Jump to content

Talk:Libya/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Libya under Gaddafi revert

On 1 July 2014‎ Bgwhite (talk | contribs)‎ . .Removed what s/he described in the edit summary as: "POV edits. Remove 2009 Gaddafi statement... Not about Libya, but what Gaddafi purposed, (sic) also POV. Keep this about Libya and summation. This has already been argued to death at :Libyan Civil War"

The relevant section is headed "Libya under Gaddafi". Gaddafi's policy statement for Libya is therefor within that topic, nor is it POV. Whatever has been "argued to death" in a separate article is irrelevant to the present Libya article, which is the main overview article and as such has precedence. Moreover, edit summaries are not the appropriate place for discussion. If Bgwhite wants to argue, let him or her argue and gain consensus in the Talk place here, which Bgwhite has not done, thereby encouraging an edit war.41.134.206.2 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite also appears to have reverted further content without specifying same in the edit summary. That kind of behavior sails dangerously close to vandalism. Stop it please. If you genuinely want to improve the article in good faith, then there's lots of room to do so.41.134.206.2 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with Bgwhite's reversion. You made the changes, per WP:BRD you have to justify them. Calling someone a vandal is the opposite of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"In 2009 Gaddafi was elected chairman of the 53-member African Union..." has nothing to do with Libya as the article goes. This is either about Gaddafi or African Union. Throwing in non-related statements into the paragraph doesn't work either... "Libya revived ties with Italy, one of its former colonial rulers." This has nothing to do with anything in the previous paragraph.
"A 2013 policy brief published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs" is nothing but a POV edit, especially the weight given and prose used.
The three book added in the Bibliography are all POV that follows-up on the Belfer report. 3 of 4 book mentioned are about a one-sided view of the war.
What's said at Libyan Civil War directly pertains to what is written here. Discussion takes place all over Wikipedia and just because it doesn't take place in one spot, does not make it invalid. This article's statements on the war should be a summary of the main article. Recent history usually does take up more real estate than past history. However you are only focusing on the past few years and in a "pro"-Gaddafi point of view. I say "pro" in scare quotes because that always oversimplifies an argument. Usually people are not just "pro" or "anti", but somewhere in between. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you comply with wikipedia policy re RS. The Belfer reference is reliably sourced to an item written by an expert in the field. It is an academic source -- the only academic source cited in the entire Libya article BTW. Simply because it deviates from the dominant Western narrative does not make it my POV. Encyclopedic content is supposed to reflect all viewpoints, just so long as they're reliably sourced. You know the rules, so stick to them. Same goes for the books added to Bibliography, of which you complain, including one written by a reputable professor of anthropology.
The systemic bias of some North American-based WP editors is wellknown, and their bias violates the NPOV rule, which of course they will never admit to. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in edit wars with editors like you and Dbrodbeck who appear to be demonstrating some serious ownership issues. If it's your intention to drive good-faith editors away, then clearly you're succeeding. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Another thing that's clear is the obvious determination on the part of some editors to underplay the significance of NATO's intervention, without which the so-called "revolution" would never have been possible and everyone knows this. Nor was the intervention really motivated by any "right to protect" civilians. It was aimed at regime-change, and everybody knows this as well, but you would never guess it from the bias of omission displayed in the relevant section of the article as it stands.
BTW, the sentence about Libyan-Italian ties which you cite, was not my contribution. It was there long before I started, and nobody seemed to take offence until now. All I did was change some of the wording for clarity. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, feel free to point out where I have violated policy and then please take me to ANI if you see a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If I've implied that you violated policy, then I withdraw the imputation. My remarks above are directed essentially at Bgwhite, though you're probably guilty by association, having given your support to his reversions of my edits as complained of. And no, I can't be bothered to go weeping crybaby fashion to ANI. If people can't work together harmoniously and collaboratively, then no amount of ANI referral or gnashing of teeth is going to cure the malaise. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:AGF. Nobody here is doing anything against policy, except your assumption of bad faith and my 'guilt by association'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I have one edit, but you accuse me of ownership issues and driving editors away. You accused me of being a vandal. You accuse all North American editors of bias, yet more edits are made by Europeans or Asians. You are only adding anti-Nato material on a page ABOUT Libya and yet we have POV issues. You are the one making accusations of vandalism, ownership, bias, guilt by association, and yet we are the ones not working harmoniously, collaboratively or in good faith. As you have no intent of following WP:AGF yourself, there is no further need to talk. I'll continue revert anybody's POV edits and if you have problems, take it to ANI. (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite: I deny all your allegations above. Nor is it your prerogative to arbitrarily order me to ANI. I intend to adhere to WP:BRD (and a few other rules) whether you like it or not. Thank you for your interest and assurance of your good faith. A new discussion section below will follow shortly. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I look forward to a frank and fruitful discussion with you and/or whoever else wants to join in. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaches of policy by User talk:Bgwhite

Dbrodbeck says (above)"Nobody here is doing anything against policy ..." (except me, allegedly). So this discussion is initiated in terms of WP:BRD with a view to improving an understanding that may be acceptable to all interested parties and thus avoid an edit war.

