this problem could be to remove flag images in Libyan city infoboxes and simply have the country name as "Libya" - this is N-POV towards either side. Dn9ahx (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move 2
I would like to change the name to "Libyan Republic". Thanks, Steve T. R. -- Some Dude With AUserName (talk with me!) 02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - there is now an executive body and a legislative body and both are now described on this page - being named after the legislative body only no longer seems appropriate. I have changed the lead paragraph and infobox to reflect the new reality. Dn9ahx (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The TNC isn't "The Libyan Republic", although it is a part of it. As and when that comes into formal existence, I suggest it should probably have its own article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far too early to create a Libyan Republic page, and if there was ever a Libyan Republic page it wouldn't really look like this article does. Furthermore, the redirect for Libyan Republic should go to the main Libya article, not to this page. Half-splitting the Libya page like we're currently doing is just going to confuse people. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also a WP:COMMONNAME problem with the proposed move. "Libyan Republic" is very very rarely used in English-language sources. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Name change to Interim National Council
LibyanINC Editor says: Translating Arabic to English creates word-order issues (hence TNC, NTC, NIC) Council has now formalized it's name to INC (Interim National Council)--Niele (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source for this? The TNC website uses the term "Interim National Council" on the page footers, which I hadn't noticed before. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

National Conference for the Libyan Opposition
What is the relationship between the NCLO and the NTC? both articles would perhaps benefit from defining this? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Name changed without consensus
Please can somebody show me a reliable source (including on their own website) where the Interin National Transitional Council refers to itself as Libyan Jamahiriya National Transitional Council That is NOT my understanding of the organisation. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have return the name to it's previous place. This was clearly a controversial move.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is now move protected. Any future move requests should be done through WP:RM--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seal in the infobox
The text on that seal reads "National Transitional Council - Libya". I don't think it would be correct to say that it's the emblem of the Libyan Republic. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I agree with this. The seal does not even mention a source; and it is the only copy of the logo i can find on the internet. Validity? - ℤiαηsh  ✍  16:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad as-Senussi's title
Is "Current Pretender to the Libyan Throne" really an official title? Sounds like editorializing. Metlslime (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's a description not an official title. It's not really inaccurate or disputed though. "Pretender" in this context just means someone who claims a throne, it doesn't really have any value judgement attached to it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Official website
The official website calls itself 'The Libyan Republic / The Interim Transitional National Council' in their English-language section (the Google translation of the Arabic section is 'Transitional National Assembly'), so imo the best article name for Wikipedia to use would be Interim Transitional National Council (Libya). We can drop the 'The', and there are (and will be) similar transitional governments so we want to avoid confusion now and in the future. We can use Redirects for the various other common usages so none of our readers gets lost. Thoughts? Flatterworld (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

shouldn't it be moved to "Transitional National Council" (TNC) ?
shouldn't it be moved to "Transitional National Council" (TNC) ? --93.172.19.248 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be moved. Transitional National Council is the name officially used and is the correct name of the government. 96.25.248.210 (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd need to provide WP:RS for that, since that would be news to the council's Twitter account, @NTC_of_Libya. I see both forms frequently and I believe it's due to different preferences for Arabic-to-English translation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition
Regarding the countries listed as those that has officially recognized NTC as the sole government. It says on the list that Portugal is yet to formally announce their allegiance. Should Portugal be on the list? Secondly, The Arab League. Why not make a separate list for country recognition and organization recognition? - ℤiαηsh  ✍  16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Russavia has made the changes already. - ℤiαηsh  ✍  16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think adding Spain to the list of countries recognising was hasty and ahead of the facts. Spain still has a chargé d'affaires in Tripoli and has not made any statement explicitly extending recognition to the NTC. Sending an envoy does not convey recognition by itself. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria not the only embassy
It says in the text that "As of March 31, Bulgaria remains the only EU member with a functioning embassy in the official capital Tripoli." I found multiple references contradicting this. The Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote on 4th April "The operation of the Greek Embassy in Tripoli has been suspended, and representation of Greek interests has been undertaken by the Embassy of Hungary, which currently holds the Presidency of the European Union" And there are mentions that Hungary is the only EU embassy still open --Rosti 42 (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian embassy in Tripoli assisted the release of four journalists. The embassy took over the case on 2 May, after the Turkish embassy closed. The journalists were finally released on 18 May, and escorted to the Tunisian border by Hungarian diplomats on the next day.  --Vanyi (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Gambia
