Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:03, 2 March 2011

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Libya is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted June 28, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Libya Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 14, 2004.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Libya. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Libya at the Reference desk.

Culture

I think that I've got the culture section to a point where it no longer qualifies as an advertisement. I'm new to editing- does someone else want to remove the tag at the top of that section?

174.7.27.220 (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

         Nevermind- figured it out myself!  Merry Christmas, all!

         174.7.27.220 (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Feb 2011 unrest in Libya

I'm adding a brief note acknowledging the current political and civil situation in Libya, which may well be of historic significance. In some areas (eastern Libya) it sounds like it's already verging on civil war -- though please note that I'm not going to use those words in the WP entry, not yet at any rate.

With the rulers of both neighboring nations just overthrown, I don't believe it is premature to place a reference to this in the top section. I invite someone to fill details below as events become clearer.

I am sourcing this from Aljazeera and also linking to a site that their reporters have recommended, which is following the sketchy reports which are emerging from Libya -- a closed society which has been compared to North Korea in that regard. Praghmatic (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's likely an understatement - should this article have some sort of 'current event' header, surprised there isn't more talk - and had trouble finding any wikinews of it! 86.138.62.95 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs a current events header.--IncidentFlux 07:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

can someone make sure that this section kept clean and properly cited. ie who in the world made the rumor that ghaddafi is in venezuela? 96.57.43.154 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• The statement was made by William Hague, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And it is now cited. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Relations

The first three paragraphs of the Foreign Relations section are fine, but from ¶4 on a serious rewrite is needed, as it is obviously written by someone with a second-hand knowledge of English. Confused syntax, missing modifiers, etc. Not being an expert on Libya, I'm not willing to do it as even some of the facts aren't clear. Billcito (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Have now done a fair bit on this, but a lot more remains to be done. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Politics section does not seem very NPOV - it seems to have a Libyan government PR perspective. So many people are visiting this page right now because of the ongoing crisis, it would be great to have a more balanced perspective. I wish I knew enough about the history to help. 128.148.235.72 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Presently on-going (edit)-war

Should this page not be (at least) semi-protected by now? George Adam Horváth (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection now requested. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now semi-protected. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

Until a formal change of government occurs, these are still the official symbols of Lybia. So having them in the infobox is not taking sides, so please leave them be for now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do - Dn9ahx (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A little patience required. I have no doubt they will be changed by the end of the week, but until then Saddhiyama is correct. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just changed the flag back again... Dpaanlka (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the original flag! The bland green one, made personally by Gaddafi was ridiculous. Andalus7 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" appears to have collapsed, we could remove the long form name from the lead paragraph and infobox but leave it in the name section. Dn9ahx (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the long form names from lead paragraph but have left it as the official long form in the name section.Dn9ahx (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan mission to the United Nations has changed over to the pre-Ghaddafi flag. As far as the international world is concerned, Libya now operates diplomatically under the monarchist flag. 2ltben (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you provide a ref for this - would allow us to remove GSPLAJ symbols from infobox - we could leave leave it without symbols to remain N-POV between the two sides Dn9ahx (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Monarchy Flag is used by most Libyan Embassy so therefore it should be changed NOW. fatcowxlive (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also the Libyan opposition control more than Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, so they can have thier flag on the front page of the wiki. fatcowxlive (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• will remove existing symbols - we could have both in infobox or have none at all Dn9ahx (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you Dn9ahx I'm sure you have made millions of Libya happy! fatcowxlive (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would want the monarchy back(my opinion) but until Gaddafi is out of power the original symbol and flag are still the national flag and everything since the opposition hasn't taken the entire country and no changes to the law regarding the national flag and symbols have been made. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We display no symbols in the infobox for Northern Ireland even thouth the symbols of the UK remain the de jure symbols of that entity. We do the same for Kosovo where symbols are displayed on an second infobox below, not in the main infobox. We could go for a no symbol infobox here to avoid taking sides in this conflict. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have now removed all symbols from the infobox - at least until the conflict is resolved, or until we can reach a n-pov consensus.Dn9ahx (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations itself continues to use the solid green flag of the Great Socialist Jamahiriya. The Libyan ambassador at the UN, or in DC, despite continuing to physically occupy mission grounds, is no longer, by his own statement, representing the government of Libya so it doesn't matter if he's flying the monarchy flag or the flag of Disneyland. Ambassadors are not envoys of the state in its corporate persona, but the personal delegate of the sovereign. Until, if ever, the former Libyan ambassador is issued credentials by a recognized replacement government he holds no legal office and has held none since he renounced the government de jure. This should not even be a point of dispute. We can't go changing the flags of country entries every time there's an insurrection. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Noone has yet to provide a source that says the flag is not accepted as the official flag of the (as of yet) representational government of Libya. The way things are going we are probably going to have to change the flags, but at the moment there is no reasonable grounds for it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I was advocating the solid green flag be maintained as the flag for this entry. I think we agree but I'm not sure. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I was unclear, my contribution was in support of your statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

so the flag at the u.n. is more relevant to the article than the flag of the east of Libya? - the flags colour, the look of it, its just about power , was the green flag the result of a goddam plebiscite , its just about power, and the powers in the land are split now.Sayerslle (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is only one government that has obtained international recognition as the legal government of Libya. That is the government sitting in Tripoli at the moment. That government has established its flag as green on an unadorned field. That's the only thing that matters to me. When, and if, the insurgency obtains international legal recognition as the government of Libya then we can change it to their flag. However, there are many nations in the world in which rebel actions are ongoing. Just because you have taken an interest in one does not mean the standards by which national flags are displayed should be adjusted. If you have a problem with the government in Tripoli being the legally recognized government of Libya then take it up with the nations recognizing it. However, legality of governance is established by consensus of the nation-states of the world, not by Misplaced Pages contributors. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