User talk:Bgwhite has deleted content including three bibliographic entries on the grounds of what he wrongly alleges (see section above) is "POV", "one sided", "anti-Nato", "pro-Gaddafi", etc. In so doing, User talk:Bgwhite has violated policy as specified in policy shortcuts: WP:BALASPS; WP:BALANCE; WP:NOTTRUTH; WP:TRUTH; WP:VNT; WP:WEIGHT; WP:DUE; WP:BIAS;WP:WORLDVIEW; WP:V; WP:VERIFY; WP:VER; WP:VERIFICATION, among others.

Neutrality requires that an article must represent fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The item at issue which User talk:Bgwhite deleted, which deletion he then attempted to justify in terms of "policy", was properly sourced to Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. International Security purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.”

There can therefor be no question as to whether or not the above source conforms with WP policy. WP criteria for reliable sources (RS), specifies that “academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources”. In determining proper weight, editors must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it. When reliable sources diverge, editors must present what the divergent sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

User:Gwhite claims his deletions/reversion were done in good faith. If one accepts his assurance of good faith, then his breaches of policy can only be attributed to sloppy editing or to unconscious systemic bias. As far as I know, he has never complained of or reverted existing content and sources in the Libya article such as "Libyan terrorism: the case against Gaddafi", which is not supported by research documentation, and the tone and slant of which is stridently anti-Gaddafi, nor is it properly referenced, and it has been that way for a long time without any objection by Gwhite or anyone else for that matter. (see ref 56, Libya article). There are numerous, similar, other sources in the article that give weight to the dominant Western anti-Gaddafi narrative. So much for Gwhite's alleged concern for neutrality when complaining about the tone and slant of "anti-Nato" sources contributed in good faith by me in the interests of balance and NPOV. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think there is a policy breach, take it to ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your avoidance of engaging in reasoned discussion is noted, together with the identical avoidance and reluctance of Gwhite. It speaks louder than words.
Given the importance of systemic bias and the concerns raised about it by Jimbo Wales as quoted in mass media reports and elsewhere, the matters on record in this and the preceding thread will be referred directly to Mr Wales. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert 41.134.206.2 edits

I've reverted 41.134.206.2's edit again. Again this is POV pushing. Dbrodbeck an I agree that this is POV pushing. If you would like to discuss the edits, that would be fine. If you are only going to rant about me or the evils of Wikipedia, I again will not participate. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am with Bgwhite on this one as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not "ranting about the evils of WP", nor am I "pushing" my POV. I'm stating that Bgwhite as supported by Dbrodbeck is defying the rules. I have already defined my rationale and referred both of you to the relevant WP policies, reasoned and sensible discussion which you continue to evade on the basis of facetious and unconvincing excuses. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus for the edits. Hence I have reverted them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nor is there any consensus for your reversions.
Per WP:BRD you need to get consensus once there is a revert. You don't have it currently. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I politely invite you, once again, to justify in good faith your reversions as being in accordance with the relevant rules and guidelines that stipulate:
  • In determining proper weight, editors must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
  • Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it.
  • When reliable sources diverge, editors must present what the divergent sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