I'm not sure whether this amounts to full recognition or not, but see this AJE Liveblog post – at the very least, Gambia should be in the lower list now, maybe even in the upper list. — Nightstallion 11:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NTC.You are just traitors of your own nation.Mercenaries of Al Kaida and the West.Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.41.81.78 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU! If you can't find anything else at least informative to say in this article, take your frustrations with you to the toilet!!! We don't need bullshit users like you wasting up the space. Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Denmark, Spain and Netherlands
According to this, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands have recognized the National Transitional Council. Ahmetyal 22:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Denmark recognised the NTC today, by a visit to Libya by danish Foreignminister Lene Espersen. breaking story in danish media 22 june 12:37 CEST 94.145.236.194 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Polish ambassador
According to this, the NTC received its highest-ranking foreign visitor just yesterday, the Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. Wouldn't that make this event part of the international response to the NTC? Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Sikorski : "Polska uznaje jedynie kraje, a nie ich rządy" (Poland recognizes only the countries, not their governments). So, probably Poland would never recognize de jure this government, but this government is recognized de facto – Chairman of the National Transitional Council Mustafa Abdul Jalil was invited to pay an official visit to Poland. Aotearoa (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I knew all along (when I saw that article) that Poland doesn't YET recognize the NTC, but wouldn't it be placed as under "international response" still? Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The NTC is now the legal government of Libiya
I suggest change the Libiya article to include this information as the question of disputed status is no longer disputed by anybody except for Colonel Gaddaffi and his sick followers. Already France and Italy (two EXTREMELY important countries in Libiya's past) have recognized the NTC and on top of other things, Great Britain has opened an aid office in Bengazi - Libiya's now defacto capital. Cameron also met up publicly with an agent of the NTC in London yesterday where a defacto embassy is being set up for Libiya and so UK defacto recognizes the NTC. They technicly see their effort in Libiya as a liberaton for the Libiyan people who all support the NTC because of it's democratic and peaceful principles. This way, Cameron and NATO leaders are fighting for a legal government against Gaddaffi who now is the real rebel, that is why they are fighting to kill him and his degrading family off quicker so that No-Fly-Zone can be in place to protect innocent Libiyans who don't want to be shelled just because they want democracy. This article should now begin - "is the dejure government of Libiya and the defacto government of 80% of the country including large parts of Tripoli". Tex with X Ray Spex (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you de facto learn to spell Libya and familiarise yourself with the logic that a No Fly Zone is hardly applicable to NATO if Gaddafi's "sick followers" are conquered from all sides with the "NTC" established, right Mr.Blocked sockpuppet?

UN Rejection
I saw an article which stated that the UN doesn't recognize the NTC. Does that mean it's also part of the international response (as oppossed to recognition)? P.S. For anyone informed, can anyone place the article link here? Thanks... Heran et Sang&#39;gres (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Standards for "recognition"
Right now, all the countries that have used the word "recognizes" in connection to the council are listed in the table and colored light green on the map. But some of those countries have explicitly said that while they recognize the NTC as a "legitimate interlocutor" or the "legitimate opposition" or a "legitimate partner for dialogue", they do not recognize it as the "sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people" or as the Libyan government (and those in the know appear to be treating those two concepts as synonymous). I think we should adopt some standards for what constitutes recognition of the NTC as the legitimate government of the Libyan state and stop lumping statements by the likes of Russia and Malta in which they say they recognize the NTC as having some function in with full-throated endorsements of the NTC's legitimacy by states like France, Qatar, and The Gambia (among others). -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kudzu. On May 14, the US said many times that it recognizes the NTC as a "legitimate and credible" representative of the Libyan people(first google result confirms:[]); it has repeated this statement many times since. This is certainly no less an act of recognition than Russia's or Turkey's line of "legitimate negotiator" or something along those lines (in fact, you could say it is MORE an act of recognition, since unlike the latter two, the US actually has relations with a formal representative and all). Either Russia, Turkey and the like should be removed from the recognition list, or countries like the US or Denmark must be added (US should be added for May 14th, Denmark May 5th) if it is to be added. --Yalens (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Official language(s)
Obviously the majority language of Libya is Arabic. However, some of the NTC-affiliated councils in the Nafusa Mountains are Amazigh-majority and I believe media has noted the resurgence of Tamazight media and Amazigh culture in those liberated areas. Might it not be best to note the use of English and Tamazight in the infobox, as so? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"A planned Federal Republic"?