well. I'd prefer no flag to just this one flag,- when you watch the news, you know, whats actually happening, - you see other flags than just the pro-gadaffi green flag - still, I see where you're coming from. Sayerslle (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what you prefer or don't prefer; what images you see on the television or what images you don't see on the television. If you can provide an abundance of objective sources indicating the legally recognized government of Libya is using a flag other than unadorned green then we can discuss changing it. A flag is a legal identifying mark, not a fun piece of decorative sports insignia. It has practical juristic uses in territorial marking, navigation of international waterways, etc. Every man, woman and child in Libya could be flying the pre-'69 flag and yet the unadorned green flag would still be the flag that should be displayed on this entry until the authorizing instruments that establish it as the identifying mark of the incorporated state have been amended. I have reported you for vandalism. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reality is important. thanks for reporting me for vandalism, bit quisling esque, or somethinglike that. I'm not a vandal, thats the reality.Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 'reality' is not important, per Misplaced Pages policies. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion, and the green flag is the only verifiable national flag of Libya at this time. Alternative flags would be included in pages on the movements using them, but not as the national flag on the country's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BBC news tonight 'in the east the gadaffi green flag has been replaced by the ..' etc.. who 'verifies' flags anyhow. Obviously not the people of the east of Libya. I think it's indecent seeing just the green Gadaffi designed flag, ..well, whatever, nevermind..seeing the situation develop it's ominous isn't it..power has a lot of (craven) worshippers..Sayerslle (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted in the Vandalism report, due to your increasingly aggressive and erratic behavior I would prefer you not engage with me further. Misplaced Pages is not the forum to engage in factional in-fighting between different ideologies. I appreciate your passionate support for the Benghazi mutiny, however, this does not excuse you leaving incendiary messages on other users talk pages nor does it excuse you engaging in four reverts to a consensus edit in 24 hours. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is this report you've concocted? May I read it? Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Current Count on Flag Issue:

• Keep Unadorned Green Flag on Libya Entry: User:Felixhonecker, User:The Bushranger, User:Saddhiyama, User:Skinsmoke, User:Dpaanlka
• Remove Unadorned Green Flag on Libya Entry: User:Sayerslle, User:21tben

Consensus is needed to change an entry, not to undo changes. The entry originally had the unadorned green flag. One-third vocal participants shouting and edit warring to change it does not equal consensus. No further changes should be made to the flag without an exhaustive discussion here that should allow many days for a very, very long and contemplative dialog. To reiterate, the national flag of Libya should not be changed to the flag of a single political party engaged in an armed mutiny in a remote eastern region anymore than the flag of the United States should be changed to the flag of the Republican Party on the basis of them winning recent elections. Note User:Sayerslle has made 4 reverts in 24 hours and has been reported for edit warring. On a personal note I express my earnest hope he is censured or restrained from his continued vandalism of the Socialist Jamahiriya's WP entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Er...I only count three edits to the page in total during the last 24 hours by User:Sayerslle, which is perfectly in line with WP:3RR (although WP:BRD should have been followed instead of continual reverts, there is no policy violation). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Per User:Toddst1: "While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." Felixhonecker (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, kindly take into account this article "Libya - What's in a flag" http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/02/2011224123588553.html . Also realize that, whether you like it or not, chosing a flag to represent Libya IS a political decision and IS taking side. (Which political entity does Misplaced Pages consider as legitimate for Libya?) --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not "consider" which entity is legitimate for Libya. Misplaced Pages simply reports the entity that is recognized by the world's governments as the sole, legal government. In the unlikley event that changes, so will this entry. Your efforts would be better spent lobbying the UN than Misplaced Pages editors. Until specific legislation is enacted by a legally recognized government restoring the flag of the absolute, totalitarian monarchy this entry will not change. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the tri color flag isn't being waved by people who support totalitarianism erichhonecker, but those who favour a move toward democracy and less power in the hands of an unelected elite - Sayerslle (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very simple matter. Until such time that someone who is recognized by other governments as the government of Libya takes formal action to change the flag, name, coat of arms, anthem, or any other symbol of the country, they should remain as they are. That's how Misplaced Pages works. When/if a formal change takes place, the people who are eager to see Gadaffi fall can all cheer to see that change reflected here. But it hasn't happened (at least not yet). Until it does, we need to leave those parts of the article alone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a vote or poll. We rely on secondary sources, and until such time reliable secondary sources recognise any other symbols as the present ones shown in the article as, we don't change them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious questions: Is this page about a country or about a government? Does the Libyan State the symbols of which are displayed still even exist? If the answer is no (which is pretty clear to me given the definition of "Etat" in French: "Sovereign authority acting on the whole of a given people and territory" - translated from "Petit Robert"), why keep on displaying them, and them only? And, as what is left of the government controls only a small part of the country, why refuse to even display the flag that is all over the rest of the country, and recognized as a symbol of most of current Libya by the Libyan people, and, for an example among many that you can find easily if you need, by the secondary source "What's in a flag" above? (And please, for a good faith discussion, refrain from using arguments given from a position of authority - "It is like this because that's the way it is". This is particularly inappropriate here...) --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that says that the tri colour is the flag of the government of Libya and we will gladly change it. The thing is, it is not. Until the nutjob that runs that country is ousted (hopefully soon) and the new government gets around to changing these symbols, the old symbols stay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence on the Libya page. It is about a country, not a government. --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is about a country that has a government, which has chosen these symbols. That government may be corrupt and collapsing, but it's the only one the country has so far. I look forward to that changing, but declaring victory prematurely wouldn't help that happen. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To take an example from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, there are many different flags currently flying over Somalia, and most of the country is not under the control of the Transitional Federal Government. However, the TFG is still the internationally recognized government of Somalia, so its flag goes in the infobox.

The situation in Libya changes daily, and it seems likely that the opposition will soon take power, establish a formal government, restore the old flag, and change the official name of the country. If and when that happens, we can edit the page accordingly. Until then, let's all be patient and calm and wait to see what happens. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Check it out people. the anti gaddafi groups have fromed an interim govt headed by the former Justice Minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Ajleil http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/libya-protests-interim-idUKLDE71P0IS20110226

Xerex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.159.215 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected this to happen, now, they have to be recognized, and they have to change the flag, name and coat of arms, and then we can do it, but not until then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Religious / political bias?