Should you refrain from discussing this in a sensible and constructive manner, it will be taken as concurrence that you have no justification for the reversions at issue. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not how bold, revert, discuss works. Your edits are pushing a fringe POV, assigning undue weight to a non-notable source, and using the main article for a country as a coat rack for a political argument. You don't just get to add controversial material and then claim it can't be removed because _________. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You are not discussing objectively, you're expressing a personal and unsubstantiated opinion. Please familiarize yourself with and address the specific policy issues that I have raised. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
PS - how can it be a "non-notable" source when it's written by an academic expert and published by a leading educational institution in the fields of geo-politics and international relations? Nor is it a "fringe POV", as defined by WP rules. Read them, or must I do that for you as well? 41.134.206.2 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW, New York Times is one of the sources that was reverted. I suppose, in your estimation and in the estimation of the "editor" who reverted it, that NYT is also a "non-notable" source. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Gwhite and Dbrodbeck for confirming, through your evasion and inability to discuss the issues I have specified above, that your biased reversions are in violation of wikipedia's core policies. If the two of you spent as much time and effort on diligently improving the article as you do spend on childish edit warring and on gaming the system, then the article would not be in the messy state that it is. People like you bring wikipedia into disrepute. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure everyone is ignoring you not because your arguments are so ironclad, but because you're yet another in a long, long parade of mendacious editors lecturing everyone about their limited Western mindsets, failing to assume good faith, and arguing in favor of things that are contrary to both reliable sources and common sense. I see no reason to engage with you further beyond assuring you consensus does not exist for your POV-pushing edits; I can't speak for any other editor, but I suspect those you mention may feel similarly. There are only so many hours in a day, and in light of your hostile, stubborn, and non-constructive attitude, I have none for you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfectly put. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
We'll see what Wikipeida Foundation has to say about that. In the meantime, consensual back-slapping is no substitute for intellectual honesty and integrity. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Just pointing out 41.134 that making childish threats like that will lead nowhere but to your being blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 06:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Just pointing out CBWeather that before making your own childish threat (about blocking), you might have benefited from familiarising yourself with the purpose(s) of the Communications Committee of Wikimedia Foundation (earlier referred to incorrectly by me as the "Wikipedia" Foundation). Thank you to all concerned for providing me with a excellent case study to bring to the committee's attention, and to cite in a mass media article about systemic bias etc at Wikipedia. Block me, sue me. See if I care. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I really pity people like you who think they can go through life attempting to bully others by fake name dropping. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I assure you there's nothing "fake" about the Communications Committee (ComCom), nor is it used for bullying tactics, (much as you, in your superior knowledge, might disagree). "The aim of the committee is to facilitate communication between the Wikimedia Foundation and the public. This includes the general public, the media, and the "internal" public ..." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee 41.134.206.2 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox should list government as "disputed"

All reports indicate the General National Congress has reformed and is meeting in Tripoli, and commands a base of support considering it to be Libya's legitimate government, while the House of Representatives is meeting in Tobruk and has its own supporters: [1] [2] [3]. (Meanwhile, of course, most of the country appears to be outside the direct control of either government: [4] [5]) -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No reports indicate that this is the legitimate government, or that the newly proclaimed GNC has the majority of old GNC membership. Reliable sources indicate that minority of members, belonging to losing parties, have claimed to have reconvened the GNC. The international community consider the house of representatives to be the only legitimate parliament. Contributorzero (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "legitimacy", it's a matter of verifiability. All reports indicate there are rival governments, one in Tripoli and one in Tobruk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
In 2011 at what point did we start showing the two governments? Perhaps that could be instructive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Time zone

Some sources state that Libya uses the EET time zone and not CET as stated in the Wikipedia article. Which one is correct? --Allanth (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS in Libya

This article on Libya should have some mention in it about the incursion of ISIS/ISIL into Libya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_occupation_of_Derna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_ISIL_Expansion_in_Eastern_Libya — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaEremita (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence

I am not 100% confident but isn't the following sentence misleading?

"Muammar Gaddafi remained in power until a US State Department-backed coup[11][12] in 2011 overthrew him."

The wording sugggests that the coup was, influenced, initated or suggested by the US State Department. While the US did ultimately back the coup against Gaddafi, it was Libyans who took up this fight to free themselves. If I am not mistaken, the US (specifically) only became involved after they were "criticized" for not acting. The specific nature of said criticism I do not recall.

69.158.169.223 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. The sources don't really back up what was written. I encourage others to comment here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It now says "a civil war, in which the rebels were supported by NATO".Scientus (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Changed to intro

I tried to make the intro a little better [6], especially as the header does not match the text. If there was only one kingdom with no successions I am hesitant to call it a kingdom. I think we should mention the form of government that Gaddafi implemented. I also could not find a source for the claim of expulsions from the country.Scientus (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have made these changes a number of times, and have been reverted a number of times by a number of editors. There is no consensus for your changes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is gone

What happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6443:1400:D1B2:C984:E18B:6A26 (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It was vandalism earlier today. Everything should be fine now. -McSly (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Article gone again.

Vandalisim i assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.142.88 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Official name: "State of Libya"?

