Talk:Libya/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Politics of Gaddafi should be removed

now that he's dead.. --Gian (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of Libya

A Berber (Amazigh) rendition of "Libya" should be included as the TNC uses Amazigh in the backdrop of their press conferences Ybgursey (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence that this is more than a random design feature? The NTC makes very clear that the one and only official language of Libya is Arabic. It is true that there is a 5% Berber-speaking linguistic minority, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they have any kind of special status. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Constitution is not written, nor was approved. Also no law in Libya puts Tamaizigh as one of the official languages so nope, at least not yet. When constitution, which (or if) will include Tamazigh as one of the official languages, will pass the referendum we will change it. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Present Tense References

There are a number of present tense references in the history section that should be changed to past tense. Such as the statement that "10-20% are employed in surveillance" 63.241.247.137 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Federal Republic?

The infobox states the planned form of government will be a federal republic, while I have seen it mentioned that the new Libya is planned to be a republic, I have seen no media source which states whether this will be federal or unitary, it appears to be undecided at this time. This either needs a citation or a simple change to "Planned Republic".--90.199.141.240 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's already a republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not "already a republic". At present, it has no constitution. It has a "constitutional declaration" stating the aim of turning it into a republic by 2013. If things go as planned, 2012 will be a period of transition during which the country recovers from the state of anarchy and civil war. By April 2013 they want to have a full-fledged Republic of Libya with an elected government and legislative. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Republic" can refer to any state without a monarchy, and by that definition Libya most certainly is technically a republic. Swarm ^X 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A Republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch, so who is the President of the Republic of Libya, when was that Rebublic formally constituted. If there is no answer to those two rather important questions then there is no Republic of Libya, Federal or otherwise. -- Felix (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the articles pre-amble to clarify the issue of current (immediate post killing of Gaddafi) governance in Libya. The article appeared to somewhat mis-represent the NTC as a 'government' when it is not. To address this I have inserted some additional information into the article preamble..."Libya lacks a formally constituted government and is loosely administrated by a coalition of rebel groups known as the National Transitional Council ...". It will need to be reviewed if and when the NTC does actually form a government of any kind. I think we should try to avoid having this article led by the western press as much as possible and keep to primary sources if possible. In the interests of trying to maintain some calm here I have however only cited to western mainstream sources in these edits. We should as editors try to avoid being swept up in the enthusiasm of the NATO allied nations to paint in between the dots they have placed upon the canvas, much as they would like the world to believe the previous government has been replaced by a caretaker government in a transition a democratic republic arising from a sweeping revolution seeking democracy, the actual reality of the situation is far from this. Lets wait and see what actually happens before we write it up in the article as having occurred already. -- Felix (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu1, please do not engage in the ablation of cited and accurate article content. The previous information was incorrect. If you wish to challenge the encyclopedic nature of the article content please do so here. If there is something in the content of my previous edit that you consider to be factually flawed or in error in some other way then please outline your opinions here on the discussion page, block edit reversion is not the way to deal with your POV. -- Felix (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "incorrect" just because you don't believe it. You've already revealed yourself on this Talk page to be skeptical of sources Wikipedia considers WP:RS; you claim to have your own understanding of what the situation in Libya is, and it bleeds through in your editing through weasel phrases like "so-called" and your cherry-picking of Jibril's quotes. Your edit clearly and obviously violated multiple provisions in WP:LEAD and contained prominent examples of WP:SYNTH, going beyond what sources say to construct your own narrative. That's not what Wikipedia is for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I hide any skepticism, it is an important requirement of any serious enquiry. Perhaps you would benefit from reading WP:LEAD yourself, to assist you I have cut and pasted some of it here for you to examine:

• "The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects".
• "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".

I believe the emphasis is appropriate and in context, the article discusses the nation of Libya, if it has a government or not is notable and the controversies are outlined, that being; that the previous government of more than 40 yrs was overthrown and the nation is lacking one at this time, and that the NTC has publicly announced this and postponed the forming of a govt. What is is you object to in the use of "so called", it is simply descriptive. This is how the 'rebel groups' have been commonly referred to, certainly many of them do have names and allegiences that generally go unexplained. However it is not appropriate to engage in discourse on that detail in the article preamble, so hence the 'rebel groups' have been described as "so called". Are you suggesting they are something other than "rebel groups", or that they are not commonly referred to as that? If so that is probably an issue best taken to a different article or an entirely different venue. What would you prefer some jingoistic NTC call to arms? I think you are peddling an agenda here. Dispute the sources, dispute the cites, provide some sensible detail in you criticisms or quieten down. I have removed Jibril's quotes as they seem to have upset you, however they are the reasons he gave when he announced he was going to resign... that is why they were in quotation marks. The emphasis you refer to came from the article, not from myself. I think you are peddling your own bike here and I cannot see what you are so agitated about. Did the conflict not overturn the Government of Libya, is the country now lacking a constituted government? The NTC is not even claiming to have constituted govt, are you proposing that they have? If so provide the detail and cite it. I would certainly like to see this information and would be happy to see Libya ave a formally constituted Govt. However they do not, if that upsets you then go talk about that in a blog somewhere. This article is meant to deal with the facts, not wishful thinking. -- Felix (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu1, the lead would be far too detailed and would not be a summary of the article anymore. Let me remind you that the article is about the whole country (including geography and demography), not what happened in the last months. --McSly (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• It does actually refer contextually to the previous 40yrs of rule by the previous Govt, and on the NTC view of the future path, not just the events of the last months, I agree the article was top heavy though, and that is why I move the naming history detail into the History section, it really should not have been bulking up the lead in the first place. -- Felix (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Felix, don't cherry-pick WP:LEAD and pretend you haven't blatantly disregarded it. Let me help you out:

• Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
• The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

As for your points about the NTC, your brand of "truth-telling" seems to be to insinuate that the NTC isn't actually functioning as the Libyan interim government (it is) and to go on at length about reasons why the NTC is untrustworthy. I suggest you should take that to the dedicated article for National Transitional Council and perhaps start a new section in the body of the article in which to place criticism of the NTC by notable commentators (there is plenty), though you should also avoid WP:SYNTH there as well as here. That would be a more appropriate place for it, though. I am going to change the contentious reference to the NTC as a "caretaker government", because I think it's more appropriate to describe it as provisional and that's what it's called in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming there is an agenda where there is none, Caretaker Government is a formal term and the current arrangements are not formalised. Provisional Government is closer but I think possibly still murky. I have seen a few other attempts at defining their current arrangements, Transitional administration may be more appropriate as it both encompasses the 'transitional' aspect and the attempted administration of Libya. The NTC themselves have made no claims to be doing an effective job of this and that may have a lot to do with Jibril's own announcements. It is a daunting task and clearly the NTC is seriously factionalised. This is not my own narrative as you suggest above, rather it is their own. They quite openly admitted they were not very good at the task of overthrowing Gaddafi and clearly could not acheive it without considerable outside assistance. To suggest that they have got a government together in the background of this chaos of war is absurd. It would have been near impossible under the circumstances and the NTC do not appear to be claiming to have done so, indeed they are openly saying that they have not and that factionalism is making it near impossible. If this article is to be credible it should not just play out a popularised line spun out by the NATO allies, that may work in the press but we are meant to be providing something encyclopedic here not a mirroring of the popular press and political spin. I am cetainly skeptical of the detail and I think I have good reason, it was flawed. There is and was no caretaker government. Maybe one will emerge soon, maybe the place will just degrade into a mess like Somalia. However at this time the NTC claims to be 'administering', Libya and the UN have recognised the NTC as the body representing those doing that. The politics surrounding that are a matter for different articles.
Contemporary Libya is defined by the last 40 years or so and that needs to be addressed in the article lead. The content in my edit is a preamble to information appearing later in the article. Have a look at a well developed article like United States, the content in the lead ranges from 1776 and the declaration of independence and includes the Cold War, their battles with the British, the annexation the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii, disputes between the agrarian South and industrial North over the expansion of the institution of slavery and states' rights and the issues that provoked the Civil War of the 1860s. That seems to digress a fair bit and is acceptable to other WP editors, really I think you are trying to censure me and I do not like it.
I have not cherry picked WP:LEAD, rather I have drawn you attention to what it states. Your reaction and notes here give the appearance that you have an agenda, I hope that is not the case. I have nothing to hide in relation to my skepticism, your suggestion that I am using "weasel phrases" somewhat identifies your attitudes towards editing here. You appear to have been editing intensively on articles in the region encompassing Libya and with your existing experience as an editor here you should understand that block reversions and edit warring is not appropriate. Indeed when you performed you reversion you did so without entering into prior discussion on the article Discussion page. You may have allowed yourself to get swept up in this conflict, try not to let it seep into the article edits, lest it starts looking like you are propagandising, your reactionary and name calling behaviour is certainly suggesting you have some issues of your own. Please do go ahead and objectively detail what you find to be conflicting with a "neutral point of view". -- Felix (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"loosely administrated", "so called rebel groups", "a murky and confused matter." These are not neutrally worded statements, and they definitely strike me as unencyclopedic. Plus, why are we mentioning the old official name of Libya in the lead section? It doesn't look like you have consensus for these edits, so I'm reverting that paragraph back. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Orange Tuesday I think you have some confusions about consensus editing, a consensus is not required to make an edit here. Though I believe it may be required to revert an section of content that is correctly cited to a verifiable and notable source, well that is what you have done so you arepossibly needing to brush up on the concept of 'consensus' here. So what are you suggesting, that loosely administrated is not the case here? The NTC is riddled with factionalism, there is even ongoing disputation as to who is the leader, they cannot seem to organise a ministry, they have only a "Constitutional declaration" which is often misreported as either being a draft constitution, or a constitution in itself, and their leader has publicly announced on several occasions that they cannot form a government due to intractable factionalism, I did provide quotes and cites on that. Further to that the leader of the NTC has recently announced that he is resigning due to the problems of unresolved disparity and conflict within the NTC. You have further critised my contextual use of the old name of the Libyan government when describing it. Well, they did have a name and it clarifies who is being talked about when describing the government that was overthrown, this is an encyclopedic article, not some schoolyard popularity quest. That was the official name of the recent Libyan government, certainly it was wordy but we are not here to rename it retrospectively or too not mention it in the article lead because we don't like it, they were the rulers of the nation for 40 years, not 40 minutes. -- please do not engage in any further block reversions, they are not justified by WP policies as you have insinuated and are entirely inappropriate . -- Felix (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FAITACCOMPLI. The former clearly states that consensus is necessary for editorial decisions on Wikipedia; the latter includes this gem: "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others)." Your approach to justifying a major edit that violated a number of WP guidelines has been to insult and berate fellow editors and to claim you don't need consensus to make a change, which is completely false. I think you have a valid perspective on this issue, but your entire approach to discussion and editing is wrongheaded and not helpful. Please take it easy and just discuss the changes you think should be made rather than making sweeping WP:BOLD changes and getting angry when those changes are challenged. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking about policy, can I suggest that you look at WP:POINT? Adding "citation needed" tags to the entire article is not productive. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well Orange Tuesday, do go ahead and put in some citations and show how productive you are. At least I have done it and it needed to be done. Perhaps you should swing some attention toward things that are lacking citations to verifiable and notable sources rather that deleting and reverting content that does have citations. -- Felix (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I hardly think "On December 24, 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's first and only monarch." was in need of a citation. Indiscriminately throwing tags on to an article isn't helping anyone. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• I you think it is a known fact then take out the citation needed, it was not just done indiscriminately and please don't pretend that article is not full of unreferenced statements needing citations. As for King Idris this short article from the source: U.S. Library of Congress http://countrystudies.us/libya/27.htm would no doubt suffice. I Cannot see a good reason that statement about the first monarchy should not be cited. It is not all only about justifying content, some peopIe do follow these links to gain more depth or to investigate the source. I am not going to waste time listing them out and explaining why each cite should be done, as established editors here you should already know this. I suspect you are assuming the citation needed tags are some sort of reprisal attack, try and level yourselves out for heavens sake. The tags can readily assist other editors to identify a statement and verify it. That is how the project works. As for making significant changes to an article I think it is covered in WP:BOLD, this is not meant to encourage someone to go flying off the handle and fill up an article with a bunch of unsubstantiated and unreferenced nonsense though. If either of you feel the citations I made to my edits are inaccurate or the sources not substantive then lets here about it, otherwise stop it now. WP:BOLD "is best summed up in three words: Just do it! The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia". That is not too hard to understand surely. Frankly I think there was some basic article territorialism going on here and it was unpleasant, however maybe it is time for us all just learn from it all get over it now and stop the combative attitude, it is not helpful. -- Felix (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What's going to prevent it from becoming another Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights whatsoever?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this seal doing in the Libya article. It certainly has a place in an article covering the NTC but surely not here. Even if they had formed or legally constituted a government, which they have not, then it is still not normal to display a crest, flag or banner of a political or military group that has claimed power or exerted martial authority. For example, I do not see the banner, seal or logo of the Democratic party or the Republican party as likely to appear on the US article. It is surely not the seal of the state of Libya nor does the NTC seem to be putting it forward as that. Indeed they are not even putting forward the idea of constituting a government at the moment and have previously announced that they have postponed the idea "indefinitely". I think it should be removed from the article immediately-- Felix (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libya/Archive_3#coat_of_arms This is where we discussed and felt the symbol would be used, but not declared to be a coat of arms of the country, but just as the seal of the government in control. This is similar to what is done at Japan where that country has no official seal or coat of arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Zscout370, I have now had a read of the archive and I think this matter needs to be reviewed. The discussions there appear to be considering an entirely different matter and are discussing emblems and seals of either constituted governments or monarchs. Even the NTC does not claim to have formed a government, indeed they have stated they have "postponed" doing so indefinitely. I think people are getting confused by the massive amount of nonsense propagated by the western press concerning Libya in recent months. Cheers and thanks for pointing me to the archived discussion. -- Felix (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get the symbols straight is very hard for this article. Other than the flag being confirmed in the Draft Constitution (Article 3) the other symbols, such as the seal and anthem, will be determined by law (Article 2). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is NTC providing governance or 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. 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 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.