The article notes: "Libya was liberated from the Italians on January 23, 1943. The Muslims of Libya responded with a three-day pogrom (November 5–7, 1945) against the Jews." - Is this biased? The first sentence says that Libya was liberated, the second sentence says "The Muslims responded", which suggests that the pogrom was in direct response, yet it happened nearly two years later. It might be taken as a provocative or loaded piece of writing, suggesting the only or primary response that muslim inhabitants made to being liberated was to undertake a pogram against jewish inhabitants.

Plus it would be good to have references to prove the details, the terms "the Muslims" and "the Jews" suggests the author is trying to make a religious point here rather than offer facts. Do we know that it was exclusively muslims who carried out the pogrom? Would it be better to say "anti-Jewish rioting" unless we specifically know the religion of all the participating rioters? (as is found in the specific article on the incident). Thanks. --mgaved (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Have rewritten the offending section. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

History does not mention the Gulf of Sidra incidents.

The history section does not mention the two Gulf of Sidra incidents in which Libyan fighter aircraft were destroyed by US Navy fighter aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981) and Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montemanm1 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Augment/integrate Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane statue?

I saw dozens of mentions of this particular statue (photo) in the news recently, but noted there's no WP article, and I can't even nail down a clear title. If anyone can help build up this article and get it into applicable Libyan articles (Bombing of Libya), etc. I think it makes a really interesting cultural topic. Thanks for any help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We should keep both up, to recognize the two factions. Zenithfel (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gabby815, 24 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Change the flag to the flag of the people, not Gaddafi's.

Gabby815 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The "flag of the people" to which you're referring was promulgated by a King through a decree-law issued without vote at his whim and will in 1951. The solid green flag was selected by an act of the elected People's Congress in 1977. Get your terminology straight. You want us to change the flag to "the flag of the absolute monarchy" not "the flag of the people." Felixhonecker (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the people in the east whatever , and elsewhere have chosen the tri color flag, not the all green gadaffi flag - your pro-gadaffi userbox means whatever you say is POV twisted honecker, the green flag is the flag now of fanatics, mercenaries and secret policeSayerslle (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a NPOV source indicating a constituted and recognized government enacted legislation to adopt the flag of the totalitarian monarchy? You seem so certain in your statement that I'm sure such a source should be easy to find that a new government has been legally recognized and enacted legislation establishing a new flag. Post your source and we'll make the change. If you don't, stop using Misplaced Pages for your slacktivism. Twitter and Petition Online are good Slacktivist tools. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We should keep both flags to recognize the two factions.Zenithfel (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, that we should have both flags in the infobox at this time, until Gaddafi is officially out. --Aude (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is thee any precedent we can use here, or policy? I think not, but I may be wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Until such point as the revolution is successful, technically the government still in "control" right now is Gaddafi's. Adding in the other flag would be a POV violation, in my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Qxyrxian Spongie555 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Qxyrxian. Until Gadaffi steps down or the international community recognizes the the opposition as the legitimate government of Libya then we should only feature the green flag. Looking around the other language wiki's we are the only ones feature two flags that I saw. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to take sides in political issues Gailim (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy is not strictly determined by the United Nations or other official recognition. See for example the Burma article which retains the name preferred by Aung San Suu Kyi. Two flags are a good reflection of the actual situation on the ground as acknowledged by world governments. Shii (tock) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that support your (implied) claim that any world governments have recognized any body other than the Gadaffi government as a possible secondary, alternative, or forthcoming government? 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit different, that page is called Burma because that is the most common name in English. Similar to how we refer to Germany as Germany instead of Deutchland. This is about government sovereignty, not a name. To my knowledge the opposition haven't set up any form of governing structures; nor have any existing structures defected from the Gadaffi regime (aside from a few embassies). It does seem as if the revolt will succeed but wiki is not a crystal ball. Until Gadaffi goes down and the new government officially changes the flag then we should only have the green one. Gailim (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see the 1951 flag is also in the history section, with an appropriate caption. I think that works and should remain there, but understand that it may be too premature to put the 1951 flag in the infobox. Things are changing rapidly in Libya, so maybe 1951 flag (and the opposition gov) will be official soon and the infobox can be updated again accordingly. --Aude (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very simple matter: No one has declared any flag to be the new official flag of the country. Maybe a new government will revert to the 1951 flag. Maybe they'll pick a similar one or a new one. Maybe the revolution will fail and it'll never change. Maybe it'll succeed but they'll keep the present one. But the bottom line: it hasn't happened. Misplaced Pages editors are not in any position to predict what the flag or official name of a future government might be. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we ultimately do, we shouldn't use the image File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg. The old 1951 flag, crescent and all, appears to be the most common flag in "Free Libya" right now. If any flag becomes the new flag of Libya in the next few days it's going to be that one. Wait and see I suppose. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Both flags should be used Zenithfel (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

100% agree with Zenithfel - Libya, the whole country, is not under the green flag. if the country is split, the flags should be split. that is the reality at the moment - reality is the master. Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We display no symbols in the infobox for Northern Ireland even thouth the symbols of the UK remain the de jure symbols of that entity. We do the same for Kosovo where symbols are displayed on an second infobox below, not in the main infobox. We could go for a no symbol infobox here to avoid taking sides in this conflict. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an idea too, - at the moment the infobox looks pro-gadaffi, that may not be the intention, but that is how it looks. Sayerslle (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to anyone who understands Misplaced Pages policy. It is merely pro-What's-True-Right-Now: Gaddafi's government is still the recognized government of Libya. I (personally) look forward to changing the article to reflect that changing... but not until it happens. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Watching Channel 4 news - benghazi - all the tricolours - everyone who looks at the page will not understand wikipedia policy anyhow - load of rubbish. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if a few thousand people protest outside Washington, DC waving Confederate battle flags, should we change the United States page to display that flag as the national flag? The protestors' use of the flag does not change the official flag of Libya, which is what the infobox is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also: there were at least a dozen different flags flown during the American revolution in the 1770s-80s. When they'd successfully replaced that government then they chose an official flag, which was different from most of those the people had been waving. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In the east the country is being re-formed and you compare that to a demo. I dunno, not very analagous. the 'official' kind of mind, not the most supple. Sayerslle (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was comparing it an armed revolution. But anyway... Glad to hear the country is be re-formed. Let us know when it's recognized as an actual government, and we'll update the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