According to these two-sources, the official formal name of Libya is and has been "State of Libya" since ~2014. Even in the article itself under the Etymology subsection, there is an (unsourced) sentence stating: "The current name, "State of Libya" (Arabic: دولة ليبيا‎ Dawlat Libya), was adopted unanimously by the General National Congress in January 2013.". Why is the full name in the article just 'Libya'? --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hellooo?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably because there's hardly a government left. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

HDI and developments under Gaddafi

Currently, the lead's "recent history" paragraph reads as follows:

In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution, remaining in power until the Libyan Civil War of 2011, in which the rebels were supported by NATO.[1] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production.[2] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe.[3][4]

In other words, "dictator grabbed power and did dictator stuff until NATO helped the people get freedom." I was surprised it made no mention of what is specifically addressed in the article regarding the social advancements projects in Libya under his rule and replaced it with:

In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution. From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in all of Africa. Without borrowing any foreign loans, this kept Libya uniquely debt-free. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. Much financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs, making the country a popular destination for labour migrants. In 2011, the country descended into a civil war , in which the rebels were supported by NATO.[5] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production.[6] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe.[7][8]

For unknown reasons, User:Mezigue reverted this due to alleged "POV-pushing". I noted that omitting it violates WP:DUE and that a lead should reflect the article. I was again reverted. I'm not sure there is anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The POV-pushing is the reason, therefore it is not "for unknown reasons". This is not an article about Gaddafi but an article about Libya, and putting an emphasis on what you perceive to be Gaddafi's achievements in a brief outlook of the country's entire history because you are worried about his reputation is textbook POV-pushing and pretty transparent. Mezigue (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mezigue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You have now repeatedly violated WP:GOODFAITH by assuming what my motivations or intentions are, and I'm warning you that that's not how one is supposed to communicate with others on Wikipedia. I will disregard any comments of yours about what you believe my agenda is here. You have not yet given a reason as to why you removed it, and have not yet proven why it's POV. Please properly engage in discussion without resorting to that again. For the record, completely leaving out 40 years of a country's history is problematic to say the least. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
1) I have not violated WP:GOODFAITH or assumed anything. You made your motivation clear in your earlier message: In other words, "dictator grabbed power and did dictator stuff until NATO helped the people get freedom." 2) I have given my reason for removing it. It's right there in my earlier message, but I'll say it again in case you did not understand: the introduction is a brief outline of the entire history of the country, and does not need glossy details selected to spin a fallen regime's reputation. 3) there is a paragraph on the Gaddafi period in the article (and also of course a dedicated article). It mentions the oil boom, the social advances and also the sponsoring of terror, military adventures etc... So it's not "completely left out". It is all there. 4) Disregard all you want but then do not keep repeating that I have not explained what I did explain. Mezigue (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
If you can't keep civil, I will not discuss it with you but add a tag for further discussion instead. Accusatory, assumptive and/or dismissive statements aren't helping. You accused me of POV-pushing a number of times, twice before I made that statement, meaning it was not because of that. I did not "make my motivation clear" when I wrote what I saw. And "putting an emphasis on what you perceive to be Gaddafi's achievements" is incorrect, as the article discusses literally this in the body and this is properly sourced. I would like to remind you that the lead should reflect the article. I take particular offense to "because you are worried about his reputation" and "spin a fallen regime's reputation". Such a claim is entirely unjustified. Not once have I accused you of intending to damage his/its reputation or promoting that of NATO. I would like it if you could do the same. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Very worrying what you report Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde). Indeed if all wikipedias in most languages report that income and HDI rose by Gadafi, this deserves to be mentioned. Besides, by African standards is an astonishing feat. Green beret1972 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources for official name

Two sources are included re its official name: The EU and the CIA World Fact Book. If you follow the links, both sources say its official name is plain "Libya". "Libya" is also the name used and notified to UN. If it's been changed to "State of Libya" proper sources are needed to show this. In the meantime I've removed the references to "State of" and the statement concerning a change having been made which did not cite any sources whatsoever. For avoidance of doubt:

  • U.S. CIA world factbook lists "Libya" as the long form name;
  • EU lists "Libya" as long form name;
  • UN uses "Libya" and includes the following note "Following the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 66/1, the Permanent Mission of Libya to the United Nations formally notified the United Nations of a Declaration by the National Transitional Council of 3 August changing the official name of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to "Libya" and changing Libya's national flag."Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bangladeshies"

This should read "Bangladeshis", but I can't make the change myself without possibly damaging the link.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The spelling "Lybia"

Is the spelling "Lybia" a valid historical spelling or just wrong? For disclosure pertains to the requested move of Lybia (crab genus) seen here.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