Can anyone actually give a source for that? Even the NTC's own website does not state what form the post-Gaddafi Libya will take, just that it will be a democratic state of some kind, yet to be determined. There is no source currently for the assertion that there is a plan for it to become a federal republic. MILLANDSON (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ireland edit war looming - please assist
Editor deleted this without caution, possible edit war looms. Ireland: The Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Eamon Gilmore has stated ' Colonel Gaddafi has lost all legitmacy to rule and should step aside. Mr Gilmore met with representatives of the NTC and subsequently stated in the Irish parliment that 'we support those who are trying to establish democracy in Libya'.The Irish governemtn stopped short of diplomatic recognition citing international law complications, but morally supported the NTC position as legitimate. [99] [100] Tommyxx (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we could add it as equivalent to the stances of Poland and Russia. Though, perhaps as more pro-rebel than those two, since Ireland has no relations with Gaddafi.--Yalens (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You should site your references properly though.... I'm especially interested in the dates. --Yalens (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted it before you added the second reference because the first reference didn't support the information. If it's fully referenced and verifiable, I have no problem with it, but otherwise it looks a lot like WP:ORIGINAL. Sorry if there was any confusion about that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was concerned because the deletion was so swiftly made and did not allow any time for the references to be imputed, but once there you accepted it so I'm fine with it all. Tommyxx (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just make sure you've got all the references before you add information, because this page has had some serious problems with original research before. Sorry for being a bit too quick on the trigger. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Malta?
This article strongly suggests the NTC considers Malta to have extended the same level of recognition as France, Qatar, et al., despite the statement by FM Borg cited here in which he says Valletta doesn't consider the NTC to be Libya's government. Should we consider Borg's statement non-disqualifying in listing Malta as one of those countries? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On one hand, it does say clearly that Malta is trying to "transfer" its relations. On the other, it makes only passing reference... I'd say for now it would be safest to go with what the Maltese government, not German newspapers, I'd say.--Yalens (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I found one source showing that Malta had actually upgraded its status to complete recognition on June 11th. --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic
Well, it seems that they met with the representatives of the Benghazi government and we missed it: [], []

I am unsure however, about their stance. On the one hand, they claim not to recognize the NTC. On the other hand, their (proposed) actions almost seem to imply a sort of de facto recognition. For example, they offered material aid (for 'humanitarian actions'), which would be coordinated with the NTC, rather than with Gaddafi's government. Likewise they offered advice on "the transitional experience" (i.e. Gaddafocracy->democracy?), which would make it seem like they view the NTC at the very least as people that it would be appropriate to give governing advice to. What do you guys think?--Yalens (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think right now, it's worth listing among "other countries" but not in the table. There's no recognition, no permanent relations established, nothing about "a legitimate interlocutor". But it's worth keeping an eye on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the original quote in Czech, the foreign minister said the Czech Republic DOES NOT recognize them as a government, and that they only 'Acknowledges' them as 'A' representative of the Libyan People — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.211.54 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently they met again about a week later and upgraded their status of recognition. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No they didn't, on the date of this supposed 'recognition', the Czech Foreign Minister flatly said the National Transitional Council isn't recognized as the government at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.198.49 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That was before; their stance has been changed since then. --Yalens (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Czech Republic has recognised the NTC. http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/prague-recognises-libyan-rebels-as-country-s-legal-representation/680440 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.116.24.237 (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The netherlands
Actualy, the Netherlands do not paricipate in strike missions. They only intervene in Air to air missions in respect of th e NO fly zone above the area. This can perhaps change after September 2011 but is not the case for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.219.80 (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Lazy error on my part. Good catch - thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose split
The recognition is growing into its own section. We may want to just summarize it here, and have a separate page for the recognitions... --Yalens (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If no one objects by a week from yesterday (or July 6), we should just go ahead and create the new page...--Yalens (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Poland
Just looking over the page, I was thinking... according to Poland, they "recognize the council as the legitimate interlocutor of the international community and as a representative of the democratic aspirations of the Libyan people."... doesn't this count as recognition (they did implicitly reject Gaddafi there, for one)? --Yalens (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because they said a representative. They basically just said Gaddafi isn't worth talking to, not that the NTC is the legitimate representative of Libya in its own right. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Districts map