History Section

Did nothing happen between the 1969 coup and the 2011 uprising? That section desperately needs filling out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.165.91 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tribal system

Source:

• Kurczy, Stephen and Drew Hinshaw. "Libya tribes: Who's who?" Christian Science Monitor.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.57.22.204, 25 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

change the flag to the flag of the old republic 24.57.22.204 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• What "old republic"? The pre-69 flag you are referencing is the flag of the absolute monarchy, when Libya was ruled by a King with absolute, authoritarian power. I feel safe to say that, if you don't know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, you have absolutely no business contributing to this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  This seems like a bit of WP:BITE, User:Felixhonecker. It is possible to decline the anon's request without telling them they have "absolutely no business" to contribute.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is sound advice. If they do not have a very, very, very, basic understanding of Libyan history, they should read the unvandalized Misplaced Pages entry before choosing to contribute. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya wasn't an absolute monarchy, it was a constitutional monarchy. But more to the point, Libya is in the news right now and not everyone visiting this page is going to know everything about its history. Let's all stay polite, stay calm, and assume good faith. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• See discussion above; until the flag of the country itself is reliably sourced as being officially changed, then the current flag remains. Insurgents/mutineers/rebels using the old flag is worth a mention but is not official for the country (yet). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Government = Osama Bin Laden?

al-Qaeda claim a lot more territory than Libya. The Government is the body which runs the nation; and that (for now) is the regime of Gaddafi. This "disputed between Gaddafi and Bin Laden" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.206.27 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say this?? We know that the only person who said that al-Qaeda is involved is Gaddafi. This has to be removed now. Number10a (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't lie. Al Qaeda is on record in major media as being a key backer of the insurgency. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-libya-alqaeda-idUSTRE71N12B20110224) Make no changes to this article without first achieving consensus or they will be reverted. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Number10a (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work. The Gadaffi school of falsification, - what a nightmare thought world. Sayerslle (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

False. Al Qaeda is on record in major media as being a key backer of the insurgency. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-libya-alqaeda-idUSTRE71N12B20110224) Make no changes to this article without first achieving consensus or they will be reverted. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

They 'back' the protests insomuch as they support them. That article does not say that AQ are running the show. There is no RS that I have seen that actually says AQ are running these protests. I have seen the opposition called 'unorganized' and 'leaderless' though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism to this Article Listing "2011 Libyan Opposition" as "Government" Will Be Reverted"

(1) You cannot list someone as the "government" of something and then say there is "no organized leadership." (2) Civil unrest has nothing to do with a nation's independence. Nonetheless, the vandals have listed the government of Libya as being a group with "no organized leadership" and have listed civil unrest under "Independence." If you do not have a basic understanding of state structure and theory you should not be contributing to those sections of this entry until you have made some effort to achieve that. If you want to engage in slacktivism go to Twitter, not Misplaced Pages. I request consensus in making appropriate changes to undo vandalism. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who reinstated the Gaddafi insignia?

That's the green flag and the coat of arms that Gaddafi himself uses. The protesters use the old flag. And as far as I know, Gaddafi is minimal, teetering to being kicked out of power. Seeing as the protesters have largely taken over the country, I suggest that the insignia are re-removed to prevent rows between edit-warring parties. And the one to reinstate them should explain why they did what they did. -- 92.4.54.146 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The green flag and the coat of arms of the country will remain the same for some time, whether Gaddafi is in charge or not. It shouldn't be changed until the new government actually changes the laws regarding the flag and the coat of arms. This applies to the official name of the country aswell. It's just about the formalities. 84.202.43.43 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Libyan flag

The official Libyan flag is still the green-flag, until the flag is officially changed by the government and by international organizations. So please don't put any other flag, the flag used by the opposition is not used officially by the government or by international organizations. A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a 'business as usual' argument - but things are not 'as usual' - the green flag icon represents the official power you say- but not in Benghazi it doesn't - benghazi has different flags flying, a different power has prevailed - so why does wp gives precedence to gadaaffi power and the gadaafi designed flag , rather than to benghazi people power , and the tri colour flag they fly. NPOV violations.Sayerslle (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, different flags are being flown in Libya and on Libyan embassies. But, no law has been issued that the flag is officially changed nor none of the international organization is using the new old-flag. The tricolor-flag flown in different cities of Libya is mentioned on Flag of Libya article and on the main article also. A.h. king • Talk to me! 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When documenting matters of international law (e.g. national flags), WP gives precedence to international law. Sayerslle, if you can show us a legal declaration by some recognized government of some other flag – any other flag – as the official flag of Libya – or of East Libya, Outer Libya, or whatever nation state you imagine exists at this time outside of Tripoli – I will cheerfully change the article myself. Until then, please drop these tedious demands that Misplaced Pages make this declaration on its own authority. We (and you) don't have it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not submittable as it is Original Research, however, on a purely anecdotal note I telephoned the IMO in London late yesterday and asked about proper flagging of Libyan-registered merchantmen. A man named Darek (Darrekk? Sp?) Sulleman at the IMO told me, for purpose of navigation in international waterways, the Libyan (green) flag must be displayed on merchant shipping, not any variants, no matter how many pop culture references there are to them due to current events. Legal identification of ships is one of the few remaining - and probably most important - practical applications of flags these days. If Sulleman was correct, and I have no reason to believe he was lying, a ship in international waters flying the monarchy flag would be - under international law - a pirate vessel and could fired upon or boarded indiscrimantely. If we put the monarchy flag up we are de facto stating that the nation of Libya's entire merchant fleet consists of pirate ships. Considering the history of the Barbary Wars this borders on outright cynical racism. Please do not let the racists win this edit discussion. Do not take down the green flag until it is legally changed. Berber1 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The green flag is the flag of gadaafi supporters , as well as ..whatever else it is... so NPOV is being violated, because other libyans are at this moment choosing another flag - -just the green flag, is POV in the current situation - I didn't make any demands - sorry this is tedious for you, keeping you from peter pan and his adventures.if someone comes to the page and wonders what does the flag of libya look like - the infobox should have, well it looks like this, or this, as of late february 2011 - wp is not an arm of officialdom, documenting the situation in international law is it?, isn't it about providing information on realities isn't it? what is the wp:policy on flags? The current reality is the flag looks like this, or this. - you say, no it doesn't look like that tri colour -one-at-all- and- you -erase- it-from-the-infobox-muttering-about-tedious-etc.. blah blahing about international law . anyway, i'm finished. Sayerslle (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The green flag is also the current flag of Libya. This has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions. If you truly think this is a POV problem I suggest you take this to the NPOV noticeboard. Currently there is absolutely no consensus to change the flag, and, there is no government using that flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I add my support (edit) to the overwhelming consensus to keep the current flag of Libya as-is on this entry. Sayerslle, I've just jumped in here but read everything before I posted this and it appears abundantly clear that your position has been duly noted and duly rejected. Continuing to scream about it just junks up the discussion page. With due respect, please stop. Thank you. Berber1 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