I think so, see here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lybia

International Recognition of Rival Governments

The legitimacy of the two rival governments in Libya is obviously a conscientious issue, but it should be noted that there were previous revisions of this article where the Tobruk-based government was repeatedly named as 'internationally recognised', despite only having gained such recognition from minorities in the Egyptian and Russian governments, whilst the Tripoli-based is recognised internationally and by the UN as a more viable and legitimate legislature. This can be verified by multiple media articles and organisations as well as a number of NGOs, e.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-partition-trump-administration-sebastian-gorka

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKBN12F051?il=0

However, there is some dispute as the Tobruk government did gain some international recognition before the Tripoli government was re-established, perhaps leading to some confusion:

http://www.ecfr.eu/mena/mapping_libya_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.196.122 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please protect this page

This page needs to be protected against vandalism.2605:6001:EB50:A900:AD66:471D:480B:D98A (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Updated "coat of arms"/emblem per new passports?

This article from February the 5th suggests that the new Libyan biometric passport will have a somewhat modified emblem. Currently the star and crescent on the old, green interim passports serves/had served as the de facto emblem/coat of arms of Libya. However, these new blue ones have a star and crescent where the crescent is slightly tilted and thicker, and the star is a bit off-center. Should the current emblem file on the page be updated to reflect this?--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please respond.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What is this state supposed to be called?

For a long time now there has been revisions over exactly what the official name for Libya is supposed to be now. It used to be "State of Libya", then just "Libya" with a reference, now the former again without a source.

However to further complicate matters, Encyclopedia Britannica lists the official name as "The Libyan Republic". The article seems to have been last updated January 4 of this year from what I read, but there is no primary evidence here either.

What is the official name for Libya, if there is any now? I can't seem to find any direct evidence here.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Libyan interim Constitutional Declaration adopted in 2011, which is the closest thing the country currently has to a constitution, first uses just "Libya", then later uses the term "State of Libya", but without explicitly specifying that "state" is part of the country's official name [7]. The now-defunct General National Congress then passed a law in 2013 declaring that "State of Libya" was the official name [8]. In the ISO standard list of country names, the name was just changed today from just "Libya" to "the State of Libya" [9]. This suggests to me that the current transitional government in Tripoli also uses that name. However, the website for the UN database that ISO is supposed to base the standard on still just has "Libya" as the country's full formal name [10], though its next scheduled update isn't until March 1. If anyone knows the reason for the sudden, delayed ISO change, please chime in! GeoEvan (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The United Nations official page, link given above, maintains that the long form official name is just Libya, which is also what the yet unchanged Constitution says. No change has yet been made officially.92.184.96.148 (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Liberal coup in Benghazi 31st October 2018

I am a Libyan living in the outskirts of Benghazi. I have seen many soldiers proclaim their Liberal stance and that a Liberal coup has occurred. Please send help as this is very serious. Thank you. 109.181.21.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove Italian?

It doesn't make sense to me to have the Italian name of the country on this article. Italian is no longer a significant language in Libya like French is in Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia.

Done!--Helmoony (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of Libyans lost their lives in the war against Tanzania

not sure what this is about. It seems to have been suppressed in the media. Noel Ellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I found a reference and added a link. Sussexonian (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The people of libya

The last time we numbering the people of libya has been 7,307,345 in 2017 which means in 2030 will be 11 million عبدالوهاب الليبي (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the source these numbers are based on? El_C 02:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello @عبدالوهاب الليبي:. I reverted your unsourced change again. Please provide a reliable source for the new number. Without that source, your change has no chance to stay. And if you continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing. --McSly (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pacification of Libya. Note that, as the thread goes on, the conversation switches from discussing "Genocide of Libya" as a possible title to discussing whether to change it to "Second Italo-Senussi War". Generalrelative (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

US Politicians

Can someone please explain why there are images of two US politicians (Kerry, H Clinton) in an article that is supposed to be about Libya? Surely one image is more than enough. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Persistent wholesale content removal by Logare