• So I propose we change Provisional government to read either Transitional administration, Provisional administration, Interim controlling body or Transitional administrative council. -- Felix (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya declared its liberation

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Libya on 23 October 2011th at 17 hours declared national liberation after 42 years of dictatorship Muammar Gadgafi. President of the National Transition Coucil Mustafa Abdul Djalil in a speach in Benghazi called for national reconciliation and the rule of law, and said: "I invite everyone to forgiveness, tolerance and reconciliation. We must get rid of hate. It is essential to the succes of the revolution and the future of Libya.". 93.137.56.241 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss

Starting this off because of WP:BRD. WP:BOLD strongly suggests that major changes should be discussed on the Talk page prior to implementation, but oh well. I don't like the attempts to string together multiple sources that are not WP:RS as well as give WP:UNDUE weight to others in an effort to cast aspersions on the widespread recognition of the NTC as Libya's legitimate government by the international community. We don't get to set our own narrative on Wikipedia, we report what RS says. That's the point of WP:SYNTH. And I'm sorry to "block revert", but there wasn't anything about this paragraph that I found to be WP:NPOV or reasonable to include. The recognition of the NTC by at least 100 UN member countries, four partially recognized countries, the UN, and a number of other supranational bodies is verifiable. Using spurious sources and giving undue weight to the comments of certain members of the Western media the editor who made the change purports to mistrust in order to insinuate that this is anything less than established fact is not the purpose of Wikipedia and I firmly object. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your efforts to block article development and normal editing here is inappropriate. It looks like something you are making a habit of here. You are correct the content does indicate doubts concerning the "widespread recognition of the NTC as Libya's legitimate government by the international community", that is because there is currently no Government of Libya to recognise. This should not be too complex to grasp, just look at the NTC website. They are a provisional administrative body that through a process of local delegation and representation have formed a 'National Transitional Council' to act as a temporary administration. Their stated goal is to develop a draft constitution and form an "interim government". They have not yet done so and have recently announced their intention to do this within 30 days. The overwhelming majority of the nations that have recognised the TNC have been very careful to qualify their recognition. They are no doubt quite aware that they cannot recognise the TNC as the sovereign government of Libya because they are not, nor do they appear to be claiming to be. However you are apparently claiming they are "Libya's legitimate government".
I have asked you several times to detail your sources and provide some information that clearly states that that NTC is either national government of Libya or formally recognised as that by other nations. You have not done so.
It certainly appears that the NTC are quite cautious of making this claim. I am sure they would be well aware they cannot claim to even be the interim government of Libya at this time as indeed everyone seems to be waiting for them to become just that, asap.
So it is looking like you have a clear agenda to promote a false cause here involving the TNC being recognised as the Government of Libya. It appears you are confused about this.
The content below is cited to verifiable sources, and they are notable. Indeed the NTC is one of the sources. The statements of various national leaders and Foreign ministers are also cited.You have complained about Iran's PressTV being cited, they are notable, and they are only confirming the same thing as the other sources. As they are often considered to be an organ of the state their comments reporting recognition of the NTC are notable in that context. They are not in conflict with anything either, I think your bias for mainstream western media sources is peeking through the curtains here, you tried that out yesterday as well. You complained about non substantive sources then, yet they were all mainstream western sources including Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, The Guardian, Sky News, Al Arabiya, Haaretz, ABC News, Xinhua and TIME magazine . Again a bit of straw man building going on here I think.

You are appearing to be blocking substantive detail simply because you do not agree with it. Perhaps you are not even looking at the cites, try http://ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=6&ParentID=3&LangID=1
Here the NTC details "International recognition", you will not find one nation listed there that is described by the NTC as having recognised the NTC as the "Government" of Libya. Indeed the NTC has been very careful to detail the commitment of each nation in the list and have qualified each one by stating the 'commitment' in quotation marks, ie France is described as officially recognising the NTC as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people". No mention of recognition as the 'Government of Libya', nor is it ascribed to any other nation in the list. You apparently have some sort of personal narrative concerning perceived legitimisation of the NTC. So Kudzu1, where are the facts? You seem to be obsessing over the NTC being a government, can you not just wait till they form one. They have promised to do so. You are clearly trying to build a straw man here, I have not suggested that the TNC is not recognised by foreign governments, indeed I have detailed how the TNC is recognised, and it is not as a "government". The TNC recognition by other nations is generally defined as legitimate representative, point of contact, or similar. The UK amended their earlier "legitimate interlocutor in Libya representing the aspirations of the Libyan people" to "sole governmental authority", this was openly discussed in the media and by the UK government as being a political statement rather than a legal recognition. William Hague later commented that the UK "do not recognise governments", "only nations". In any case "sole governmental authority" is not 'Government of Libya',and "governmental" does not mean Government. Hague is referring to the TNC being an "authority" and was clearly playing word games, that is why the BBC qualified it in their report. At WP we should be presenting facts and citing to sources. I think if the NTC are even not saying they are the Government of Libya then we should not either. it is quite apparent these Libyan articles need some clarification in many areas. Much of the content is prose lacking in citations, the NTC appear to be portrayed as a Government when it is not, this is distracting from the facts and makes the article content contradictory. I noted that yesterday you were removing the references to the NTC undertakings to form an interim government, you are at it again today. Perhaps you find these details unpalatable as they indicate that the NTC is not yet a government. You seem very keen to provide WP policy links but whilst doing so seem to miss the key objective here. WP is an encyclopedic endeavour and encyclopedic content must be verifiable.

• Kudzu1, you have now performed 5 block reverts of material under active edit process within a 24hr period. I assume you are seeking a 24hr edit block.-- Felix (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit replaced this content, incorrectly describing the recognition of the NTC as the government of Libya:

• On 10 March 2011, France became the first state to recognize the National Libyan Council as the country's legitimate government.

The article content was factually in error and lacked a citation, according to the NTC; France is described as officially recognising the NTC as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people" This was also reported in the press including direct quotations of those words in quotation marks. The article content was erroneous and quite misleading as it portrays the French as recognising the NTC as a government, which they did not.

This is the content of the edit removed by a block revert performed by Kudzu1 (talk)

• In late September 2011 the NTC listed 15 of the earlier nations that "recognised the NTC". Of these 15 the NTC listed France as having first recognised the NTC as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people". The NTC listed the others variously giving recognition as "the sole legitimate representative, "the only legitimate body representing Libyan interests". The United Kingdom recognised the NTC as the "legitimate interlocutor in Libya representing the aspirations of the Libyan people", others recognised the NTC as "the legitimate interlocutor" for the Libyan people, "the Libyan people's sole and legitimate representative", the "legitimate representative and the credible interlocutor for the Libyan people", Malta as the "only legitimate point of dialogue between Malta and Libya", Canada recognised the NTC as "legitimate representative" of the people of Libya. The United States, China and many other nations that had later recognised the NTC in similar terms were missing from the published NTC list. In late July William Hague of the of the United Kingdom changed the style of recognition by the UK and announced that the NTC was the "sole governmental authority" in Libya. The BBC reported at the time, "it was a political, not a legal statement which would allow the British government to unfreeze £91m assets from a Libyan oil company - but not the rest of Libyan assets frozen in the UK, which total about £12bn". By mid September Iran's PressTV was reporting that China had joined nearly 80 other countries by then recognising the NTC as country's official authority or representative. In mid-September China was reported to have responded positively to NTC assurances that it would form an interim government. The Chinese foreign minister stated at the time that China recognised the NTC as the "ruling authority of the country".