Considering the seemingly arbitrary (and oft-changed) lines of the districts, as well as the fact that in a couple of cases, the district is listed as "contested" even though one side controls the vast majority of it and the situation is essentially static, might it not be better to follow the lead of the maps on 2011 Libyan civil war and use a shaded country map to depict swaths of control, which can be updated if the situation changes? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time this page was made, the latter did not exist. I'd say we replace the districts map with the shaded country map.--Yalens (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudan
I found this article. Could someone do something with this? http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-repudiates-reports-on,39419 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.63.234.15 (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

unofficial "diplomatic" ties
The article says in the opening section that some countries have "unofficial diplomatic ties". We should be honest with the reader. You cannot have "diplomatic ties" that are "unofficial". You can have unofficial ties (a loose term)....but diplomatic only arises where things are official. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, a better term which we have often used is "informal relations". --Yalens (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

China
The article says something about China not having granted "exclusive" recognition to the NTC. We should be honest with the reader. China has not granted ANY recognition to the NTC as a government. It continues to recognise the government accreddited to the UN. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

National Transitional Council → Transitional National Council – This formulation appears to be more common than the current "National Transitional Council" (3.08 million to 1.07 million in a Google search with the term "libya" included in the search). It is used in the draft interim governing document: It is used by the United States government:  and  It is used by Reuters:  It is used in the declaration of formation:  It should be used here as well, and all related pages and references changed accordingly. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that TNC is used more often nowadays (though Al Jazeera seems to be sticking with NTC, for one; I have also occasionally seen CTN or even CNT...), but I don't really see why this is an important issue really. It certainly won't cause our readers any problem as long as the redirect works, in my opinion at least.--Yalens (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. The website is still located @ ntclibya.com, and it uses the name "National Transitional Council". --NetRolller 3D  21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. I get more even results on this very search. It's more in line with this name construction in most other Germanic-language Wikipedias. Most major news media (at least east of the Atlantic, like the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and Al Jazeera) use the NTC word order. They use NTC themselves (like on http://ntclibya.com).--Paracel63 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Most British and American outlets call it the National Transitional Council. Far more importantly, they call themselves that on their English language website. The Council's official seal even SAYS National Transitional Council on it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Undiscussed move
This is completely ridiculous. Dozens of high-profile articles link to this article, and all of those WLs are now being sent to a disambig page. And the other article, for the Congolese council, is a stub. Why wasn't this discussed? This same move has been reverted before, and it should be reverted now. It's obviously controversial. I certainly don't agree with it. This is obviously the primary article for the term at this time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While the move definitely should have been discussed first (please do that next time!), I would support keeping it in place at least in theory. If we do revert it, we should leave a note at the top of the page "This page discusses the National Transitional Council of Libya in 2011, not of Congo, which links here" or something along those lines, I think. Although in reality the truth is that I doubt many people will be searching for the Congolese one, at least at this point and time... --Yalens (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with having such a note on the top of the page. But I think in this case, there's a clear primary topic, and the disambig is unnecessary. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, then that would probably be the best solution... after all, it's pretty clear that not many people seem to be interested in the Congolese page anyways. And I see Russavia has already added our note. --Yalens (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely the primary topic for this title. It should be moved back and discussed first. It is entirely inappropriate to move a high-profile page to a title over previous disputes without consensus. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanded member list
The Council released an expanded list of 40 members earlier this month. The only source that I could find that transliterated the names of these members into English is The CS Monitor. However, the romanization of the source appears to be not standard. Does anyone know of any other source that posted a full list like this? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

i cant read  the  arabic
The arabic  characrers  are  not  readable  i  see  blank This aritcle  should  be  semi protecded --Rancalred (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Are little white boxes showing up where the Arabic script should be? If so, it is because you do not have Arabic script installed on your computer and your browser is thus unable to display it. I can see the letters fine, so it is not an issue with the article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

new (old) Libyan flag at UN, New York
At what date, or if not yet, when, the new flag was/will be flown on UN Ave, in front of UN Building? Any photos?