Since no one has agreed with Logare, and since Logare has now been indefinitely blocked (for, among other things, apparent pro-ISIS edits), I'm gonna go ahead and hat this. If anyone feels that there's anything of value in here (other than a good demonstration of M.Bitton being very patient), feel free to revert this close. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Logare has done nothing but remove chunks of content without a valid explanation and now, they are removing properly sourced content that they disagree with. I will restore the article to its stable form and invite them to discuss their edits here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Logare: Can you explain why you are removing properly sourced content (attributed to reliable secondary sources)? M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What makes you think that Islam is not Libya's state religion or that homosexuality is not illegal there? M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: I doubt about the "properly sourced content" you're speaking. Before the revision, the article is clumped with tags asking for updates, and not without reason. "Removing without a valid explanation...", it's obvious either you're blind or trying to deny all of the reasons I have given in very single edit summaries having been done. Logare (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that you have been reported for edit warring, you finally decided to talk about everything else but the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Let me repeat: what makes you think that Islam is not Libya's state religion or that homosexuality is not illegal there? M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
I've talked directly to you and addressing points that you asked, then you don't reply to these points and choose to keep on edit warring instead, so who's the one that is avoiding discussion?
Why Islam is not Libya's state religion or that homosexuality is not illegal there? Explained via edit summaries, and in my talk page in responding to your questions there, you really don't notice that? I've answered and you keep asking the same thing again. I won't repeat what I've said, you can quote what I've said here and respond to it. Logare (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You need to explain it here, backing you claims with a reliable source that contradicts the ones that you removed. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Another question: why did you revert this and why did you change the sourced sentence in the first place? M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Seriously? I'm not providing any "claim"! In fact I'm removing a claim you keep adding. It is contested and controversial. The source being removed is not relevant to the current unity government as I have repeatedly said. The onus/responsibility is on you to provide a better source, because I asked for it. Logare (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This is summarizing, not removing. The sentence is not changed in meaning, only mildly reduced. The reason for a summary is because the opening wrote too detailed on some historical events, it need to be reduced for comprehensive reading. Logare (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
You're removing sourced content without providing either a valid rationale or sources that contradict what is being removed.
Changing the meaning of a sourced sentence is not "summarizing". M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I have provide a rationale for every single removals and edits made. "Valid" or not, it's your own subjective perception as well as anyone else's, that's not the plausible word to use. If you keep asking for "sources that contradict what is being removed", so, don't you understand that sources for what is being removed are questioned in the first place, the responsibility falls on you (who want to keep that controversially sourced content) to provide better sources for what's being removed to stay?
Next, let's explain the removal about the LGBT laws and official religion since that's what you primarily don't understand why I removed it. Now, you can actually keep that content, the requirement is, as long as you have to say that it's a evaluation/assumption from a third party (it's evident from the source) and not treat it like an official/de jure feature of the country's law by putting the description "official" next to the religion in the infobox, do you see how bias the unfixed tone is?
About "changing the sentence meaning", you just have no idea what is summarizing, do you? Explain in detail, how is the meaning changed? Or I guess you're misunderstanding changing meaning with reducing details.
The remaining content being removed is explained, due to outdated information related to a past government that ended long ago. This, so that the long-overdue tags can be removed and it will encourage users to provide a new, up-to-date, actually relevant information for each of those topics.
If you have further questions, just keep asking, we will gradually discuss any issue that would be raised. Logare (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Your so-called rationale doesn't hold much water and questioning a bunch of of reliable sources doesn't give you the right to remove the stable content, otherwise, anyone can literally blank the page and ask others to provide "better sources".
The official status of Islam is properly sourced. If you have a valid reason to question it or any other source (official or otherwise) that does so, then please, do not hesitate to share.
What you call outdated content (ex: In 2010, spending on healthcare accounted for 3.88% of the country's GDP. In 2009, there were 18.71 physicians and 66.95 nurses per 10,000 inhabitants) is in fact encyclopedic. Again, if you can update the info, please do so.
Changing "has been inhabited by Berbers (since the late Bronze Age)" (the sentence that highlights who the autochthones are) into "was variously inhabited, ruled or colonized by .." is not summarizing what the cited source says. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, I did not question the reliability of sources, I said that the content isn't related to and not comfirmed by the current unity government, and is coming from third party unofficial. Regarding legal matters, such content is strictly unallowed.
Outdated content related to a past government is to be put in the detailed article about that regime. This article is about the current situation of the current regime. You seems to not understand anything about countries-related topic.
Explain how changing like that is not summarizing? As I said, when you discuss, explain your arguement in details, stop making general statement without explaning why. Logare (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding legal matters, such content is strictly unallowed. Feel free to link to the WP policy that says so.
This article is about the current situation of the current regime The article is about Libya. Nowhere in it does it say that it's about the current regime. If there are any changes between the old regime and the new, then sure, they need to be highlighted (assuming they are sourced).
I have explained to you that you cannot change a sourced statement about who the autochthones are without a valid reason.
The thing is you're wanting to remove content that is neither controversial nor WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Seriously, would anyone be surprised to know that Islam is official in Libya? M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, so tell me, your country make a constitution, no where in it stated that Islam is the official religion, but whatever Western source say "it is", so you prefer an unofficial statement over an official one?
See Germany, a featured article, in the Economy section, does you see it talk anything about Nazi Germany's economy, or is it all about the current economy of the current German regime?
About "has been inhabited by Berbers (since the late Bronze Age"... Yes, I just noticed that it's my mistake that I did not keep the tense of the sentences so the meaning does change. I will fix this by keeping separated tense between two parts. Logare (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
you prefer an unofficial statement over an official one? Not at all, but since this is repeated in many reliable sources, I find it very hard to believe that they are lying. Do you have a link to the constitution so we can check what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: There you go, guess what? They haven't made a constition, it is just a provisional govt and is looking to draft a constitution. Because of this, there is nothing official that say Islam is official religion. And you can't claim anything until an official statement is made. Logare (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
What's the Libyan interim Constitutional Declaration all about then? M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, the article you cited has not been updated, it's not the "current" constitution, this constitution is only valid until 2013 and is dead when the central government, who draft that constitution, collapsed and divided when the Libyan Civil War (2014-2020) started. The new, internationally recognized unity government has just been set up in 2021 after the war ended. The situation is miles different now, currently there is no official constitution. Logare (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If anything has changed and you have reliable sources that say so, then please don't hesitate to update the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, but first, the outdated/irrelevant content need to be temporarily removed. Allow me and anyone else to be bold, only that can the article be renovated. Logare (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source (official or otherwise) that says Islam is no longer official in Libya? M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: The source is the fact that a new government is formed, this government hasn't adopted any constitution yet, and because there is no constitution, there isn't any rule regarding official religion. Logare (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
You mean that the constitution hasn't been ratified yet, but that doesn't change the fact that there an interim constitution in place. M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
An interim constitution in place? Where? Can you point it out? Don't say to me again about the 2014 constitution, as I said it's dead. Provide me a source which show that the Government of National Unity has made an interim constitution and that there is a line saying Islam is the official religion, please? Logare (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It's the wholesale content removal that is disputed and not just the official status of the religion. I already explained that the sport and health sections could be updated, but there is no reason to remove them as they contain encyclopedia content. Why remove the fact that 96.6% of the Libyan population are Sunni Muslims, the image of Omar Mukhtar, etc? Basically, too much information is being removed without a valid reason.