______________________

You'll notice I didn't remove the change you made to the sentence about France. I didn't find anything objectionable in your edit; the other paragraph you added was problematic, and I reverted in order so that we might discuss it on Talk and reach some sort of consensus on how the article should look. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll address the paragraph in question piece by piece:

• In late September 2011 the NTC listed 15 of the earlier nations that "recognised the NTC".

The use of quotation marks even though you are not actually quoting a source insinuates that this recognition is somehow dubious or untrue.

• Response The quotation marks were used as it is a direct quote from the cited NTC source...<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=6&ParentID=3&LangID=1| title =International Recognition-The following countries have already recognized the NTC | publisher = National Transitional Council (Libya)|author=National Transitional Council (Libya) anon | date = unknown| accessdate =24 October 2011 }}</ref>

• Of these 15 the NTC listed France as having first recognised the NTC as the "legitimate representative of the Libyan people". The NTC listed the others variously giving recognition as "the sole legitimate representative, "the only legitimate body representing Libyan interests". The United Kingdom recognised the NTC as the "legitimate interlocutor in Libya representing the aspirations of the Libyan people", others recognised the NTC as "the legitimate interlocutor" for the Libyan people, "the Libyan people's sole and legitimate representative", the "legitimate representative and the credible interlocutor for the Libyan people", Malta as the "only legitimate point of dialogue between Malta and Libya", Canada recognised the NTC as "legitimate representative" of the people of Libya.

The problem here is one of excessive detail. The wording used by various governments as well as the manner in which relations have progressed is documented on dedicated article pages. The purpose of this listing seems to be to suggest that these countries have different recognition statuses when that conclusion is not supported by WP:RS; just because the syntax (and this is really, truly semantics at its worst) differs from quotation to quotation doesn't mean what I think the purpose of this paragraph is to imply, that recognition is anything other than recognition. I also notice you exclude quotes that explicitly recognized the NTC as the "legitimate government" or the "sole authority" in Libya, of which there are many. If you were seeking to neutrally inform, you would have included those; that being said, there is a separate article for this information and more that has been meticulously maintained and thoroughly sourced.

• Response This came from the NTCs own page, there is not any "legitimate government" statement to be found there, you are making that up. The NTC page describing these details mentions the word "government" only 2 times, once in relation to the "former Libyan government" and one more time "UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a written statement to Parliament that the UK government recognised the NTC as the "legitimate interlocutor in Libya representing the aspirations of the Libyan people". That page described the UAE recognising the NTC as "the sole legitimate representative, Qatar recognised the NTC as "the sole legitimate representative body of the Libyan people", Spain recognised the NTC as the "the Libyan people's sole and legitimate representative". None of them recognised the NTC as the Government of Libya, indeed none of them used the word "government" at all. First you complain of too much detail, then you complain there is not enough and claim I have left out things that are not there in the first place. They are within quotation marks because they are quotations direct from the NTC International Recognition details at (http://ntclibya.com/InnerPage.aspx?SSID=6&ParentID=3&LangID=1). The text is neutral in tone , the examples are entirely representative and the section is cited with a link to the NTC page bearing the information, again you are trying to construct a strawman, it is quite easy to look at the NTC website and see this information. To the matter of the content inferring a different status by different nations had it occured to you that is most likely. I have cast no viewpoint there, you are gaining that from your reading of the content and the content is quoted and sourced. It is your own subjectivity that is directing you conclusions, and yes different governments did intend different meanings, and that should come as no surprise.
• Response The article you suggest linking to is I assume International recognition of the National Transitional Council, there the term "recognised" is used liberally and with a very widely encompassing scope.
• Response Perhaps you would benefit from reading Recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council, by Stefan Talmon published by the American Society of International Law, 16 June 2011, Volume 15, Issue 16. http://www.asil.org/pdfs/insights/insight110616.pdf
• Response They discuss these issues in some depth and I think it reasonably safe to say that your views are in some considerable conflict with those of specialists in International law. You made a truly ridiculous statement above: "just because the syntax (and this is really, truly semantics at its worst) differs from quotation to quotation doesn't mean what I think the purpose of this paragraph is to imply, that recognition is anything other than recognition". Good heavens are you really so naive to think these words are not crafted with considerable attention by the foreign ministries of the nations issuing the statements, to bundle them up as "recognised' is a legal and encyclopedic travesty. Perhaps you should read it (http://www.asil.org/insights110616.cfm) Try the section on The Meanings of Recognition"'.

You could also have a look over the views by John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law. These were described on the Council on Foreign Relations Website, Legal Questions in U.S. Nod to Libya's Opposition.

• Response "The fact that the statement says Contact Group members (the thirty-two-country "Libya Contact Group"--which includes the United States) agreed to "deal with"--rather than "recognize"--the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya indicates that there remains disagreement among Contact Group members about the issue of recognition".
• Response "Recognition of the NTC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people leaves intact the international legal status of the incumbent Qaddafi government as the government of Libya. While a State cannot have two de jure governments at the same time, it can have a de jure government and a local de facto government or a representative of the State’s people. This explains why States, which have recognized the NTC as legitimate representative of the Libyan people, can nevertheless continue to recognize the diplomatic role and status of Qaddafi-appointed ambassadors and accept his representatives in international organizations as the representatives of Libya" These following passages shed some light on the US recognition process and what they were considering when looking at recognising the NTC...

• On April 27, 2011, the U.S. ambassador to Libya replied to the question of why the United States, unlike France and others, had not yet recognized the NTC: “Recognition remains a legal and an international obligations issue . . . the United States and other countries have been very conscious of the international law implications of a decision to formally “recognize” the NTC in any legally relevant manner and, so far, have—it is submitted, correctly—refrained from doing so.
• "The National Transitional Council (NTC) today expressed its gratitude and respect to the people of the United States of America for recognizing the NTC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". Vice Chairman Mr. Abdul Hafeedh Ghoga commented in NTC Press Statement No. 35, no mention of government there.

• The United States, China and many other nations that had later recognised the NTC in similar terms were missing from the published NTC list.

One, this is irrelevant considering there is no doubt (based on RS) that these countries have recognized the NTC. Two, as far as I can tell, this is unsourced.

• Response China was cited immediately below, remember you complained about the cite to Chinadaily and pressTV. I was about to edit the detail on the United States but you had already block reverted the entire section. China was very late in doing so, as was the US, why assumption ("no doubt") when fact is available?
• Response In late July William Hague of the of the United Kingdom changed the style of recognition by the UK and announced that the NTC was the "sole governmental authority" in Libya. The BBC reported at the time, "it was a political, not a legal statement which would allow the British government to unfreeze £91m assets from a Libyan oil company - but not the rest of Libyan assets frozen in the UK, which total about £12bn".

If anything, this belongs in the article Libya - United Kingdom relations. It's WP:UNDUE here, as the BBC quote explicitly contradicts the position of the Cameron government, which evidently considers the recognition enough of a "legal statement" that the NTC now operates the Libyan Embassy in the UK.

• Response Hague when confronted on the question of recognising the NTC as a government replied that the UK does not recognise governments, it recognises nations, I have already discussed that and it was cited and sourced, you are just choosing to overlook the detail of it. It was clear and blatantly obvious political double speak. If you think otherwise, where is the formal recognition of the NTC as the government of Libya by the UK? You will not find it as it does not exist, not yet anyway. Also the Gaddafi appointed ambassador in London continued to be regarded as ambassador until he was expelled in May. My understanding of the strategy of it is that he wasn’t expelled because he was not regarded as representative of the government but as retaliation for damage to the UK embassy in Libya, this allowed the UK to then accept the NTC rep in his place, representing Libya, not the imagined (NTC) Government of Libya. I am surprised you are not aware of that if your research is so thorough. And then there is this: Clinton said. “And so I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the NTC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya, and we will deal with it on that basis.” Again the use of "governing authority", that is not a recognition of a Government. I am not certain but the African Union may have recognise the National Transitional Council (NTC) as the legitimate government of Libya, again it may be another of the recognition of authority statements. It must be understood that a lot of these statements were made when the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was still arguably the legitimate government of Libya, obviously a nation cannot have two governments and by the later stages of the civil war both the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the NTC could reasonable argue that the other did not have the control of the entire nation, this generally in International law being one of the determinations of a governing authority being able to call itself the Government and for other nations to recognise it as such.

• By mid September Iran's PressTV was reporting that China had joined nearly 80 other countries by then recognising the NTC as country's official authority or representative.

One, PressTV is not a reliable source. Two, this is again WP:UNDUE for a country page. It is documented elsewhere.

• Response "Not a reliable source", that looks a lot like your personal opinion, like to qualify that a little in relation to their reportage on China/Libya.

• In mid-September China was reported to have responded positively to NTC assurances that it would form an interim government. The Chinese foreign minister stated at the time that China recognised the NTC as the "ruling authority of the country".

Same problem as number two above. You're giving undue weight to the view of just a couple of countries (the UK and the PRC) apparently for the purpose of pushing the notion that the NTC isn't in government.

• Response Hmm, anyone who considers the role of the PRC to be insignificant in the intrigue of contemporary Libya must have been looking the other way for a while, to suggest the UK is lacking in significant is a rather bold assertion as well.
• Response PressTV is not a reliable source, well they seem to give a pretty good POV of the Iranian government. Who is deeming them as unreliable? I have never encountered a WP policy excluding PressTV as a citable source. It is cited as coming from PressTV, it has not come from them but been attributed elsewhere. So is the New York Times the gold standard here, you might have been missing something regarding their integrity. What is acceptable to you as the appointed adjudicator of article content, maybe the New York Post would be a credible source. Are you somehow suggesting that the PRC did not join "nearly 80 other countries by then recognising the NTC as country's official authority or representative", and that PressTV has mis-reported this, if so give some detail. Anti Iranian sentiment is not a sufficient reason to reject the cite as "credible", don't you think you should possible explain why this is somehow doubtful and not reliable?
• Response 1. Again regarding "the notion of government", this is another strawman appeal, I have not suggested the NTC is not attempting to perform the role of administration, however they make it clear they are doing this as a provisional authority, pending the formation of an interim government. You are trying to call a tree a house, the house may be made of wood but that does not mean the tree standing next to it is a house because it is also made of wood.
• Response 2. Now are you saying that the UK and the PRC are "just a couple of countries..oh OK then, what maybe like Tuvalu, or maybe the Maldives?
• Response So I will try and run with your idea here for a while, the NTC does not say they they are the Government of Libya, but they say they will form an interim government within 30 days, this somewhat suggesting they have not done so yet. You say that you have "documented this international recognition" yet have not provided one single source to verify your assertions. You have however rejected the NTC source and anything quoted from it, saying that I am cherry picking, Well sorry there are no apples there, and no Libyan Government either. So where is this "recognition as a government", there is only acknowledgement of the NTC in the legalistic terms outline above. If I was to be cherry picking as you are so fond of suggesting then here is a nice fat cherry, Malta recognised the NTC as the "only legitimate point of dialogue between Malta and Libya", that just means little more than that they will talk with them. When Malta later reviewed this (not mentioned in the NTC list) they matched the position of other countries, I see not evidence they changed their stance in any significant way. I think they even retained the existing ambassador.
• Response The lead paragraph of Legitimacy (political) attempts to define the notion...legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing law or régime as an authority. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes “sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing, without which, a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case, unpopular régimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential élite. The TNC has struggled with a system of government, a sphere of influence, and authority. That is why the process of forming an interim government is delayed and Libya remains with only a provisional administering authority, and even they apparently cannot claim sphere of influence as many internal groups do not recognise their authority. For a foreign nation to recognise them as a Government is a lot more complex that it has been made out to be in the last few months in these articles, and elsewhere.

