Talk:Martyrs' Square, Tripoli

Move

Please be advised this article will be moved to Martyrs' Square, Tripoli within the next 12 hours. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit rushed. The fight is ongoing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm against the renaming- everyone knows it as green square, whatever the connotations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.204.66 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But why was it called Martyrs' Square in the first place? I can't find any reference to that on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.56.53 (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The rebels decided to rename it. Al Jazeera English mentions it at about 1:30 minute on the video — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On a second thought we better move this article back to Green Square since it seems lots of the information from that country is very unreliable --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Latin transcriptions of the Arabic names of the square are the wrong way round - As-Sabah al-Khadra' belongs with the second of the two Arabic names, and vice versa.62.194.121.250 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is this possibility of edit war with the name of this article so I would recommend for it to be protected for now. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that rebels took Green Square. New reports are telling something a lot difference, then they have last night and today. --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean that Bab al-Aziziyah has been captured by the rebels (confirmed by news RS)? Yeah, that's different from yesterday. Claiming "no evidence" is delusion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Google Maps changed name to the Martyrs' Square. It is a relevant source. --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Google stated that this move was proposed by an individual user and ok'ed by the company. Unfortunately(?), Google is not involved in Libyan state affairs, so this does not mean much. --Entenfell (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not saying much, considering the Libyan official government isn't even involved in Libyan state affairs anymore either, with the former dictator now a fugitive.

The name hasn't legally been changed to Martyrs' Square so it should still be known as Green Square.--LeinsterLion (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Keep the name as it currently is until a legal act that changes the name. At this point, who knows who really is running things over there. Using the term 'rebels' as the people responsible for renaming is a bit off. Who really are the rebels after all? Right now they have one unifying theme, their opposition to the current government, it remains to be seen who will end up ruling the place (and making decisions as to what to call landmarks). --Ian Struan (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What legislative body would have to approve it to satisfy you? The law in Libya is currently decided by whoever has military control, and they control Martyrs' square. The decisions of the rebels are certainly more legitimate than those of Gaddafi right now. He isn't even anywhere to be found, let alone wielding power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.248.208 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of the square

The first recorded name of this square translated into something like "bread market" because - who would have thought - its main function was to host a market for bakery products. The name later was changed into "Italy Square" by the Italian colonial administration. After Libya gained independence from Italy, it was renamed into "Independence Square" and after Gaddafi rose to power in 1969, it became the "Green Square" (where in Islam, green is the color that is often associated with the Prophet and Islam itself - and was also declared the color of the Revolution and Libya by Gaddafi).

Before 2011, "Martyrs' Square" was never the official name of the square (some news reports claim that this was the pre-Gaddafi name - although that was "Independence Square"). What has now happened is that recently rebel forces have taken over control of the square. The rebels no longer call it "Green Square" (since that name is associated with the Gaddafi regime) and chose to call it "Martyrs' Square" instead. The question is whether this alone is sufficient to move the article to a new name. On the pro side we have (only?) the argument that many news agencies reported the new name introduced by the rebels. On the contra side we face the problem that there currently seems to be no functioning municipal government that could effectively and officially change the name of the square. Those loyal to Gaddafi will still refer to it as "Green Square".

Now if things keep progressing the way they currently do, it is very likely that this place will eventually be officially renamed into "Martyrs' Square" by a new municipal government. However, that has not happened yet, so I would propose to a) move the article back to "Green Square", which is the last name it was officially given, b) have "Martyr's Square" redirect here, c) mention in the article that the rebel forces that currently control the square refer to it by this name and d) wait and see and change the article according to how the situation evolves.