I know what you said about the constitution, the trouble is you can't back it up with a source. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:, give me a Wikipedia guildline that said because it contain "encyclopedia content", it can't be deleted? What do you mean by "encyclopedia content"? If you still argue about this, why have you not answered me about why Nazi Germany's economy features aren't mentioned in the Germany's Economy section? Logare (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I meant "encyclopedic content" (that was a typo). Basic common sense and WP:EDIT, otherwise anyone can blank the page.
As for Nazi Germany, you can't possibly compare the two as the first happened 76 years ago, while the other is in the middle of a transition. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, In here, we have the right to delete content that is outdated or isn't related to the current situation of a subject matter. Updating isn't a responsibility, if a content is outdated, it must be deleted, doesn't matter if the content is to be updated or not. Please put a more detailed link than the WP:EDIT you give me, it doesn't said anything or related to what we are discussing.
The difference in length between the two is not a valid arguement. 76 years ago or 3 years ago, the situation changed either way, and is considered significant because of regime change for both cases. You don't have the content of Education/Sport regarding the current government, that's fine but you must not leave the content of a past regime. This has been the way for country-articles. You seems to really lack experience regarding editing this topic. Logare (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
if a content is outdated, it must be deleted According to what WP policy? What makes the content that you removed "outdated"?
The difference in length between the two is not a valid arguement Of course it is. One is old and part of history, while the other is recent.
you must not leave the content of a past regime According to what WP policy? Let me remind you that we're talking about recent events and an interim regime.
You seems to really lack experience regarding editing this topic You seem to be making WP rules as you go along. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, it's not about policies, it's about good examples that we follow, like Germany and many other articles.
Check again, the content you kept is all about stuff under Gaddafi, not the current regime.
See again who is making rules as they go along first? You talk about how I can't removed "properly sourced" content and then you talk about "encyclopedic content", do they really exist or is it your bias perception?
"One is old and part of history, while the other is recent", Gaddafi's isn't recent, Gaddafi's ended, and because it's ended, it's also belong to history. Logare (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Nazi Germany is a really bad example (I explained why).
Do you mean that the Libyan population is no longer 96.6% Sunni Muslims or that Omar Mukhtar is no longer considered an icon there (worthy to have his image on the article) because of a regime change? M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: You explained why. Oh yes, you do! I'm highly impressed! The only explanation you give is because it's "76 years ago". Very powerful arguement you have there! Isn't it?
Excuse me, where do I remove information about 96.6% Sunni Muslims? Are you running out of arguement, so now you try to fabricate things up? Omar Mukhtar, oh right, I never said Omar picture is removed because of "regime change", it's because article is about a country, not an individual, personal pictures aren't suitable for this type of article and there has been enough pictures for that section already. Logare (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Omar Mukhtar was just another example of the content removal that you keep justifying with the so-called regime change.
The country's official religion is Islam, with 96.6% of the Libyan population being Sunni Muslims. is one of the many sentences that you removed. Here's the diff that you asked for.
Now that you started accusing me of lying, I don't think there is much I could say to you. Let's see what the others have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Pinging ValarianB, the other involved editor. M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: 1. "Omar Mukhtar was just another example of the content removal that you keep justifying with the so-called regime change". Oh! Where did I say that Omar Mukhtar picture is removed due to regime change? Can you point it out, please?
2. Oh right! That sentence is removed! But guess what, the latter sentence with literally the same meaning is still kept:"About 97% of the population in Libya are Muslims most of whom belong to the Sunni branch" and in the infobox in the lead still retain the "96.6% Muslim" religion info. Wow! So did it really change anything? It's such a big deal that I remove a repeated sentence that did no harm! Your logic is really impressive!
3. Oh, i'm really sorry, you did not lie, you just mentioning facts that making no virtual value whatsoever. And why don't you explain your "76 years ago" arguement further? I asked above but you avoided it, and then you bring up new stuff, and once your arguement is wrecked, you bring up another unrelated stuff! Logare (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
You removed too much content and the only explanation you keep coming back with is "regime change".
Anyway, you said what you have to say and so have I. What's amply clear is that we don't agree, so rather than go round in circles, better let the others share their thoughts. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@M.Bitton:, "...the only explanation you keep coming back with is "regime change"", actually, my edit summaries say otherwise, do they all say "regime change"? This time, you really fabricated something up. Logare (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Teaching basic reading comprehension is not part of the talk page guideline. Please stop pinging me and like I said, give the others a chance to have their say. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It would be wide to discuss here, rather than edit-war, Logare. As your edits have been challenged by other editors, this is not optional. ValarianB (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Population of Libya isn't 6 million!!