While I agree the NTC is not a constituted government (and this is verifiable considering its lack of a constitution), it has international recognition as a government, despite your cherry-picking of quotes on this article. I have documented this international recognition; it is preserved and fully sourced on Wikipedia; and it is verifiable that even if the NTC is unconstituted, poorly organized, and not in full control of all former rebel factions, it is acting as Libya's provisional government until such time as a more organized de jure interim government can be formed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response I have not "cherry picked" as you keep on asserting. Certainly the press are saying that the NTC has been recognised as the legitimate Government of Libya but that is story telling, not fact. The BBC headline "Libya: France recognises rebels as government" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183) is a good example of a misleading headline, however the rest of the story below qualifies the actual detail; "The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Paris regarded the NLC as Libya's legitimate representative", and... "President Sarkozy's decision did find support in the European Parliament where MEPs adopted a resolution calling on the EU as a whole to recognise formally Libya's opposition as the only legitimate authority". This is not cherry picking it is looking at the facts, not just the headline. The legal meaning of the statements are entirely different to the headlines above them, any detailed analysis should immediately reveal that.
• Response These issues in reportage should be readily understood by most of us here they are an outcome of both direct and deliberate perception management, a good dose of lazy reportage and cut and paste journalism. So after two days of chiding me, deriding both my character and editing skill, building straw men and putting [[ ]] around almost every character on your keyboard don't you think it might be time to wheel out some verifiable sources, something that actually has some substance and states that government XYZ has issued a statement that they formally support (or recognise) the Transitional National Council as the Government of Libya. I think if you go looking you will find the official statements very thin on the ground and that the majority , if not near all of them are as I have detailed above. That is they "support" the TNC as "legitimate interlocutor" at best (and that is quite strong), "the Libyan people's sole and legitimate representative" and similarly worded statements. That is because they are not a government. I am not "cherry picking", it is the whole tree here, in fact it's the whole orchard. Try and get out of the tabloid media interpretation and become focussed on an encyclopedic view, they are often different. That is why people read an technical journal if they want to build a rocket, rather than picking up a comic book. We can say the that government xyz made political statements supporting the TNC but we cannot write them up here as recognising a government that does not even exist. I think you are well aware of a lot of this Kudzu1, you are just pretending you do not know about it and you are running these articles in a manner that is accordance with those principals, you could surely not spend as much time as you apparently have on this topic and those related to it an not be aware of this. I assume that is why the strawman building and the blocking edits. You clearly seek to ensure I am kept off the article and that the article content remains both uninformed and uninforming in regard to these matters.-- Felix (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

_________

You haven't addressed any of my objections, Felix. We report what RS says. RS says the NTC is recognized as Libya's legitimate authority or legitimate government, with the terms frequently being used interchangeably. The NTC operates Libyan diplomatic missions abroad. The NTC holds Libya's seat at the AU, the UN, and the Arab League. The World Bank and IMF deal with the NTC. I have no problem with you describing it as an "authority" (though I don't think it's incorrect to call it a government, even if it is an unconstituted one, and RS supports me here) or de facto, because I agree it certainly is de facto and it is called a "governing authority" or a "sole authority" by many sources, including its (unfortunately badly outdated) website. Its authority is sui generis; it has no formal constitution; the status of preexisting domestic laws is unclear. But it is functioning as the Libyan government; it is filling that role at this time, until it implements the next phase in the transition.

Look, I'm not even sure we really disagree on what the NTC is. But I haven't brought up a single WP guideline that I don't think is relevant here, and I'll add one more in case I haven't before: WP:CIVIL. The way you have gone about your editing is aggressive, it has flouted numerous tenets of Wikipedia policy, and it isn't going to make you a whole lot of allies on this site. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Response Again I think you are continuing with the strawman theme, also I do not need to be addressing your "objections". It is you own assertions above that remain unsupported. You have deleted cited and sourced content on the basis that you 'think' your POV has a more correct view. You are conducting a control exercise on a supposedly encyclopedic article and asserting your perceived 'right' to do this seemingly upon your own interpretation of the facts. All this and still not a single cite to support your interpretations. Leading off to another similarly afflicted WP article International recognition of the National Transitional Council does not help. That article is a travesty of misleading content worthy of a special award for perception management. Fine to complement a feature piece in the New York Post, Fox News or one of Murdochs gossip rags, but not worthy of encyclopedic status. It is nicely laid out and has obviously taken a lot of work, I am also certain that a great deal of the input is most certainly sincere and does not set out to do anything nefarious, however the whole article construct is misleading and creates an entilely erroneous view of the situation in Libya and the countries current international status and diplomatic relationships.

For example the French recognition of Libya, as detailed on International recognition of the National Transitional Council:

• The detail on France has a cite to a BBC article: "France recognises rebels as government-France has become the first country to recognise the Libyan rebel leadership, the National Libyan Council (NLC), as the country's legitimate govt". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183 This headline is qualified later in the story with the actual facts, which are entirely different to the headline. "The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Paris regarded the NLC as Libya's "legitimate representative". If you care to look into the actual meaning of this it is an entirely different thing. As is explained in the links I supplied above.

Kudzu1, if you really are so naive that you genuinely do not 'get it' then please do go and read some opinion from experts on international law, though frankly I do not think you are that naive, your are either possibly appallingly underinformed or maybe you are gaming the system here. It is most important if contributing here at WP to keep your eyes open. Many people use this resource as they may not have the time, skills or research abilities to enquire on their own. Some of the current content in the Libyan articles is downright misleading, some of it is fantasy, a great deal of it lacks citations. I have no idea what the hit rate is on the Libyan articles, I imagine the circus has moved on now that Gaddafi has been killed. However I am sure many readers are coming to the site trying to cut through all the rubbish, lazy or inept journalism or just plain orchestrated perception management that has been fed into the global information system in TV, press and internet coverage. Many people are no doubt questioning what has been going on in Libya, and with good reason.

To allow a WP article to be so wrong in basic fact is appalling. The issue of the recognition of Libya is integral to far more than just the question of the legitimacy of the NTC to administer the parts of Libya over which they control and to act as spokespeople for the Libyan people. It is far more important than that. It goes right to the core of the legitimacy of foreign intervention including the NATO and affiliated military action against the Libyan Government, the use of troops, airstrikes and the supply of weaponry and ammunition to support the rebel forces, to invade the airspace of Libya and to attack civilian targets in a sovereign nation. It also has a considerable bearing upon access to reserves held in the EU and US and the access to those funds. It is not just some sort of global popularity contest. The governments involved and their foreign ministries are most certainly aware of a very fine balance between the threshold of sanctioned activity and international crimes, including war crimes. The recognition of Libya under the control of the NTC, or ot the NTC as an entity representing the nation or the people of Libya is riddled with nuance. The carefully worded pronouncements of the various governments reflects this, that is why I was very careful to capture the exact wording in my edits and properly attribute it.

In the opinion of many international law experts some of the activities in Libya were not only highly questionable, or just plain illegal, rather they transcended thresholds of precedence that had not previously been crossed and there is a lot of opinion that suggests the actions were illegal under several interpretations of international laws and conventions. If you look past the pulp fiction news reportage and read the actual statements of foreign leaders, foreign ministers and international legal experts you will see a picture far different to that painted here in the WP articles bearing content on contemporary Libya. These recognitions are not the simplistic devices you are pretending they are. They are infact complex statements of legalise and foreign diplomatic language and have considerable nuance frequently misunderstood by a casual reader. I outlined in detail how the recognition of the NTC was structured by most nations and have supplied considerable referenced material above. Read it and stop acting like you don't know what I am on about, I do not think you are truly sufficiently naive to be unable to grasp the issue. I have supplied you with easy to read commentry from International law experts, it is wrtitten in accessable language and is highly readable and informing. I assume you have not bothered to investigate those links.

Try looking at:

• Recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council, by Stefan Talmon published by the American Society of International Law, 16 June 2011, Volume 15, Issue 16. http://www.asil.org/pdfs/insights/insight110616.pdf
• and John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law. These were described on the Council on Foreign Relations Website, Legal Questions in U.S. Nod to Libya's Opposition.http://www.cfr.org/libya/legal-questions-us-nod-libyas-opposition/p25489?cid=oth_partner_site-atlantic-firsttake-legal_questions_in_u.s._nod_to-071811

Those two links have good easily understood content written in normal language and explain the issue of recognition in some detail. They fully referenced in the style of an academic article with many of the cites hotlinking to the appropriate article sources. If you do not like the comprehensively explained opinion of experts on international law and foreign relations then read [W]e’re a very legalistic country, and we’re looking at all the different complexity of . . . that question.” (Press Release, U.S. State Department, The Political Situation in Libya, Special Briefing, Gene Cretz, Ambassador to Libya (Apr. 27, 2011), http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/161878.htm There are plenty more statement like that available. They all tend to give similar 'qualification' to this recognition of the NTC and are carefully and appropriately crafted to distinguish between the recognition of the NTC as a government or as some kind of representative body.