you add your opposition to the consensus to keep just the one flag - isnt that what i wanted? .. Im not screaming - i'd have been screaming perhaps if id been stuck in one of them prison cells in Benghazi that got liberated by the new forces in the city - but I'm not shoved in a prison, so I am not screaming. With due respect please curb your sarcasm and hyperbole - the colours of the revolution, in Benghazi are tri- coloured - the helicopter pilots would not attack their own people , and the new flag has been painted on the helicopters, -- some normality returns says the BBC man - they've uncovered the burnt out cells of the internal security headquarters , they kept 5 in a cell, just one tiny window, the BBC man spoke to a man beaten with a leather whip and given electric shocks under the old green regime, -then I'd scream, if i was being tortured but that isn't my case thank God, so i aint screaming, so i wont continue to scream about it - - dead interesting report it was , you'd have found it enlightening, - 'shining a light into the darkest corners of gaddafi's rule' the journalist said - he was in the east of the country Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

lolwut Berber1 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:GREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at that policy - I think I know the gist -'the talk would talk and go so far aslant' kind of thing, William Empson,..I just think the one flag infobox is misrepresenting the reality, for POV reasons when all is said and done, - thats my last thought on it , and 'lolwut' berber. i thought you were trying to clear the junk from the page. all talk, hYpocrite Sayerslle (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of you. The next personal insult you post on this page will result in a WP:CIVIL complaint. Berber1 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera: "Gaddafi's control of Libya is now limited to Tripoli"

• The current upper part of the infobox (Gaddafi's flag only) is a serious violation of the principle of neutrality of point of view.
• According to Sovereign_state, it would be more appropriate for a "State of Tripoli" (and still not all of it), maybe, but certainly not for the country of Libya.
• (Where are the Misplaced Pages rules that would state that governments, or legal documents, would be the only acceptable sources of neutral point of view, or the only verifiable sources?)
• A box with both flags, or with none, would offer a more neutral point of view - RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RecognizeFreeLibya, especially on his third item. Asking for "legal documents" is a flawed rule, and it is especially flawed during a civil war or revolutionary events. I don't agree with the inclusion of both flags, since we have currently no source showing that the insurgent flag is in a reasonable sense a flag of the state of Libya, but we have numerous enough sources which show that the PoV according to which the green flag has ceased being relevant is not marginal - it has been removed from some embassies, which are state organs ; and of course it is now down in large tracts of Libya. The solution "no flag in the infobox" until things get clearer is the one I do support. French Tourist (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me a RS that says Libya has no flag, then we will show no flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your requirement is not reasonable. I do not suggest the insertion of a new information as you seem to imply, but the removal of an obsolete one. I don't assert that "Libya has no flag" and that this information has to be inserted in the article - if I did a RS for this information would be of course required. I simply ask the removal of the assertion "The flag of Libya is green" (assertion included graphically in the infobox) because I think this last assertion is now outdated, and can give sources supporting this assertion : ("Even the flag outside Libya's mission at the UN in New York has been changed from the one used by Gadhafi's government") or ("A Tale Of Two Flags: Libya's Battle Of Symbols"). I think I do enough when I prove that the situation is very different from what it was a few years ago when the green flag was inserted in the article, that sources that were relevant say in 2008 are no longer relevant in the present situation. French Tourist (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I simply require sources, as does all of WP. Libya has a flag. We display that flag, when the Gadaffi regime falls, and changes the flag we can change it. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You first required sources for an assertion I did not support. Hence I did not give the sources. Now you simply require "sources" - I gave two above. Why are they irrelevant ? You write "Libya has a flag" - I have given two sources supporting the assertion "Libya had a flag until recently, but now things are slightly trickier" - I don't think the infobox in its present state is consistent with this assertion. French Tourist (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not acceptable because (1) NECN made no mention of any flags, (2) NPR was not a radio report but hosted on the "blogs" section of their site. Blogs can not be used by WP as sources regardless of the parent organization authoring it. Your request is dismissed. There is no need to refile it. You may make the suggestion to change the flag again in April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya has a flag - is a flat lie, in late February 2011. Is the green gaddafi flag the only one you see when you watch the news? Disgusting. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying? Please assume good faith. As noted at WP:ANI 'The side who wins on Misplaced Pages doesn't actually determine which side wins in Libya'. Please remove this statement. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the whole east of libya flies a different flag to the green flag so how can I agree that libya has just one flag . the sentence 'Libya has a flag , in my estimation, is a flat lie. That's how i see it. How can I cease seeing things as I see them? Its just my opinion. I do assume good faith - do I have to share all the sentences , and judgments of others? Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When that flag is internationally recognized I will be happy to call that a lag of Libya. No you do not have to vet your statements of course. I also believe you understand my position. Then you call what I typed a lie. That is certainly not WP:AGF which is a pretty darned important principle around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I can mediate (while of course I have shown I have a strong opinion), I suppose Sayerslle simply means "this is inaccurate" when he refers to a lie, and indeed this is my position. I really do not see why a flag should be "internationally recognized" to be a flag - Category:Flags is full of flags with no interaction with international law at all, from the Flag of Lisbon to the Rainbow flag. You seem to ask a strange condition to admit a "flag" as a possible candidate as a flag of Libya (and could I ask, have you sources proving that the green flag has ever been "internationally recognized" ? I know of recognitions of states or governments, but flags ?). Even if you had proved the assertion "the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya" -I don't think you did- this proof would not prove as a corollary that "Libya has a flag" is accurate. Libya might, as I think, have now a blurred number of flags, something between zero and two (it would be "between zero and one" if you could prove that the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya, of course). French Tourist (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we know where we 3 stand. I see no consensus at this point. Others will likely weigh in throughout the day Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't "recognition", it's official adoption. The old flag is widely used in Libya right now, that's no doubt, but that doesn't automatically make it a state flag. To use Egypt as an example, the Arab Liberation Flag was introduced in 1952 and was widely used during and after the Revolution, but the old flag of the kingdom remained the official national flag until 1958. Now, do I think Libya is going to follow that same path? No, that seems unlikely. But the point is we can't know for sure what the new flag of Libya is going to be until a new flag actually gets adopted, and it's not our job to predict the future. Just like with everything else concerning this ongoing revolution, we need to wait and see. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My disagreements at every step of this discussion (there is a similar one on :fr) always stand on words like "official", "legal" - here the expression "state flag". This article is at the same time about Libya (a country) and about the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a state). It is a normal thing to have only one article for the state and the country in most situations, since there are seldom great discrepances between both - French Republic redirects to France, and it is very reasonable. There are noteworthy exceptions : I think of China, with no infobox and no flag or of Western Sahara with no flag in the infobox, while Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic gives one. Presently (I don't try to "predict the future" - I don't claim to know what the article should look like next week), there is an increasing gap between the country Libya and the Libyan state. Were the infobox about the state of Libya, there would be nothing contentious (if I forget the embassies) : the flag of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is green. But this article is not only about a power structure but more generally about a "country". Obviously, the flag of a power structure, may it be a state or a province is ruled by law, international relations and so on. In this case, the state is losing control on part of the country (as in Somalia) but, supplementary circonstance, the populations of the areas where the state does not rule any longer do not recognize the state flag as the flag of the country (while the problem does not arise in such terms in Somalia). In such a special situation, we should not forget that this article is not only about the power structure. French Tourist (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That "problem" very much arises in Somalia. Al Shabaab does not fly or recognize the state flag, but the TFG's info is still in the infobox because the TFG is the official government of Somalia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