--Entenfell (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rush. Let's leave it Green square for now, I am sure that when and if Gadhafi falls then it will be official, for now most information is unreliable even if the media reports it as they have only been reporting rumors. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have heard that the Arabian Sea has been renamed Martyr's Sea. It is still too early to move that article though. The same applies to this article as well. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Historically, it shoudl revert to Italy Square as a tribute to NATO's efforts in supporting the revolution. However, it remains Green Square until officially renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.68.53 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article should not be moved to a new name until the square is actually officially renamed. As there is no functioning municipal government of any sort in Tripoli at the moment, I expect an official renaming will not take place anytime soon. In the meantime it is best to stick to Green Square for the name of the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote to change the name to Martyrs' Square and make Green Square a redirect. The rebels (aka the people of Libya) control the square and much of Tripoli and have changed the name to its pre-Gadhafi name. The previous government has fallen, and it is only a matter of time before the remaining loyalists are defeated. Even Google agrees with me!! [1] ;) --CASportsFan (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain Green Square and oppose moving it just yet, but allow me to play devils advocate and mention that just because something has an official name does not make it the name that should be used in the title. (WP:OFFICIALNAMES) Arguing that there has been no "official" degree to change its name is not a valid argument here at Wikipedia. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 05:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I vote to change the name to Martyrs' Square and make Green Square a redirect. Before the green revolution of 1969 the name already was Martyrs' Square. It is no coincidence that the revolutionaries of today want to change the name.

'The flaw is this: Many revisions, corrections, and updates are badly done or false. There is a simple reason for this: Not everyone who believes he knows something about Topic X actually does; and not everyone who believes he can explain Topic X clearly, can. People who believe things that are not the case are no less confident in their beliefs than those who happen to believe true things. ... Consequently, it is far more reasonable to expect that, while initially poor articles may indeed improve over time, initially superior ones will degrade, with all tending to middling quality and subject to random fluctuations in quality. Note that this has nothing to do with the vandalism or the ideological "revert wars" that are also features of Wikipedia's insistence on openness and that apparently occupy much of the volunteer editors' time and effort." Henk Obee (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no confirmation that rebels hold Tripoli under control or confirmation that Gaddafi government had fallen. In Tripoli are battle beetween two sides, so Tripoli is not under control of rebels. What's the rush to change the name? --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that you, Moussa? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The square is under the revolutionaries' control per independent accounts. I think it should be moved now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I vote to keep the name as Green Square and keep Martyrs' Square a redirect. Who knows what the actual residents of the city are calling it now. The people being interviewed on the subject are for the most part members of the anti-government forces. Give the situation some time to calm down before rushing to rename things. --Ian Struan (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename City is in state of war and city administration is as of now non-existent, meaning that previous G-controlled administration does not exist as well and things are handled by local, district administrations which refer to this square as Martyrs square. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that claim (a: a local, district administration exists, b: that district administration uses a certain name for the square)? --Entenfell (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, you actually made me laugh there, EllsworthSK. Are you seriously suggesting that there is such a thing as "local, district administrations" in the warzone that is Tripoli? Come on, now. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to laught out of your ignorance please do so, but yes there is Tajura council, Souq al-Juma council, Fashloom council etc. With current move of NTC to Tripoli whole Tripoli administration will be probably set up but that timeframe remains to be seen. These districts contain large amount of population as Tripoli with its surrounding villages (Janzour, Tajura etc.) has 2 milion population but no I have no RS for this, however I have loads of RS which says that rebels renamed it to Martyrs square right after it was occupied by their armed forces. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure there must be some sort of provisional 'government', but I presume the official renaming of a square is not high on their priority list right now. References that say the rebels 'renamed' the square right after it was occupied in fact prove the absurdity of the claim that the square has been renamed. Are you expecting me to believe that the first thing the rebels did after they occupied the square was running to the town hall and registering the new name? This so-called 'renaming' the rebels did is nothing more than a non-official, symbolic move at the moment and Wikipedia should not use this 'new name' until it is actually the official name of the square. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In Tripoli there is also government of Libya. There is no confirmation that rebels control Tripoli or that they have established authorities there. Everyone can say that, but reality is something different. In Tripoli is war, not peace and stability. --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It really has nothing to do with what locals or any government may call it. What determines our names is WP:COMMONNAME. This is why Kiev is at Kiev and not Kyiv. Or East Timor is at East Timor and not Timor-Leste. Give it time and the move can prob be initiated. But we can't allow our sympathies for a people overthrowing the murderous Gaddafi family get in the way of our own policies and the like. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If we use the common-name principle as a criterion here, the name will be Green Square for years to come, even after an official rename, for most of our sources for what is the common name were manufactured before this so-called rename, e.g. travel guides, encyclopedias etc. They all still contain the name Green Square. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rename - 'green square' for years to come? Taalv. ?but it is being called Martyrs Square in all the news reports. technology has moved on dontcha know - this is the world of twitter - common name surely means what it is being caleld in newspapers and TV reports and by the people of the city - not old travel guides - or is your real opposition, er, ideological perchance. Sayerslle (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to your last remark: did nobody ever tell you ad hominems do not qualify as valid arguments? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Get your toponyms from Gaddafi atlases for ever . and municipal registries from the time of the gaddafi regime. and maps from the time of the gaddafi regime. thats what you're like. "surely they are far more important.." Not to my way of thinking.i just watch the news and read the papers - i'm not a thorough researcher like you.Sayerslle (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. I am not saying we should use the name from municipal registries from the Gaddafi-era for ever. I say we should use them for now until the new ones in power have changed the municipal registries to make the new name official. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So using your logic we should just simply overlook a rule whenever it is convenient or when your own ideological positions or preferences call for it. If that is the case, then why even bother having a rule (or laws for that matter) at all. Perhaps it is you who has an ideological axe to grind here. --Ian Struan (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the "common name" is now "Martyrs' Square". The name has changed. What counts are recent (current) sources, not historical ones. If Gaddafi can coup his way to power and then decide what we should call this square, the same also holds for the current government. Most current sources will specify both names because of the recent renaming, as in