• Mr.Nicolas Sarkozy - High Level Meeting on Libya - New York - 20 September 2011, "The sooner the Libyan government is in place, the sooner Libyan democracy is in place, the better it will be." The French have certainly not recognised a government that does not yet exist.
• Appointment of Mansour Seif Al-Nasr, the Transitional National Council’s special envoy to France (July 29, 2011). "We welcome the appointment of Mansour Seif al-Nasr, the Libyan Transitional National Council’s special envoy to France. This appointment testifies to the close relationship between France and the TNC and our country’s commitment to the new Libya. It is in line with our country’s recognition of the TNC, the first country to do so. So read that, not ambassedor, rather it is "special envoy". http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files_156/libya_283/appointment-of-mansour-seif-al-nasr-the-transitional-national-council-special-envoy-to-france-29.07.11_16040.html there is a gulf of difference that you could sail an oil tanker through. http://www.state.gov/misc/129676.htm Special envoys are normally a diplomatic officer who is sent on one-time special missions.
• The UN: H.E. Mr. Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalgham, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative, (he was previously "Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations"), lets not run too far with that, he is representing the nation of Libya. Sam with Ibrahim Aldredi, the new Permanent Representative of Libya to the United Nations Office at Geneva, today presented his credentials to Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva. Prior to his appointment to Geneva, Mr. Aldredi had been serving as Charge d’Affaires at the Libyan Mission to the United Nations Office at Geneva since 2009. He served as Charge d’Affaires at the Libyan Embassy in Bern, Switzerland from 2007 to 2009. http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/5D6BE5BE6FF2DCB6C125792E002CC0C5?OpenDocument He has a long diplomatic career prior to that. If you have a read of the international law articles I have linked to you will gain an understanding of what is really going on, and it does not involve the recognition of the TNC as a government, that is a fantasy. If you dig into the legalise of it you will discover he is representing the nation of Libya (read the international law references), and not the NTC. What the press reports and reality are often vastly different and this is go good example of that.
• Above all it is pertinent to understand that the NTC is also very careful with such distinctions, plus they have not yet formed government, that indeed is the really large elephant standing in the room, can you perhaps not see this elephant?

The Libya articles are flawed and are providing misleading information on the international recognition of the NTC, and the nation of Libya. This includes an appalling misunderstanding of the definition of a government in the context of international relations and international law pertaining the the nation of Libya and it's current administration.

Frankly this whole situation makes me embarrassed to be a regular WP editor. That I am still explaining this two days later is absurd. The simple fact that the NTC has not yet formed even an interim government should be enough in itself. The basic application of logic to that is that if it does not yet exist then it cannot be existing now, it remains a proposal, so at best it is a proposed interim government, and certainly is not the Government of Libya.

If you truly do have some integrity as a WP editor and contributor you will stop WP:Game and go read the information and learn something about the situation that you are so keen to control here. Your premise concerning the recognition of the NTC is incredibly superficial and shallow, completely flawed, misleading and counterproductive to article integrity.I know that is a very blunt statement but I have endeavoured to explain above and I wonder if you have even skim read the detail. Perhaps a less prosaic statement such as this will get through to you --Felix (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate this one more time. My problem with your editing here is threefold:

1. You are rejecting reliable sources that don't support your conclusion, including dismissing the contents of an entire article on Wikipedia built on consensus and meticulous sourcing. Instead of taking them at face value, you are interpreting them through your own conception of international law and concluding that you are right and the media, be them international outlets like CNN or Reuters or domestic outlets like the Times of Malta or the Otago Daily Times, as well as government ministers and other officials, are wrong. As I said, I agree that the NTC isn't a full-fledged government, but it is acting in that role with general international support on an interim capacity (there is a general consensus shared by the NTC, foreign governments, and the media that the NTC is a temporary governing body only and not a representative or permanent government), and it represents Libya abroad. Based on what RS say, that really can't be disputed.

2. Your proposed new paragraph places undue weight on the claims of certain actors, the purpose of which appears to be mostly semantic. If this page doesn't make it clear that the situation in Libya isn't really stable post-war and the NTC is the de facto governing authority but is not acting under a codified set of laws or with a clear mandate, I agree that is problematic and does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. But I think there are more effective ways to accomplish that than including a paragraph made up mostly of direct quotes in order to suggest something about the NTC's international status that isn't the case. I think that's less relevant to Libya's internal situation anyway, and I don't think that an in-depth discussion of it belongs in that part of the article (and arguably doesn't belong in this particular article at all).

3. You are being very patronizing and insulting in how you're discussing on the Talk page of this article and the NTC article. Rather than working toward common ground and trying to reach consensus, you are being very insulting. I've asked you previously to change your attitude and stop getting so upset when your content is challenged. I want to work out a solution with you, but I don't see that we're going to have much of a chance if you're not willing to discuss this more civilly, let go of your initial reaction to me reverting a couple of your good-faith edits in favor of having them discussed on the Talk page, and accept that (despite your previous assertions) consensus is required to edit.

Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Response:1.

If "face value" presents an interpretation allowing a provisional administrative body to be described as a "government" of the nation of Libya then there is a problem. If the sources do the same there is also a problem, most especially when the headline of a news media article is deceptive and when examination of the news media content actually indicates an entirely different conclusion. My core objection to this is that the NTC has clearly not yet proclaimed as a government. They have however stated their intention to form an interim government, most recently this was clarified with a statement that they intend to form an "interim government" within 4 weeks of the proclamation of "liberation". I have already given an example of the misleding information in the Libyan articles. "France recognises rebels as government, France has become the first country to recognise the Libyan rebel leadership, the National Libyan Council (NLC), as the country's legitimate government.", http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183 is the first cite in the list on International recognition of the National Transitional Council. It should be understood that France never did what was headlined by the BBC on 10 March 2011, yet it is used as the International recognition of the National Transitional Council article cite for the French "recognition" of the NTC. The French Foreign Minister told reporters at a conference in London on 29 March that the French diplomat sent to the NTC was “not an ambassador because we have not formally recognised a state through the Transitional National Council". The French sent a diplomatic envoy to liaise with the NTC. The French closed their embassy in Tripoli, withdrew their ambassador and formally handed over the 'protection of their interests to the Russians.

We cannot state (or infer) that all these foreign nations or other international bodies formally recognised the NTC provisional administrative authority as the "government of Libya". Most have simply not done this, and probably cannot do so legally. Others have done it but done it later whereas they are indicated as doing it much earlier in the conflict giving an entirely different sense of support for the NTC at a time they did not yet have it. The foreign ministry's of the nations that have confirmed recognition have done so in statements of carefully worded legalise and formal diplomatic language containing precise nuance appropriate to the recognition of a representative body lacking in the appropriate formal status of a national government. They have in the majority of cases clearly strived to word those statements in accordance with legal and diplomatic precedence.The commentary from Ambassador Gene Cretz, US Ambassador to Libya in April discussing why the US had not regognised the NTC is of interest in this, they were slow to regognise the NTC and where Clinton generally deflected the questions and failed to give an answer Gene Cretz did give a sketchy outline in a series of Q&A eventually referring to "issues with respect to what constitutes a government, (and) what constitutes precedence in United States history for recognition. So beyond that, I don't want to go say anything more".http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/161878.htm There is also the issue of nations that only recognise States, not governments, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. For them it is a lot easier to make a gesture of political support without undue legalistic hurdles, hence the UK expelled the existing ambassador on the pretext of reprisal for damage to the UK embassy in Tripoli, then welcomed an NTC envoy to replace him. I related to the comments by Hague on that matter earlier.

You suggest that I am using my "own conception of international law", I do not pretend to have any qualifications in international law, nor do I pretend to have any great skills in understanding it either. I have however referred you to clear concise articles, on topic and authored by people that do. Really in these circumstances I think that should be sufficient to offer you an accessable understanding of the issues that you appear to be strenuously avoiding addressing here.

Having said that it must however be qualified that there is considerable questioning of both the legality and the lack of precedence for the level of recognition that many foreign governments have conferred. The circumstances and the level of recognition has in the eyes of several governments and a good number of experts in matters of international law, lacked appropriate or sufficient legal precedence for recognition of an entity such as the NTC under established protocols of international law. France later gave a much higher level of recognition to the NTC to the one given at the outset, it matched a similar level given earlier by Italy and stated that from now on it considered the NTC as “the only holder of governmental authority in the contacts between France and Libya and its related entities.” This, in effect, amounted to recognition of the NTC as the government of Libya. http://www.asil.org/insights110616.cfm#_edn17 On June 12, the UAE also recognized the NTC “as a legitimate Libyan government.” The country’s foreign minister explained: “Based on this, UAE’s dealing with the TNC [Transitional National Council] will take the form of a government-to-government relationship in all issues relating to Libya.”

These are not, as you assert above based upon "interpreting them through your (my) own conception of international law". I have outlined firstly that the exact statements are precisely worded, and that those statements have a clear and readily defined meaning. Then I have provided extensive sources for you to look at in order to understand this. These are not my own personal interpretations rather they are those of experts in international law and foreign relations. This level of foreign recognition, what ever it may be cannot magically transform the NTC into a national government, most especially when the NTC say themselves they are not yet constituted as one. Some of the issues that opens up relate to the authority under which the armed forces of other nations can invade or attack, or even give aid to rebels and insurgency movements in a foreign nation. If they do so with the consent of the national government it is different, however the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was not consenting. When it became immediately apparent the intervention authority extended under UN provisions were being seriously breached several non-participant nations objected and many experts on international law started questioning the legitimacy of the NATO partners actions. A key issue is that no state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another. It was not really feasible to deny statehood to Libya, however if it could be established that the NTC is the legitimate government of Libya then the problem goes away and the breaching of several significant international conventions is by default swept aside. This is a very simplistic analysis and it is not appropriate to delve into this in depth here but that issue had a lot to do with the pressure to 'visualise' the NTC as a legitimate government and has a lot to do with the PR campaign aspect of the Libyan conflict. Some have referred to this as Perception management .The other standout issue is the matter of accessing the reserves of the Libyan government held in accounts in places such as the US and other nations. Legitimisation of the NTC facillitates that, there were reasons to speed that through, and equally reasons not to in terms of defacto control of the frozen assets as well as the opportunity it gave key players to have leverage over the NTC. Ongoing issues will no doubt involve negotiation of the long term holding and use of those reserves, also the projected claims against those reserves by the contributors to the NATO and Nato affiliated governments who expended military and logistics resources on the Libyan conflict.

I have made abundantly clear several times in my commentary that the statements of foreign leaders, foreign ministers and indeed the NTC's own published interpretation are more valid sources than media headlines. I have also pointed out that the headlines of the source material often conflict quite clearly with the content and quoted sections within those cited media reports. In some cases the journalistic interpretation in the body of the article is in clear conflict with the headline or the quoted statements contained. Possibly this is outcome of sub-editing and editorial policy, possibly it is reflecting a lack of understanding of the language of foreign affairs and international law, that is difficult to assess and is not the point at issue. The essential issue is that as WP editors we need to look beyond media headlines, hype, mis-reportage and the clear apparent and documented campaign of perception management that has been orchestrated during and preceding the period of conflict in Libya.