More to the point though, the situations in all three of those countries (China, Western Sahara, Somalia) date back decades. The division between the ROC and the PRC is firmly established, as is the division between the SADR and Morocco's Southern Provinces. The situation in Libya is fluid. At some point in the near future it will begin to solidify into a new form. When that happens we can start changing the article to reflect that new reality. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no gap between the country and state of Libya that warrants action. Any gap is transient and will solidify shortly. EuroAmerican media have been cheerleaders of this revolt; the ground reality is that it will - short of foreign intervention - be absolutely crushed by the government de jure et de facto of Libya. The world is not going to end if the flag on this article is out of date for a couple weeks. The discussion should be tabled until April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit of both, but it still boils down to recognition. Because who are going to adopt a new flag? The Libyan government. And who is the official Libyan government? The government that is official internationally recognised as such, and that is still the regime of Ghadaffi. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are going to adopt a new flag. the Libyan government you say. Poppycock. the answer to your question - who is going to adopt a new flag , is - the forces of the uprising - this is who bloody well has, adopted the tri-colour flag , it has become the symbol of the uprising. Their organisations are developing - but their flag is completed. you answer the question wrong so you can arrive at your own conclusion. the people of much of Libya have adopted a new flag, the regime will stick with its green flag - the ongoing symbolic denigration of the flag of the uprising as being in any way relevant to the infobox of the country Libya is weird. and NPOV violation. Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a technical difference between adopting a flag, which the uprising has clearly done, and legally adopting a state flag, which I don't believe they have. This isn't a matter a bias for one side or another, it's just a matter of gauging what the uprising has and has not done. It's entirely possible that within a few days we won't even have to draw that distinction. Until that time let's stay patient. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The so-called insurgents are on the verge of being crushed as the counter-offensive has begun; that's why western reporting has dropped-off, there's no "good news" to report. There's no point in changing the flag at this moment since the rebels won't exist in a week and we'll have to change it back. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sayerslle if you truly find it weird and an NPOV violation (which you clearly do, as you have said so) might I suggest taking this to the NPOV noticeboard? Perhaps you will get some satisfaction there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war: Libyan government