IP:--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.133.185.16 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * According to a number of sources, it was replaced last week. You can see a photo here. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I've lost count of how many times i reverted a vandal on this page; Prehaps this page is a cantidate for protection? 198.86.53.65 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that may be appropriate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this German dynamic IP editor is obviously some bored guy with nothing better to do than read Mathaba and annoy people on Wikipedia. I've requested semi-protection for this page and a block against his favorite IP ranges. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This articlee needs Semi-protection ASAP. Every time we revert, it gets vandalized immediately. GrayFullbuster (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bored now. Even playing "race Nepenthes to the next reversion" is starting to get dull (and I'm losing, too). Is there anything we can to encourage a swifter resolution of the RFPP? Yunshui (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not speaking too soon, but it... seems... to have stopped... Yunshui (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you know any admins who might be online, it might not hurt to bring it up on their Talk pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like the admins protected it already. GrayFullbuster (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All hail Swarm and his mop of righteousness. Cheers Swarm! Yunshui (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, protected for two weeks. :D  Swarm   X 15:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Government
I was reading this section of the article, but had a few more questions. Are the existing shabiyahs and Basic People's Congress borders still in place, or have they been reorganized (i.e. expanded, shrunk, etc....)? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is NTC providing governance or is an administration
I propose we change the emphasis in the article to present the NTC as an transitional administration rather than as a provisional or transitional government, or a Caretaker government as it is described here at present. The NTC has not formed a government, a legislature, nor even appointed a provisional cabinet or ministry. The matter of the UN recognising the NTC as the "government" of Libya is not straightforward. What they did was recognise the NTC as the as the legitimate holder of that country’s UN seat. Libya was already recognised by the UN as a nation state, albeit under the previous government known as the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, aka Libya. I will not digress here, Recognizing States and Governments – A Tricky Business-Canadian International Council, by Jennifer Welsh, 20 September 2011, explores the issues in some depth. Suffice to say it is insufficient to call the NTC a government when they have stated themselves that they have postponed the formation of a government "indefinetely". The issue here is not of course whether Libya is a state, the question is do they have a (formal) government. It seems that they do not, so best we refer to the NTC as a Transitional administration or something similar. We should not allow ourselves to be led astray by a sometimes over enthusiastic western press, for example it was widely reported that the UK recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, yet, to quote from the Canadian International Council doc referred to above; "Furthermore, some states – such as the UK – are adamant that they do not engage in the practice of recognizing governments at all. Therefore, when questioned about whether Britain recognized the NTC, Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted until very recently that it was a moot question, since ‘the UK only recognizes states, not governments’." They already recognised Libya previously, and had done so for decades. I have proposed the same thing on the Discussion page of the Libya article.
 * So I propose we change Provisional government to read either Transitional administration, Provisional administration, Interim controlling body or Transitional administrative council. -- Felix (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We can't just choose which WP:RS are and aren't notable. Most of the sources on Libya are from the Western media, because most of what they produce is in English and because this event is happening in real-time. Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, The Guardian, Sky News, Al Arabiya, Haaretz, ABC News, Xinhua, and other RS that have been very active in reporting on Libya over the past several months all describe the NTC as a government; it is recognized by the international community as a government; it functions as a government, albeit a rather slap-shod one that frequently seems uncoordinated and at odds with itself.
 * At any rate, this is probably due to be a moot point soon, as the NTC has said it will set election dates shortly after the declaration of liberation (which is today) and then it will become historical, and maybe after a few historians write books about it, we can revisit this issue based off what the new consensus among RS is in, say, 2013. Anything beyond that is pretty much speculative, and cherry-picking which RS to use and which to flat-out disregard violates WP:NOR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudzu1 a lot of what you are suggesting in your responses here is completely absurd. Where you are getting the information to determine that the NTC is functioning as a government, or is a government remains unexplained. However you are correct, the NTC has made several announcements that they will set election dates shortly after the declaration of liberation and intend, again, to announce the formation of a government. This is apparently due to happen today as you have suggested. It remains to be seen if any formation of a legislature happens or not, or if it hangs together for more than 5 minutes, but I do agree there is little point in labouring over the details of how they are described if they are about to turn around and declare a legislature and announce a program of transition to this much lauded Republic of Libya, or form an