When detailing the status of a body such as the NTC we should not be relying on media headlines or popular interpretation to guide us in article content, context and theme. To do this may lead to a potential misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the status of the NTC. As I outlined above that is very problematic as it may mask the issues surrounding the legality not of the NTC an administrative authority but more critically obfuscate the obligations of participants in the NATO led action against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the military action against civilian areas and the killing of civilians in combat operations, the destruction of the infrastructure of a sovereign state and a litany of other complex issues. As many commentators experienced in international law and foreign relations have already commented, this leaves the participant nations in potentially serious conflict with many aspects of international law and treaties.

• Response2.

You have claimed I have "suggest(ed) something about the NTC's international status that isn't the case", I have not done this at all, the status is clearly defined by the foreign government statements and the NTC has seemingly been quite scrupulous in detailing the statements verbatim and in quotation marks, I assume to ensure there is no interpretive quality to their information. Many of their communications and statements have very responsible and clear in that, and accordingly very truthful and exact. I would also assume these NTC statements and attributions of international support have had clear scrutiny by people with prior senior ministerial and diplomatic service experience. I think it is important we recognise that and do not editorialise here. We should also just stick to the facts. If someone does not understand the terminology then they can either draw their own conclusions, refer to an authoritative source, or do a google search on the quoted statement in the article. This should, and does lead the curious toward a correct definition and understanding of the terminology. In my opinion that is the correct way to pursue an encyclopedic representation of the events and detail surrounding it. However you apparently think this is mere "semantics", I think it is mere fact. WP is not intended to be a tabloid like venue, we are assuming the readership has a desire for knowledge, we should not truncate that process by denying access to factual detail and replacing it with interpretive detail. Maybe you are correct, it should go to a sub-article such as the one covering 'recognition'. I think it is great to list out the nations and other bodies that have conferred recognition, however that does not actually describe the quality or definition of recognition, although I do note it is at least clarified in some aspects by paraphrasing many of the various statements. However it appears no attempt has been made to clarify what the statements of recognition mean. Readers can do a web search on a quoted statement as I outlined above but the glaring inadequacy of that sub-article as there is no single mention that the NTC is not the government of Libya. As the newsmedia of the western world is awash with misleading statement about the NTC being recognised as the government of Libya a reader may readily assume all these nations have recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, which is not actually the case. This does not even need to be a statement of much greater detail other than a paragraph or two explaining what the recognition actually means. This is very clearly explained in the article I have already referred you to several times, maybe you have not read it, it is not hard to understand and is written in very clear English. The American Society of International LawVolume 15, Issue 16, Recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council. http://www.asil.org/insights110616.cfm explains all this. Perhaps if you read that article you will understand that the recognition of the Libyan National Transitional Council is an entirely different thing to the popular misconception.

• Response3.

I am not new to WP, I do understand consensus editing, however you jumped in on an active edit, and block reverted and 5 times in 24 hours. From the outset you were combative and deriding. You have suggested that for me to edit on that article I must seek consensus to anything I wish to change , apparently even including my own previous edits. Yet I note you have a habit of not even leaving edit summary notes, you are not seeking consensus on you own modifications to the article and you have behaved in a most proprietary manner from the outset. I make no claim to any abilities to get my edits word perfect on every attempt, I often upload, sometimes in error and frequently present typos and spelling errors and sometimes appalling sentence structure. I expect to make immediate remedial edits and I do not expect someone to commence a series of block reverts within 2 minutes of my edit. I did explain my edit on the Discussion page, rather than take the issue there you were busy block reverting any edit attempt I made your response was:

It isn't "incorrect" just because you don't believe it. You've already revealed yourself on this Talk page to be skeptical of sources Wikipedia considers WP:RS; you claim to have your own understanding of what the situation in Libya is, and it bleeds through in your editing through weasel phrases like "so-called" and your cherry-picking of Jibril's quotes. Your edit clearly and obviously violated multiple provisions in WP:LEAD and contained prominent examples of WP:SYNTH, going beyond what sources say to construct your own narrative. That's not what Wikipedia is for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "letting go", I let go of your reactionary, insulting, condescending and article possessive reaction to my edit a long time ago. The issue I have with you is your determined ongoing efforts to build straw men and your inclination to obfuscate and avoid a qualified response to the actual issue of formalised international recognition of the Libyan NTC. Your blatantly dismissive attitude toward information sourced to the NTC, various foreign ministers and clear unambiguous opinion provide by experts in foreign relations and international law is disturbing and innappropriate. You continue to challenge these sources in your allegations here but give no substance to your allegations that my sources are incorrect or deficient, rather you say that I am misinterpreting them. They are what they are, no less and no more, especially if they are a direct quotation by a foreign minister, senior diplomat or expert on international law and foreign relations. Unless you can offer me some pretty good credentials concerning your own understanding of the nuances of diplomatic and foreign relations language and phraseology then I will continue to prefer that offered by qualified and published experts. I might add that Gene Cretz, the US Ambassador to Libya, made an effort to define this as long ago as April of this year in explaining why the US was so slow to recognise the NTC http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/161878.htm The legalise is very important in foreign relations, especially in regard to the recognition of a government. Just because the majority of the news media may have inadaquately defined the issue and the political statements and dismissively skipped over it does not suggest that we need to do the same thing here. In fact I believe that if we just follow suit we are merely parroting the media and political spin, surely that is the job of the tabloid press and we should be strenuoulsy avoiding falling into the trap of validating misleading or deceptive commentary here.

You have suggested that I am not taking the statements of government ministers and other officials at "face value". Your comments are deceptive and flawed. The "face value", of their statements are actually sometimes very clear and very precise, they are also commonly misreported. The NTC has seemingly been scrupulous at presenting those statements accurately and precisely, however 'interpretation' remains problematic here in these WP articles with an overbearing reliance on potentially inaccurate editorialised media reportage and an equally dismissive outlook upon things like official statements from govt ministries and direct quotations. You appear to be trying to dismiss fact as being merely "semantic". Semantics (logical meaning) is actually most important here when defining if an entity is a government. That also logically returns us to the key point that the NTC cannot be recognised as a government if they have not yet formed one, but they can be recognised as an entity preparing to form one. I have made efforts to address that issue in the article. I note that some of that has now been adopted. I do not appreciate your quite clear resistance and blocking of article editing simply because you have judged that I have a POV and have decided it does not fit with your assessment of appropriateness. Really I think your behaviour is very transparent and very shallow. Perhaps you would like to start explaining each and every one of your own edits to comply with consensus, or have I missed something here and you have automatic consensus and do not need to seek it whereas I do. I note in looking at the recent edit histories that in just the last 3 days you have made at least 5 article edits and not even cared to leave an edit summary note. I guess that makes a neat number match with your 5 block reverts of my editing in 24 hrs. Your sense of entitlement in regard to these articles is dazzling. It is interesting that you continue to lecture me on WP policies, I cannot make an edit without "consensus", yet you think you do not need to even need to leave an edit summary. --Felix (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see that I cannot convince you to change your approach. If you feel like working toward a solution, let me know; I'm tired of responding to your increasingly long replies here that all say the same things (sources are wrong, my assumptions are correct, Kudzu1 is a horrible editor to whom I shouldn't bother listening). It's not going anywhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Look why don't you just work toward your own solution, just go ahead and be validated by the mass media as you have been. I am sure their reporting of the entire Libyan event has been entirely independent at all times and they would never have really borne any influence of propaganda, spin or dishonesty in reportage. I was probably just entirely wrong about that and certainly quite wrong headed. I actually had the whole thing confused with somewhere in the Balkans and made a terrible mistake. I am afraid I may have got this whole thing inadvertently muddled up with Yugoslavia. It just turned out to be a bit of a confusion on my map of the area. Certainly I don't think you need any assistance from me anyhow as you clearly have a narrative already in mind for these Libyan articles and I would not be of any help with that other than to suggest you could consider borrowing some of the interpretive aspects of the Yugoslavian events and just transpose them over to the libyan articles, it may actually be quite economical. You do certainly seem to have the story telling pretty much in hand already though. There is certainly no need for any silly quest for encyclopedic integrity here, just make sure some of the historical content looks a bit like something in a popular mainstream encyclopedia and then follow the mainstream western press headlines for cues on the more contemporary article content. Really you should just go ahead and whip up something that sounds suitable.

If it turns out that any of the sources are questionable or inaccurate just ignore it. I completely agree with your suggestion, it is always best to just take things at face value. Anyway most people just look at the headline and the opening paragraph so very few will pick that the narrative often does not fit with the more factual aspects that might inadvertently be provided in a source. Just keep with the good editorialised commentary and certainly avoid anything like quotations as they may turn out to conflict with broader and more readily digestible interpretations.

It is good to avoid a lot of explaining of things, really people are just looking for an easy and accessible confirmation of an established narrative and are far to busy to be bothered with something that may challenge that or upset their already established thinking. You already have a much neater solution in just telling them what they need, and want to hear. There is certainly no need to clutter the article with any information that deflects from a pleasant simplistic narrative and definitely no need to entertain any concepts of illegality or impropriety of behaviour in regard to the NATO backed intervention in Libya. It would certainly be best to just ignore that altogether if possible and deflect any inclination to head in that direction, most certainly do not mention it anywhere in any of the articles. There is also no need to even hint at the objections and severe reservations expressed by of some of the international community.

I am really looking forward to coming back and having a read of all the Libya articles later and I hope I will be able to see the full details of the successful humanitarian bombing missions over the cities and towns of Libya and read a tally of the thousands of innocents who's lives were protected by blowing them to bits and explosively dismantling the nations infrastructure with precision guided ordinance. It would be good to see some more elaboration on how the whole intervention in Libya was conducted with the unqualified and enthusiastic support of the international community. The articles already do that very well but it could have some more enthusiasm, maybe some encouraging quotations from Hillary Clinton on the advantages that democracy, privatisation, a full free market economy and the western investment banking system can bring to Libya.