I'd like to request consensus that the government of Libya is presently disputed between Gaddafi's regime and the opposition government in Benghazi. This seems entirely reasonable considering that most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps have expressed their loyalties lie with the opposition, most of Libya proper is under the control of the opposition, and yet Gaddafi is still considered to be in control of the capital at Tripoli. Gaddafi is no longer Libya's undisputed ruler, nor is the opposition wholly unorganized as of 26 February 2011. This edit war is pointless and unproductive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and as soon as reliable sources declare him to be toppled, been killed, arrested or having fled the country, we will be able to update the article and close the period in Libyan history. But not before. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that matters as to saying Gaddafi is no longer head of government. But it's clear there are now two governments in Libya with some modicum of control and claim to legitimacy, and they are actively disputing control of the capital city. Once Gaddafi is gone, he'll be removed from the infobox altogether. As of right now, the government of Libya is disputed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that the government is disputed. Which is exactly my point, since we don't know what side is going to prevail in the dispute, and we don't have any reliable sources stating that Gaddafi is not in power anymore, adding a closing date to his "reign" is most definitely premature. We are not here to anticipate events, just reflect them after they have occured. --McSly (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that point; examining the facts, putting an end date does seem premature. I'm strictly referring to the infobox when I say I think it should be changed and I'd like to get consensus before I change it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need some international recognition before such changes are made. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The Tripoli-based government of Libya de facto et de jure is recognized by 192 different nations. The rumored insurgent government of Jalil is recognized by 0 nations. Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports or Misplaced Pages discussions. Read the entry state if you need a primer on this. As for "most of Libya proper" - the fact that vast expanses of desert MAY be under insurgent control means nothing when the city and environs where 50% of the population lives is still under government stability. As for "most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps" ... the moment any ambassador renounces the Tripoli-government they no longer comprise part of Libya's diplomatic corps. As pointed about by another editor above, accreditation papers are accepted by a head of state from a head of state and are not legally transferrable at the will of the ambassador. Ergo, the former Libyan ambassador to the UN has lapsed accredidtation at this moment in time and is no longer ambassador. So you're talking about "Libya's FORMER diplomatic corps" which is meaningless in the same way it would be meaningless if Jimmy Carter declared himself King of Ohio. Berber1 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your pro-Gaddafi bias is showing. Credible reports indicate the opposition controls all of Cyrenaica and most of the cities and towns in the west surrounding Tripoli and Surt. Furthermore, the UN continues to recognize the Libyan mission as representative of the country, as does the United States, and the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. has recognized the opposition government. There's certainly a question as to international recognition (though it should be noted several countries, including Peru, have terminated relations with Libya, and many more have called for Gaddafi to step down or be removed), but I think there's little question as to de facto control that doesn't verge into "Baghdad Bob" levels of logical fallacy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Flooding the talk page will not change that. Stop injecting false statements. If the UN continues to give full accredidation to the Libyan ambassador then point to a verfiaible reference. Because "Kudzu1" said it does not make it true. Termination of diplomatic relations does not equal termination of diplomatic recognition. As for "Baghdad Bob levels of logical fallacy" - reported for WP:CIVIL violations. Berber1 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're going to base that on. I have yet to see one credible media report, or a statement from someone who isn't part of the Gaddafi regime or one of Gaddafi's few remaining allies, contradicting the images on other pages - to which this article links repeatedly - of maps with Gaddafi's de facto control shrunk down to Tripoli and a few other towns in the west. If you'd like to provide one, and it becomes apparent there is no consensus as to the opposition controlling anything but some patches of desert, then that opens up a much broader discussion that will impact far more articles on this website. As to the matter of the UN ambassador, I linked to an article when mentioning Libya's expulsion from the Human Rights Council, and the Libyan Interim Government article and others include links to articles describing the ambassador to the U.S. as active and not former. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have neither time nor desire to dig through your past comments in other threads to find this link. If you can't provide it here I am inclined to believe it is of dubious quality. The city of Tripoli houses 1/3 of the nation's population and the immediate environs another amount equal to 50%. I understand and appreciate you are a supporter of the Florida-based Libyan Youth Movement and their CIA-trained leader 70 year-old Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Sahad, however, please do not let your POV cloud edits to this entry. Whether or not we are supporters of the US Defense Department's oil acquisition operations in Libya, many of us want to see Qadaffi removed from power. That doesn't mean we need to inject personal dreams and aspirations into an encylcopedia entry, nor insult people with whom we disagree or start chest-thumping, finger-pointing and yelling "Pro-Qadaffi!!! Get 'im boys!." Please choose to behave in a mature and restrained manner moving forward. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Kudzu1, assume good faith, that is very important. Because someone disagrees with you, they are not necessarily pro Gadaffi, hell, I cannot wait until he is out of power, but, I still say we stay with the de jure government, as I noted, if a plethora of nations suddenly recognize this new group, then we can revisit this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The assumption was more based on the language he used rather than his position in the debate, but your point is well taken and I apologize. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology and will not continue in the filing of the WP:CIVIL complaint against you. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports". Sorry to disagree - any source of sufficient quality can be used. The important thing is that enough recognized authors (scholar, renowned journalist,...) consider the interim government as a government to justify allusions to this government in the article. The POV of diplomatic relations is an important one, but it is not the only one. French Tourist (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if you disagree or not, that doesn't change the fact that governments do not obtain legal recognition by "recognized authors." This is a fact that is not open to debate. This is a legal question, not a pop culture question. Governments obtain legality through one method and one method only. There is no government - not even 1 - that has recognized the existence of any government de jure in Libya other than that which is sitting in Tripoli. We've been over this a thousand times. Edit the entry for cat or something if you have time to kill.Berber1 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox has no entry about "legally recognized governments" or "government de jure" but about "government". (Incidentally, the topic of "recognition of governments" is not a trivial one, since today loads of states have a policy not to recognize governments but States, see ). About the "entry for cat", please remain polite - this is not an acceptable remark. French Tourist (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is implicit in the conventions and standards used in the editing of every other country infobox. If you have an issue with that it would be better you take it up with the WP country working group, not here. And, I regret that I did errantly write "government" where I meant "state." My apologies for the confusion you may have experienced as a result. Berber1 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I think this diff (removing from the infobox the indication of a muddled situation as concerns "government") was perhaps judicious when it happened a few hours ago, but we might think of reverting it again, in no hurry. We should begin first by looking for reliable sources hinting that the determination of the government of Lybia is not obvious, integrate this information in the article if we can find it, and as a final step change the content of the infobox. French Tourist (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I have browsed through some sources on the web, typically The Guardian. As far as I try to distillate the information they contain in a useful shape for our infobox problem, it seems that the following informations are now ascertained :

• the Tripoli government has de facto no authority on large tracts of the country ;
• there exists a self-proclaimed "provisional government", supported by some Libyan diplomats but we have very few informations on its authority over the rebellious areas.

In the present state of knowledge (things could change in twelve or twenty-four hours, of course), I think that hinting at this self-proclaimed governement in the infobox would not be reasonable. On the other hand, since the Kaddafi government is obviously in a difficult position, I would suggest to follow the solution presently used in the Ivory Coast article : that is replacing any names of rulers in the infobox bye the mention "(disputed)". Any objections ? French Tourist (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian's liveblog for today contains a relevant item on this: "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"." I would be hesitant to give too much credence this new government before we really know what's going on with it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this article. If there is only one authority in the country claiming to be a government, the situation is more related to Somalia than Ivory Coast. My suggestion might be a bit premature (or unappropriate, I don't claim I know what will happen next week). Let's wait a few more hours or days ? French Tourist (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