actual transitional or caretaker government of some kind. I really don't think history will describe them retrospectively as a government during this time of upheaval and conflict but then again history is a sometimes very flexible thing. As for your comments concerning WP:RS which you are apparently directing at me, rubbish. What sources are you challenging, stop your self-aggrandising insinuations and deal with some substance, either challenge the cites properly or shut up. Saying I am "cherry picking is just fallacious garbage. Have you looked at the cites, they are to Reuters, Time magazine, NYT, Al Jazeera and the Canadian International Council, all from the field of view that you seem to be promoting as being one which bears validation here. Possibly you need to understand that WP is not limited to a sphere of reference determined by a narrow field of view portrayed by western controlled corporate media, nor one adjudicated by yourself. However, in an effort to appease people like you I cited to a narrow range of such sources. Sorry I could not find one from Fox News, maybe that would have been more to your liking. Get off your high horse Kudzu1, you are not an adjudicator of anything here and your commentary is beginning to look a lot like that of a time wasting self effected troll. As I said earlier, stop with the insults, the innuendo and the insinuations and either directly challenge the detail, the sources, the information or the cites or shove your foot back in there again and shut up. I do not appreciate being chided or accused of bias, or of providing misleading content or of providing inaccurate citations. It seems you are here either to self aggrandise or to lead article content into providing a picture that fits your own subset of conclusions and values, indeed I think you are the one pursuing your own narrative here. So if the NTC is a 'government' do they have a constitution, indeed do they even describe themselves as the Government of Libya? Have a look, they do describe themselves as "The Transitional Interim National Council", they do this in their own founding statement and in many of their subsequent communications. Ali Suleiman Aujali describes the NTC as a “transitional” government. That should be enough for us here and it should not be embellished any further than that, he has not been calling them a "caretaker" government. The fact they state they wish to form a government and that they have been unable to do so clearly and by application of simple logic determines that they are not yet a government. I am unsure if you are a victim of your own confusions or are trying to propagate confusion yourself, what ever it is you are up too you are a time waster and your abuse, name calling, insinuations and innuendo are inappropriate and unpleasant. Maybe you are watching too much Fox News, maybe you are just a troll, whatever you are you are certainly a pest. At least try to cite a reputable source and date where the TNC declared themselves to be the legally constituted government of Libya, or even to have constituted a caretaker government. -- Felix (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have neither the time nor the patience to try to convince somebody who calls names and accuses me of being a "troll" (really? I'm an active member of WikiProject Libya and I've been editing Wikipedia articles since 2005) on the internet today. I've given my reasons and I've said my piece. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have now stopped behaving like a troll I am happy to drop the appraisal. I think you need to unpeg your self a little though and have a quick read of WP:OWN. I had never felt the need to go there and read it before today but now that I have your comments above take on a different light. Perhaps you cannot see it for your self but your self assertion is a little out of control. I assume you have just gone sideways for a while, or maybe it is a permanent thing. As for "name calling" you started it over at Talk:Libya and I did not appreciate you slinging off at me, or your absurdly bombastic tone. I did not start editing here on WP yesterday either. Maybe you should climb down off the rocking horse for a few moments. If you examine the comments made by Mahmoud Jibril today you may note he announced that consultations were under way to form an "interim government" within one month, followed by elections for a constitutional assembly within eight months. Parliamentary and presidential elections would be held within a year after that". So (maybe) in a month or so there will be a good reason to change the descriptive term to "interim government", then again they have said they are going to do this a few times now. So they are still not an interim government, nor is Mahmoud Jibril pretending they are, so you may as well stop now. It takes more than a bucket of paint and a brush to build a house, unsupported assertions are the same, try starting with a foundation. per Reuters - Mahmoud Jibril said on Sunday consultations were under way to form an interim government within a month, replacing the country's National Transitional Council. -- Felix (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Uninterested third party here: your comments above are way out of line Felix. I would say it is you who are in violation of WP:OWN right now; it is not appropriate to tell someone to shut up on a talk page when they voice an opinion counter to your own regarding how an article should be phrased. Secondly, calling another editor a troll is a personal attack and suggest you cease doing so immediately. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are sipping from the same glass of water. If someone launches into a personal attack against me as that individual did then I will say what I like. The accusations previously made concerning my article editing were unfounded and uncalled for. As for "I have neither the time nor the patience" stated above it is pretty much text book WP:OWN. BTY I do not want to own any article here and I have never edited in a manner that suggests that. What I object to is block reverts and name calling based upon some misguided and article possessive editor apparently feeling that someone had transgressed by editing on an article without seeking consensus (ie permission) first from an "active member of WikiProject Libya". The editor was behaving like a troll, it was used descriptively, not derisively, as I was clearly being baited. Kudzu1 stopped it and I recognised it and they have since made several entirely normal and responsible edit to the article concerned. There is no need for you to now pick up a baton and resume the run. Your adjudication was not solicited by either Kudzu1 nor myself, nor is it required so maybe you have a wooden horse that needs giving a rest as well. --Felix (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is going on between you two or what has happened between you two in other discussions. All I saw here is that you said that the NTC should be described as an administration, Kudzu said that he does not think the sources back you up, and you preceded to call him a troll. Furthermore, even if he did attack you, that does not give you a right to launch a personal attack in return; WP:NPA does not EVER give you the option of saying "what I like". Finally, when a third party comes along an suggests that you are being uncivil, the correct response is NOT to assume that they have an agenda, sip "from the the same glass of water" as anyone else, or is needs to give their "wooden horse... a rest". No one solicited me, that much is true; I merely saw something discourse that appeared uncivil and pointed out that you were behaving inappropriately. Attacking me in return is ridiculous. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not doing anything as a favor to you, Felix. I'm not interested in dealing with someone who is verbally abusive on the Talk page. I never "launched into a personal attack" against you or called you any names; all I did was point out that you have a certain POV which you have expressed, and it is evident in your editing. Other editors agreed with my assessment. I didn't intend that as any sort of personal attack, and my only interest here is in improving content and keeping it up to date. I have made many, many edits to Wikipedia in my time here; some of them have been kept to this day, and others have been changed or removed altogether. I have no sense of ownership of this content. I just want it to be good. And I had reservations as to the quality of your changes, many of which have been addressed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not apparent that I made sweeping and substantial changes to that article, rather I clarified matters in the lead that were ambiguous or misleading. I edited the tail end part of the lead and cited the edit with substantive references. It was too long and too detailed and as soon as I read it in the article I intended to cut it down, as I later did by refining it and moving a lot of it into another article section. I had left a reasonably detailed explanation of what I had done and why on the article discussion page. Whilst I was uploading that you block reverted the edit, including the part of that edit replacing un-cited material covering essentially the same points with uncited material. I am sure you are aware that unless the cite is highly questionable that activity is not sanctioned here on WP. You then launched into a very judgmental, snide, self righteous and overbearing series of statements where you clearly sought to deride the quality of the edit, the intent of the edit and the content. You then sought to obscure your quite inappropriate behaviour behind a mask of cascading and quite questionable references to WP policy. Your commentary referring to my edit was thick with derisory insinuation and innuendo complemented with a series of block reverts, 3 in succession by my count. I did not make an issue of it at the time but you should know without any prompting from me that qualified you for a 24hr block for edit warring. I assumed at the time you were a combative time wasting troll, and I do sincerely hope and assume that I was entirely wrong with that assessment. Your most recent post gives some muted reassurance toward that. I suspect we simply just both badly misjudged each other and our respective intent here. If I have hurt your feelings where it was not justified I humbly apologise and perhaps suggest that you do not block revert with such enthusiasm and without referring to the discussion page first. Please do remember why the 3RR rule exists. -- Felix (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to review WP:3RR. Three reverts is the maximum permissible number of reverts an editor can conduct on a certain page within a 24-hour period. What's more, your edits were reverted by at least one other user, and you reverted all of my edits, which means it's actually you who violated 3RR, as well as the WP:BRD common process by refusing to wait for consensus for a clearly controversial edit and using the Talk page to bully me instead of to explain why you felt the need to violate WP:LEAD and make WP:POV edits including such weasel phrases as "so called". Please also note that the Libya page has a history of major edits being discussed on the Talk page, which you would probably know if you had been active on the page in the past. I also notice that despite your "humble apology", you continue to make personal attacks against me. Please note exactly what I was criticizing (your edit) and what you are criticizing (me). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Come off it Kudzu1, you saw my edit, and observed that I was continuing to refine and clarify the content of the edit and you in persisted sequentially block reverting. You were hostile, article possessive and clearly prone to gaming the system in order to maintain control on an article you apparently feel you have entitlement over. You keep on giving it away with comments such as "if you had been active on the page in the past". Many WP articles have a history of major edits with or without carry the burden of watchful guardians such as yourself. An established presence in article edit history is not pre-requirement to edit a WP article. I was editing and clearly trying to refine and clarify the content, you were just block reverting. You later returned to a more rational and reasonable form of edit behaviour which is I hope your more normal profile. Don't kid yourself and don't try to game your way out of it. I know what you were up to and I think you are now playing to an audience. Let it go now and just try not to do it again--Felix (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC).