I will look forward to reading a glowing account of the seamless transition to democracy that will be happening in the next few weeks. Certainly do not bring up any unpleasant details here, it is surely a lot less confusing to just provide people with what most of them probably want to find anyway and is certainly far more upbeat. Do not even think about any complex issues or go digging up anything that conflicts with a happy ending. The story that needs telling here is of course the true and correct picture of a nation liberated from tyranny and oppression. The story tells a lot better if it depicts the new administration free of the encumbrance of any association with the previous regime, blessed with the unanimous support and comprehensive recognition of the world political leaders and confident in the knowledge that everything that happened was and still is, in full accord with international conventions and entirely circumspect in regard to all matters of international law. Best way to ensure that is just don't mention anything that conflicts with the existing article narrative, then it does not require any explanation of any kind. I have already printed off some copies of the current article recently developed under your excellent stewardship and have placed them in a small room we have set aside here in the house for visitors occasional needs. I will make sure to print off some more as new versions emerge so I can keep the stock in there well supplied. Do keep up the good work on the Libyan articles. -- Felix (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Libya

I am not sure about the new flag of Libya. Nowadays the central black band of the flag shown on Wikipedia is larger than the red and the green bands. If you google "libya flag" you will see that illustrations of the flag usually have a black band larger than the other two bands, but all photos (showing protesters in Libya) have a flag whose three bands have the same size. So, which is the official flag? Is there an official website of Libya? Or is there an official website of the UN showing the flags of all countries? has Libya officially changed the flag with a new law? or is the one that we see not official yet? --Clothwants2011 (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the flag is defined in the constitutional declaration, but the status of laws in general is unclear as the current government is basically only the government because nothing else in Libya qualifies and the international community supports it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Factbook says the black is double size (although it's not so obvious to me in that picture, damn optical tricks). Libyan UN page has one with a large black line. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The flag, when made official in 1951, has the stripes as 1:2:1 and the constitutional draft this year has the same dimensions. So it is supposed to be 1:2:1x8 (1x2 ratio). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The flags being waved by the protesters were probably homemade and unofficial. Not surprising considering that Qaddafi probably wouldn't have let old-style Libya flags be manufactured during his reign, and so only now would there be the possibility of an industry creating 'official' Libya flags. 65.203.128.130 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

new interim Prime minister named

according to the BBC, a new interim prime minister, Abdel Rahim al-Kib, has been named by the NTC. Link to BBC story --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nvm. I wasn't quick enough - someone else already got it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian Israel and Jewish Affairs Council is a propaganda front and NOT a reputable organisation to get factual references from

The allegation that Anti-Nuclear groups and Australian Trade Unions were being funded by Gadaffi is baseless. AIJAC has not supplied any proof of this, and a quick check of the link shows that...surprise surprise...it's a DEAD LINK! Either that or the page never existed in the first place.

I thought we deal with facts in Wikipedia?

I wonder who put it in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.70.31 (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

The line that says "home to the Severian dynasty, was at its height" under "Roman era" has an incorrect link to the article 'Severian' when it should say 'Severan dynasty' and be linked to the article of the same name. 65.203.128.130 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Libya under Muammar Gaddafi 1969–2011 section

Quote from article: "In addition, the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people,[dubious – discuss] employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing."

Do we have any reliable sources for the financial assistance for housing? I have seen this claim often ranging from 10.000$ to 64.000$ and didnt really think about it until Nizar Mhani (Niz Ben-Essa) of the Free Generation Movement in libya "debunked" a wide range of myths, one of them being:

"Claim: All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family." And his answer was: This is a well known rumour and a common joke in Libya. Whilst it may have been passed as official legislation, I know of not a single family who has been given this grant. The backbreaking bureaucracy associated with such grants and loans make them more or less impossible to obtain." https://www.facebook.com/notes/libya-outreach-group/myths-of-the-gaddafi-regime-explained/290695180954751

Of course him posting it on facebook doesnt make a very good counter source but i do note we dont have any sources for the claim in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is he still?

"Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second-eldest son of Muammar Gaddafi, is involved in a green development project" 113.197.209.114 (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he gets out much these days. Good catch. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Libyan cuisiene is mediterranean not african. Bazeen is not a cake.

Libyan cuisiene is mediterranean not african. Bazeen is not a cake whoever wrote this article is totally ignorant of Libyan food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnmbadi (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This article was written by several hundreds users and not all of them are experts in libyan food specialities. If you want to edit it, do it. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Current state of the legal system in Libya

I suggest a short summary of this AP-article be added to the end of the Government and Politics section. The last paragraph in this section already makes some statements about the legal system. The section is incomplete, if the information from this article is missing. --Dinarsad (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

This page has been vandalized. Clicking anywhere in the body of the article redirects the user to "<link removed>"

69.141.233.179 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was mostly likely a case of someone vandalising a template on the page, it seems to have been fixed now--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was Template:Ports if you're interested--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2012

This page has been hacked and everytime I click within the Libya page (whether on a link or on white space), a page opens accusing the Jews of causing 9/11. Please correct this. 65.207.184.12 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• See above. It has now been fixed. Jeancey (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Under "Demographics", the map links to the spam page about Jews and 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.64.208 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I just looked and clicked the map, and all it did was bring me to the image page for that picture. Are you sure its from this page and not malware on your computer? Jeancey (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You just need to clear your WP:CACHE--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clicking on any location within the page still opens a page accusing Jews of causing the 9/11 attacks.

From this end the problem has been fixed, you just need to clear your cache and it should sort it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Update

There is a new official coat of arms of Libyan Republic, see below:

• Prime Minister of Libya - in the head of page...
• Ministry of foreign affairs and International cooperation - in the head of page too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.65.169 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll change the logo, If someone is think other way I will change it back, but in the official website there is a new logo. Chess0Mate (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be coat of government, not state. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

New state?

It says that Libya gained independence from Italy 10'th February 1947, and 24 December 1951 from UK. Should it be included that it became The Republic of Libya 24 October 2011? --195.0.176.100 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all it didnt became a republic and second of even if it would, or will, state entity still remains. Take France infoboy as an example. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is completely a new state. It should be added I totally agree.--86.73.38.23 (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be vastly different from Gaddafi's Libya, but the state of Libya remains. Like Ellsworth said, it is NOT the Republic of Libya. At the moment, its just Libya. Jeancey (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Britannica reports Libya official name is now provisionally The Libyan Republic, also NTC chairman has referred to this name in interviews this year. Recommend we modify accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So now Western countries also choose the names of other countries as well?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.109.65 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

official name

I have removed the edit by User:Jwkozak91 about the official name "Libyan Republic". Please provide references to official government documents or constitutional texts where it states that the official name is "Libyan Republic". A link to EB or other sources that themselves do not provide first-hand proof is not sufficient. Since not even a constitution is in place yet, I suspect there is none at the moment. Gryffindor (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Interim Constitutional Declaration uses name Libya only, therefore it should stay as it is. NTC used on its website for few months during civil war name Libyan Republic but stopped using sometimes during the summer. That is the source of this naming issue. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean up needed

The section where Districts are listed in order of population has a map of Libya after every single district nearly doubling the length of the whole Libyan article with redundant maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.4.155 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Head of State

Ok people, serious stuff. Why do we have head of GNC as head of state. Interim Constitution does not specify who is the head of state and this is just going from my memory, but I am pretty sure that NTC passed law that appointed head of NTC as head of state who names the government. This does not longer applies for GNC. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

40 years, not 34

Libya was ruled by Gaddafi for approximately 40 years, not 34. The sentence is misleading and insinuates that the people were ruled by him for only 34 years, when in fact they had to endure a whole 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shafeioswa (talk • contribs) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was probably a typo. One I do not see now so I guess that was taken care of. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually its closer to 42 years since Gaddafi seized power in 1969 of September and wasn't toppled until October of 2011. Even though the Jamahiriya state existed for 34 years, Gaddafi effectively ruled for 42. Someone needs to change the heading to reflect that. I would do it myself but the article is locked. 70.74.250.32 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is questionable since Gaddafi rule over Libya in 2011 was limited (half of the country under rule of rebels which expanded to 100 percent). So his rule during previous 41 years was not the same or similar to that of 42nd year. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Education

Libya's education is the highest in the entire continent of Africa. --108.92.162.111 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

State of Libya?

Is any offcial confirmation of this new formal name? I've found in web only press information about this, nothing official. For formal (official) name of country we need something more than press relations. Aotearoa (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I found it on Libya.tv which is state-controlled but GNC website is messy, they do not release all laws they pass and its all in Arabic so its pain to find it. Since you speak arabic maybe you could look at the GNC site and try to find something like that dating from 8th January? Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were another user. Since I don´t see many Arabic users I´ll just try to lurk around and see what I find. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Still no official sources nor any offcial confirmation. The new long name is not used in lists of countries published by UN, EU USA, UK, and other countries as well as in its official documents. So, I propose to remove this name untill confirmation by official sources (see the case of new long name of Myanmar – new name has been adopted half year after press had informed about it). Aotearoa (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be probably for the best. I´ll try to dig more, maybe I´ll find something. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone could read Arabic, the writing printed on these new Libyan dinar banknotes could help answer the question. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

On the top: مصرف ليبيا المركزي = Central Bank of Libya. And nothing more about state name. Aotearoa (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. I've found confirmation on the web site of Libyan Ministry of Foreign Affars and International Cooperation but in Arabic only. Aotearoa (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is predicated on falsehoods

This article begins by reiterating the lie propagandized by western media that Libya was a simple dictatorship ruled by one man. The truth is that Libya (prior to NATO occupation) was governed by a radical direct democracy system comprised of a number of vibrant public institutions with no direct equivalent in western republics. Muammar Gaddafi held no official position within the Libyan government and his recommendations were widely publicized but were often rejected by the democratic bodies that considered them. This article should be corrected to reflect reality and not just western invade-and-conquer propaganda.

199.188.193.145 (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Try Conservapedia. Mezigue (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Or your local doctor. Now off you go. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are there scare-quotes around "liberation?"

I'm as cynical as the next person but that's POV is it not? --142.232.98.112 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is because the day that is celebrated could be debated. The day currently is celebrated as the day when the NTC took Tripoli, but the war didn't really end for another two months. That is my reasoning anyway. Jeancey (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

TheMythOfAwesome97 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC) could someone change the driving side for the Libya (Country) page from right to left ?

Source : I live There

You living there isn't actually a reliable enough source. Everything I can find online says right side of the road. Do you have any other evidence besides your word? Jeancey (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RudolfRed (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Is there a coat of arms for the State of Libya (not the NTC) out there? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a seal for the General National Congress; if there is a new national seal/arms, it's probably WP:NOTFREE.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn´t. That´s left for new constitution to decide. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Green Resistance

Should there be part of the page talking about the Green Resistance? I ask because they seem to be a major political and military presence in Libya. They have ambushed convoys, raided bases, brought entire cities such as Bani Walid under their control,assassinated high ranking government officials, and bombed many targets. They claim to control most of southern Libya. They also claim to have 90'000 combatants amend the support of the majority of Libyans.Red and black partisan (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course there should be, and not just that, the whole article embraces the idea that Libya was somehow "liberated" due to the events that started Feb. 11, instead of being re-occupied. That should be corrected since no "liberation" of any sort took place. The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has a majority of the people to back her up (which laready proofs the idea of a 'liberation' of Libya to be completely false and in contrast with the facts). Robheus (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Berber

I do this edit, because the "Berber language" is not official, to be added along with the Arabic language

Secondly, all the Libyans speak Arabic (Libyan dialect), and there are no other languages ​​used --41.254.31.59 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Madam / Sir,

First of all, the text you have removed does not state that the Amazigh name is the official name; that is indeed acknowledged. It merely states how the indigenous Amazigh populations refer to the country, which in turn brings me to the next point.