That statistics was from 2010-2021, but in January Libya's population has reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com (they confirm my discussion) and I hope you accept my discussion and do the right thing and change it Yaseen albreky (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

The population of Libya! The population of Libya was 6 million since 2010 until 2021, in January 2022 Libya's population reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com and other websites and I'm looking forward for you to change it and do the right thing, thanks Yaseen albreky (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Worldometer is not a reliable source for population figures. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Help

please add fathi bashaga as tobruk PM in the infobox 212.108.149.148 (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220210-libya-parliament-names-rival-pm-in-challenge-to-unity-govt

Fathi Bashagha for reference. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 Already done Faith Bashagha is already noted as one of the persons disputing the office of prime minister. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Prime Minister and government

The state government is disputed. At the infobox, why we see only the one prime-minister and the other at note. Both of them should be shown equally. REPORT 62.74.61.231 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Libya country profile – Overview". BBC. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 31 July 2015.
  2. ^ "John Oliver – Libyan Pool Party". YouTube. 2014-09-09. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
  3. ^ "EU plan for military intervention against "refugee boats" in Libya and the Mediterranean". Wikileaks. Council of the European Union. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2015.
  4. ^ "WikiLeaks' Julian Assange on Europe's Secret Plan for Military Force on Refugee Boats from Libya". Democracy Now!. 27 May 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2015. and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya--Julian Assange
  5. ^ "Libya country profile – Overview". BBC. 9 June 2015. Retrieved 31 July 2015.
  6. ^ "John Oliver – Libyan Pool Party". YouTube. 2014-09-09. Retrieved 2016-04-01.
  7. ^ "EU plan for military intervention against "refugee boats" in Libya and the Mediterranean". Wikileaks. Council of the European Union. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2015.
  8. ^ "WikiLeaks' Julian Assange on Europe's Secret Plan for Military Force on Refugee Boats from Libya". Democracy Now!. 27 May 2015. Retrieved 28 May 2015. and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya--Julian Assange
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libya/Archive_5&oldid=1216516346"