 * That was decidedly not my observation. My observation was that you were going to do whatever the hell you wanted, insisting on the Talk page that for some magical reason WP:CONSENSUS didn't apply to you and that everyone who disagreed with your edit was biased/trolling, and make minor adjustments that didn't really address the main concerns of the editors (including but not limited to me) who objected. How can I have been "article possessive" when the intro to which I had contributed significantly had actually been entirely rewritten a couple of days prior to your edit, with no objection from me? I think it's you who has problems with WP:OWN, considering how poorly you reacted to User:Orange Tuesday and I (among others) objecting to your sweeping changes, as well as how abusive you have been on the Talk page of a separate article over the issue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not been involved with this article, but maybe the original poster in this thread can explain the difference between a "provisional government" or "interim government", on one hand, and an "interim administration", on the other hand. Aren't they basically the same thing, just using different words? Also, the article's intro uses the phrase "de facto government", which it seems to me is even less "official" than an "interim" or "provisional" government. What's wrong with that? Neutron (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutron, this problem is an import from edits on an other article, Libya. De facto government never appeared in that article in the context of the disputed edits and has not appeared in it's recent history. I agree there are some merits in the use of de facto government and perhaps de facto should be used in the article. If you think so then propose it, however it may be a contentious matter though as per the issues above. It is to a point on topic here but if so that proposal needs to be raised on the Libya article talk page. The issue was that the NTC was being portrayed as a government when in fact they have not yet formed one and are still struggling to do so. They are attempting to administer the parts of the nation over which they exert some control or influence. Despite their various inadequacies and complexities the NTC seem quite straightforward and frank about this, they call themselves a "council" (though some may say assembly is a closer approximation). Their most recent proclamation states they intend to form an "interim government" within a month. The issue here is that they cannot yet be what they are quite openly stating they are not. They are not yet a government and so should not be defined as such in these articles. We should leave the western press to report they are a "government", here we are meant to have a more encyclopedic focus. As for the recognition of the NTC internationally the press has been quite inaccurate in a lot of their coverage of the issue and has portrayed the NTC as being recognised as the government of Libya whereas a lot of the recognition has been of the NTC as a legitimate representative of the Libyan nation. I have noted this is concept of a representative assembly is more in line with how they appear to promote themselves at this time. Foreign Secretary William Hague did speak on that issue by clarifying that they did not recognise governments, they recognised nations. The british 'recognition' was widely reported as the UK recognising the NTC as the 'legitimate government of Libya'. That clarification received very little coverage at the time. Likewise the African Union is widely reported as supporting the NTC, the reality in the detail is not so straight forward. The point here is that as this is an encyclopedic venue we should endeavour to scrape through this fog and deal with the facts. There is a lot of perception management going on with the quite deliberate promotion of the NTC by some foreign governments who would rather the NTC was seen as a more inclusive and well defined body than they really are (or can be) at this time. It is apparent the NTC do not yet have a constitution, they have not formed a governing legislature and have not as yet formed an 'interim government', they are still working on it. If we are to maintain a encyclopedic focus hear we need to resist the propaganda and spin and just deal with the facts. To describe the TNC as an assembly of representatives providing a provisional administration, or providing a de facto form of provisional governance is really quite different to documenting them here as the 'government' of Libya, provisional or otherwise. I think your raising of the term de facto is really quite pertinent to the subject, maybe the term de facto administration has some merit. "Provisional authority" is what I used in the Libya article info panel, defining at in the prose as "a period of governance by an unconstituted transitional administration, under the authority of the National Transitional Council"--Felix (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs clarification on how the NTC members were selected, and how it is governed
Who chose the members of the NTC? How were they selected? Who was excluded? By what process did it choose its chairman? Its mandate? How is it governed, internally? What is the role of the Qatar government? Al-Hakika (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Threats against Algeria
NTC rebel outlaws have stopped short of threatening war with Algeria: they accused Algerians of "aggression against the Libyan people" and that those who "harbor" Leader Gaddafi's family members will be hunted down. This needs to be highlighted in the article.SadSwanSong (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dealt with on the appropriate page. Reverted. Take a look at WP:NPOV if you haven't already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dissolution of NTC
According to the Libya Herald, the NTC will dissolve on August 8th. Someone should add it to the article.  David O. Johnson (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added it myself. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)