The statement you are defending, i.e. "all the Libyans speak Arabic (Libyan dialect), and there are no other languages ​​used" is at best an uneducated guest, and at worst a very biased description. As a matter of fact, sizeable Amazigh communities exist in Libya, and they use multiple linguistic varieties, including Nefusi and Tamahaq. You yourself have removed previously sourced information about the presence of these languages in Libya. Please refrain from doing so in the future and commit yourself to Wikipedia's standards of Wikipedia.

If you happen to be genuinely unaware of the fact that there actually are Amazigh-speaking Libyans, you could look up the names of known Amazigh performers such as Ali Ftis, Danya Ben Sassi, and other. You could as well check Libyan Amazigh media such as Libya Ibraren, and equally check that a Google search, google.com/search?q="berber"+"libya", requiring both words to appear returns around 3.5 billion entries, which is itself a significant return. You may also refer to previous events where Amazighs required the language to be official.

To summarise, I will be reverting your edit, and I ask to try to come up with a structure that you find suitable, keeping both names and further specifying that the only current official name is the State of Libya. You could check the example of the consensus achieved about Tunisia. To reiterate, the Amazigh name for Libya is indeed not official, at least for the moment, yet it states how the indigenous Amazigh populations in Libya refer to the country.

Also, please make sure that your future contributions are written using proper English and with accompanying references.

Regards

E3 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not official, so do not reverted my edit. And of course, Libya has the Berber, especially Houara (the most prevalent), but they speak Arabic and identify themselves as Arabs --41.254.31.33 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Madam / Sir,

I hope you read my previous response, and understood it. It does not help you to omit the same information from the Tunisia page. Please refrain from such behaviour otherwise I will have to report you. I am still hoping we could reach a comprehensive consensus on this.

Regards

E3 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• E3، فلنكتب بالعربية وخصوصاً لدي إعتقاد بأنك عربي، أولاً ليبيا وبقية البلدان العربية (باستثناء المغرب) ليست معترفة باللغة البربرية ولغتها هي العربية لذا هنا في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية يتم كتابة الاسماء الرسمية (الغير إنجليزية) في بداية المقالة، لذا تعديلاتي صحيحة. ثانياً في ليبيا جميع السكان يتحدثون باللهجة الليبية ولا غيرها. كما أمل أن تكون قد فهمت وألا تصر على أي سخافات --41.254.31.33 (talk)

• Google Translate translates that Arabic answer as "E3,Let to write in Arabic language and especially I have a belief that you are Arabian, firstly the Libya and other Arab countries (except Morocco) is not recognizing the Berber language and language is Arabic, so here in the English Wikipedia is written the names of official (non-English) at the beginning of the article, so my edits are correct. Secondly in Libya all Libyan people speak Libyan dialect nor the other. I hope you to be understood and not insist on any absurdities". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony, I hope from you to solve the problem, a Berber names writing in articles, the Berber is not of their names, and especially what I observed in the English Wikipedia, as "Amazigh" users impose their amendments and administrators are protecting of them edit articles, I will not mention names - (I used Google Translate) --41.254.31.33 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

41.254.31.33,

Yet again, please use English and commit to Wikipedia's standards. If you think that you cannot use English, Wikipedia has plenty of other languages where you might feel more confident and contribute in a more efficient way.

Undocumented claims such as yours, "as "Amazigh" users impose their amendments and administrators are protecting of them edit articles, I will not mention names" are not of any help at all, Madam / Sir. Please either source your edits or refrain from such comments that do not help advance the encyclopedia at all.

Regards.

E3 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the article, this (Amazigh: ⵍⵉⴱⵢⴰ Libya) and this ⵜⴰⵎⵓⵔⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵉⴱⵢⴰ (Berber) Tamurt n Libya Supposed to removed, because the Berber is not an official language in Libya (Arabic is the official and it is ليبيا), and in Spoken languages Berber and in notes and Amazigh languages in certain western and southern areas. Supposed to removed, because it is incorrect --41.254.31.33 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 41.254.31.33 and thank you for your contribution,

Allow me to reiterate my previous post: "The Amazigh name for Libya is indeed not official, at least for the moment, yet it states how the indigenous Amazigh populations in Libya refer to the country". You may see my previous post for a detailed answer. Reasons for removing an information that is in essence useful and not harmful should be well-established. I have nevertheless removed the Amazigh name from the right panel, as that is reserved for the official name only, and kept the alternative Amazigh name in the introduction. See similar examples previously mentioned and other.

You seem to contradict yourself about the status of Amazigh within Libya, you have earlier said: "And of course, Libya has the Berber, especially Houara (the most prevalent)" but you claim that they speak (a certain linguistic variety of) Arabic. If you need proof that there actually are Libyans whose mother tongue is not Arabic, you may browse related material on Wikipedia. If you may need further Libyan material in Tamahaq, Nefusi, or any other Amazigh linguistic variety, aside from the examples I have already provided in my previous post, please do feel free to search yourself and / or ask.

Regards

E3 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• E3, There is no hope of the debate with an idiot like you, I need another user (not an idiot like you or Amazigh others, where they left the Arabic version of Wikipedia and distortion of information here and in the French version of Wikipedia), Regards --41.254.31.33 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 41.254.31.33,

Insulting other Wikipedia contributors does not help you with explaining your opinion. You may read the same previously-exhibited points again and aspire to understand and evaluate them objectively.

Regards

E3 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

New population statics

The Libyan Bureau of Statistics and Census has lunched new statistics about rates in Libya

http://bsc.ly/index.php?P=vf&sec_Id=17&dep_Id=6# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpens Spraypaint (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.171.226 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Feb 11 "revolution" -- liberation or occupation?

There is clearly a big fog about the events that took place in Libya since this so-called Feb.11 "revolution", which is cited in the article as being a "liberation" (instead of a more proper designation as "occupation" as many of those so called rebels were foreign fighters, paied for by Qatar, most of them from Al Qaeda and clearly had an imperialist agenda in overthrowing one of the last remaining socialist states).

Clearly, such approaches are very biased, and reflect the western imperialist media propaganda, but are not very well founded on evidence on the ground.

The new "government" has not and will not succeed in controlling the country. Instead rebel militias are de facto controlling the country. The government services have collapsed, causing breaks in electricity deliveries, water deliveries, and so on. Basic security is lacking, due to militias that don't operate under governmemnt control. Oil production never recovered to the pre-2011 levels. De facto the east part (Benghazi) has formed her own oil companies and is no longer part of Libya.

Democracy in Libya is just a farce and part of western media propaganda. Libya today is more like a failed state controlled by rival militias.

The Green resitance are still fighting, esp. in the south, and in many cities all over Libya the Green Flag has been raised. Robheus (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is serious confusion of terminology in the article sections titled "Revolution" and "Post-revolution era". As the preceding section ("Independence" etc) makes clear, the 'Al Fateh' Revolution took place in 1969, and Gaddafi was "leader of the revolution". It follows therefor that the 2011 armed rebellion / insurgency / uprising was a counter-revolution. I propose changing the section title "Revolution" to read "Counter-revolution" or "2011 Insurgency" or "Rebellion". Anyone have any objection? 41.134.206.2 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What any of us think is really not at all important. What is important is reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to source a heading? (Reason for proposed change is self-evident and elaborated above, (i.e. to replace inaccurate and misleading heading). 41.134.206.2 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Revolution is fine. Calling it a 'counter revolution' is a violation of NPOV it seems to me. It has been called a revolution in a lot of reliable sources as well. For clarity's sake saying 'post 2011 revolution' rather than 'post revolution' is fine I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If by "a lot of reliable sources" you are referring to the dominant narrative purveyed by Western mainstream mass media based in NATO-member states, then IMHO we are possibly dealing here not so much with NPOV as with some kind of systemic bias. It is worth noting that while those media consistently favour the word "Revolution", the insurgents are somehow never referred to in Western mass media reports as "revolutionaries" but rather paradoxically as "rebels". Moreover, "revolution" implies a clear ideological imperative, whereas as events have proved, the 2011 revolt lacked any cohesive political ideology and was driven largely by the imperatives of radical Islamic religious fundamentalism.

The only academic study of the 2011 events that I'm aware of, written by an reputable expert in the field, does not use the word "Revolution" at all, but refers instead to "uprising". So, I'm going to go with the expert's terminology, rather than be influenced by the gutter-Press. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: the academic source referred to above is Kuperman, Alan J. “Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene.” Policy Brief, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, September 2013. Published in summer 2013 issue of journal International Security.

I intend to use this source in the article once I've figured out how to do citation markup. (Newbie. Learning curve. Thanks for your patience). 41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We go by the 'mainstream narrative' that is how it works. I would like others to comment if possible. I don't have much of a problem with the term 'uprising'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The "mainstream narrative" in the Western society of nations is not necessarily the same "mainstream" in other parts of the world. If we go only with the Western narrative (as reflected in the present Libya article) then IMHO that would be in violation of NPOV. Note that the reference sources cited in the article are nearly all from Western sources, to the exclusion other, non-Western reliable sources available in English language translation. But enough of this for now, in the absence of further commentators to build consensus. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

The lead currently summarises the geography of the country, its economy and development and recent (2011-) history. It needs to be expanded with a summary of Libya's history, its culture and demographics (including religion and ethnic groups). -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the geographical stuff in the lead be moved to the Geography section and a short summary of that (Geography) section then be used to replace the moved text. Same applies to other content in the lead, which I suggest should be moved to relevant sections and lead being reworked accordingly. I will do it if nobody else feels up to the task, but some early consensus on my suggestion would be helpful at this time.41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. User Hazhk above seems to imply the current lead is satisfactory in some respects but needs to be expanded, whereas I'm suggestion the opposite. It needs to be contracted and reworked entirely to be consistent with the relevant rules, which are clear enough. A fair amount of time and effort involved here if lead is to brought up to standard, hopefully without any later edit wars. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Government

Considering the Libyan parliament was sacked by a rogue general who now presents himself as the head of a Libyan version of SCAF, I think we should probably note that the government of Libya is disputed in the infobox and article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Libyan parliament has not been "sacked". Parliament building was attacked a couple of times by Hafter forces, and current parliament moved to a "safe" venue somewhere else, as yet not attacked, but who knows what's to happen next. Considering the present, volatile situation, we should avoid trying to report the non-encyclopeadic news as it unfolds. Rather wait for the dust to settle in the fullness of time. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that Libya today is a de facto failed state with no functional government, with three different "prime ministers" claiming legitimacy, and with numerous rival Islamic militias vying with each other for military-political control, I suggest the "Government" section be scrapped for the time being. Whatever can be salvaged should be moved to "post-2011 uprising" section and brought suitably up to date. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)