or weeks Berber1 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

YES I OBJECT. I object for the reasons Orange Tuesday outlined above. Can you people maybe take a walk or rent a movie or something? Misplaced Pages is not a race. Had we made the change French Tourist wanted - for the reasons Tuesday outlined - we would have made this article inaccurate. Just take a valium ... when there are clear indicators from a large swath of reputable sources then, in a contemplative, slow and deliberative way over a period of days, we can consider changes to this entry. Put a yellow ribbon on your Facebook page or something if you want to engage in meaningless cyber-gestures that have no impact. Sorry - but you people really need to back off and not get so caught up in the hysteria of the moment. Berber1 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just take a valium is not acceptable either. Please stop talking this way. French Tourist (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret you feel aggrieved. Berber1 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation is unclear at the moment - it was reported on 27 feb that a Libyan interim government had been formed by former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil and that he was planning elections in three months time. On 27 Feb it was announced that a National Libyan Council has been formed and that it was not a provisional government. A spokesperson for the new body stated that "Mr Abud Al Jeleil's plans for a Libyan interim government were his "personal view"" Dn9ahx (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While Berber1's choice of words above leave something to be desired his/her sentiment is dead on. Misplaced Pages is not Wikinews. We do not need to get this right right now. We don't need to be continually combing through the papers/other sources, waiting to spring on the moment when we can confidently say "Now, right now, the sources switched ever so slightly into saying the old government is illegitimate and the rebels will form a new one." Our job is never to try to capture the state of "truth" right now, especially in a situation like this one that is changing moment by moment. When the situation becomes totally clear, then we can make changes. At some point it will almost inevitably become correct for us to remove the flag, leaving it blank until a full government is formed, then eventually we'll be able to add in a new flag. But Misplaced Pages should always be lagging far behind both "new media" and the traditional media. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Standing Series of Counter-Proposals

I have deleted all of my counter-proposals by an implied consensus of request. I stand by my conviction that this is a thoughtful and well-intentioned rhetorical exercise necessary to achieve perspective for this entry, however, will defer to the consensus judgment that I must represent only my own viewpoint instead of representing a different viewpoint in their absence and that rhetorical consideration of other outlooks is disruptive. Instead of tit-for-tat I will be filing WP:CIVIL complaints "as necessary" (deleted words "en masse" as they were poorly chosen; I regret my choice of English colloquialisms often leaves something to be desired), in keeping with P&P. Berber1 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

First One of Many

DELETED Berber1 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

For someone who is so quick to accuse others of WP:CIVIL violations, you are being very uncivil yourself. Please stop trying to escalate the conflict on this discussion page, as declaring your intention to disrupt WP to make a point will most likely just get you blocked (along with any other accounts you used before this one you've just created). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's all try to remain civil and calm here. Berber1, There's no need to remove all references to the uprising. We just need to avoid prematurely talking about opposition governments before we know exactly what is going on. Our current policy is working fine for the time being. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I, and others, have been called pro-Qadaffi. Well, sorry, we can dish it as well as we can take it. We have one extremist position represented here and, while I'm in the moderate center like most of you, I am willing to represent the other extremist position in their absence to achieve balance of perspective. Please read my original statement. (For the record, my other Misplaced Pages account has been dormant for 2 years with an irrecoverable password which is the genesis of my current one. So I'm more than familiar with P&P despite my light editing history.) Berber1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. Please stop it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeating yourself ad infinitum does not make it so. Please keep this on-topic. As I noted, we have a moderate position and an extremist position in this Talk page. I have volunteered to represent the other extremist position so all sides are represented. I would hope to be thanked for offering to provide balance of perspective, rather than attacked. Thank you for choosing to phrase your interaction with me in a restrained and civil manner moving forward. Berber1 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are not going to be thanked for it, because it would not be constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I mentioned on your talk page, "tit for tat" is not WP:NPOV, but WP:POINT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Note my above message and amendment of this section. Berber1 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Interim Gov.

There is a new Gov. That will govern Libya until the Next elections. The US Recognizes it as the Gov. And Not Gaddafi. Therefore since the opposition wins, the flag and info must be changed. Here is My Source (From Al-Jazzera English): http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122702915408866.html fatcowxlive (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out where it says anyone has recognized that government in the article, I have missed it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read this source - http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1105ap_af_libya_alternate_leaders.html - an interim government was not formed and instead a National Libyan Council was. The former justice minister's press statements about an interim government have resulted in bitter feelings with other opposition leaders - i have removed my page about an interim government and moved its history section to the ministers personal page (Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil). Dn9ahx (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumors of Air Strikes are Wrong

Russia has come out and said they have been monitoring, via satellite, air traffic over Libya and have found no evidence the Libyan Air Force ever ran a single air strike against protesters. (http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/) Another reason we should wait before crazy, reckless editing. Misplaced Pages should not be a vehicle to support western foreign policy objectives/oil power plays. Felixhonecker (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should we necessarily trust the report of one newspaper (that happens to be russian) rather than a lot of others that disagree? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying that that report is wrong, but I'm saying that you can't take one report as suddenly the definitive word on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to dismiss sources on racial grounds. The fact that 'it happens to be Russian' does not call into question the legitimacy of the source. Russians are as capable as anyone else of formulating clear thoughts and coherent positions. Misplaced Pages is no place for racism. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping to conclusions--I, in fact, was calling out your implication that somehow because it was a russian report it was less biased than western media reports. I'm not dismissing the report--my question is, why do you seem to be dismissing all of the other reports? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because they're based on YouTube videos from Freakzilla44 and LibayCoolCat17 versus military-grade satellite info from the Russian Defense Ministry Bureau of Spatial Assessments and Recce. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this mentioned in the article? The air strikes by Gadaffi vs various targets? I cannot find it, but perhaps i have missed it. (I do see where two F1s landed in Malta and their pilots would not bomb targets, but no claim about air strikes). Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been reports of air strikes on Adjabiyah haven't there? Russian and Chinese official news sources aren't likely to report a popular uprising against corrupt elites very favourably are they ? that isn't racism, its just being aware isn't it? Sayerslle (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Were you in Abjabiyah? Did you see the "airstrikes" there? Fact is there were no airstrikes, there's barely any insurgency. There are probably 17 kids running around spray-painting walls and the west is hyper-inflating it to give NATO an excuse to go on an oil-grab. If there are any insurgents they'll be utterly crushed and swept into the ocean within the week. Felixhonecker (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Africa articles
• Top-importance Africa articles
• B-Class Libya articles
• Top-importance Libya articles
• WikiProject Libya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Selected anniversaries (April 2004)