"Tripoli's Green Square - now renamed Martyrs' Square"[2]

"Martyrs’ Square, or Green Square as it was known under Gaddafi’s regime" [3]

"Martyr Square formerly known as Green Square"[4]

Al Jazeera has already dropped the "formerly known as Green Square" altogether:

"Libyans in Tripoli's seaside Martyrs Square have marked the first post-Muammar Gaddafi celebration of Eid al-Fitr"[5]

Of course we should do the same. As an encyclopedia, we should, and do, even list all historical names, including Piazza Italia and Independence Square. This doesn't change the fact that the "common name" is now "Martyrs' Square", hence a page move is needed. This is the post-Gaddafi era. The point is that this is not my personal opinion or convction, but the mainstream opinion found in all quotable sources I have seen. Even if Gaddafi makes a miraculous comeback at some point, this wouldn't change the fact that as of 5 September 2011, mainstream consensus is that Gaddafi isn't coming back, Libya is under new government, and the square is now called "Martyrs' Square".

Ian Struan, it is nice to see you invoking "the rules", but I am afraid to seem to misunderstand them fundamentally. The question is not "Who knows what the actual residents of the city are calling it now" — the "rule" of WP:UCN doesn't ask you to roam the streets of Tripoli and establish a consensus among locals. It asks you to survey recent, quotable, independent English-language sources and base your decision on them. In our case, recent English-language news reports. This rule is so very simple, but experience tells me still so very difficult to grasp for so many people that I find pointing it out over and over again. Things would be so much easier if people would bother to read and understand "the rules" before asking people to stick to them. --dab (𒁳) 07:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking only news reports as the source for an article name is not a demonstration of thorough research. Surely if it comes to toponyms, maps, atlases, municipal registries etc. are as important, if not more important as sources. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read my last post prior to resorting attacks upon my understanding of the rule itself. I was not stating that the common name rule called for the title of the article to remain "Green Square", rather that Sayerslle seemed all to eager to dispense with rules. It was on this second issue that I was responding. Nowhere in my latest post did I state that the name should remain Green Square because the common name rule called for it. I was merely attempting to note to Sayerslle (and people like him) that we should apply the rule or rules, and then come to a reasonable conclusion, not simply dispense with discussion so we may obtain the ends wished. Incidentally, Wikipedia rules are not difficult to understand and making conclusions as to my understanding is quite rude. So in the spirit of your ad hominem attacks, I will point out that you really should use proper English grammar before posting as failure to so seriously undermines the persuasiveness of your arguments. That said, back when I originally started posting on this matter on August 23/24th the situation was quite fluid and it was uncertain who would emerge victorious. That question seems to have now been answered. So renaming this article may be proper at this juncture. --Ian Struan (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the question seesms to have been answered - and in the papers e.g [6] the new name is used... i think the articles title should be changed now and the article not be mugged off any more by deniers of new realities and green square lovers Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed without objection. --Ian Struan (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Asserting that your opponents are deniers or 'Green Square lovers' (and thereby, implicitly, Gaddafi-lovers) does not make your argument more valid. On the contrary. The idea that 'the papers' (of which you quote only one) decide what is right in cases like this is laughable. Particularly in the Libyan conflict, the papers (even the ones with a reputation of being a quality newspaper) have been riddled with misinformation. They have presented as facts blatant lies such as the capture or killing of several of Gaddafi's sons, only for them to emerge alive and free. Added to that, newspapers and other media are not our only (or even our principal) source of what is the 'common name'. Thirdly, this is not a vote, as you seem to be implying here. I may be the only one here opposing the use of the 'new name', but that doesn't mean the discussion is closed. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The name has changed. there has been a revolution in libya and the old regimes toponym for the square has been superseded. if and when there is a counter revolution and the name changed back then you should change the name , until that happens you are just a vandal in my eyes making a POV point, or else just mindless...and , when you write ' 'the papers' -(of which you quote only one) , thats an example , behind it are many others , can you quote even only one that says , since the revolution in tripoli , something like 'the square, still called green..' or somehing like that.? Why do certain ideological tendencies keep putting words like the papers in ' ' marks btw. As if the papers, aren't really papers or something - to show the world it can't pull the wool over their super intelligent eyes? the papers are the papers - not 'the papers' - surely. bizarre. Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that really takes the biscuit. It is me who is the POV-pusher now, is it? And again, quit accusing me of 'ideological tendencies'. The only reason I put the papers in quotation marks is that you mentioned "the papers" in plural as if it were the newspapers in general who use the name Martyrs' Square, while you cited only one single newspaper that does that. Actually I know quite a few Dutch newspapers that still use Green Square, but that isn't relevant at all to the question what the official name of the square is.

the official name - that is just your OR description I suppose , what do you mean by the official name. whatever you choose it to mean probably. or could you cite a text which says ' in spite of the revolution, the official name remains green square' - as for the few dutch newspapers, well maybe dutch wp should still call it that then, but english language TV and papers, plural, call it Martyrs SQuare, as example-ified by the indepndent article.Sayerslle (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Again: Name of the square

I dont understand why some editors are in such rush to change the name of this article? In Libya, there is a war zone. We can not change articles every day according to media speculations (Gaddafi son Khamis died 5-6 times). The situation in Libya isnt clear, war is not over, Gaddafi isnt over, in Tripoli there is also war. So, we cannot participate in this war by supporting Gaddafi or rebels. --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"in tripoli there is also war" - citation needed - calling it green square when the media call it by the changed name is precisely pro-gaddafi editors seeking to control and participate in fighting for their leader who no longer controls TRipoli - or does it say he is still in control of TRipoli in serb or Russian or Chinese rags - Sayerslle (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are very nonobjective. You acting as representative of the rebels in that war. Your comment proofs that. For you, is obviously that this is personal matter. So, no changes without consensus. --Жељко Тодоровић (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How very dare you. I not act as representative of rebels - i think is called martyrs square in paapers now, and on TV - time will tell, as the leaves on the trees, the generations of men - maybe this title mean more to you than it should - green square will be title , maybe for ever, for you, is obviously very important personal matter. Adios Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's you who keeps accusing others of having 'certain ideological tendencies' (i.e. being pro-Gaddafi) so it's rather ridiculous for you to react so indignantly if someone pays you back in your own coin. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

in February you were arguing ,perhaps it will be 'a beaten down protest, and back to normal life' - gaddafi's Libya - 'normal life' - certainly that looks a bit POV-ish to me - anyway, didn't turn out for you did it - perhaps RS will describe it as Green Square again - for now it is Martyrs' Square in RS -but perhaps there will still be a reversal , gaddafi lovers are stil fighting, tenacious cults, dictator cults, as we know - i think the title should be looked at again in a week or two. Sayerslle (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

On something as controversial as this is proving to be, the correct procedure is to list the proposed move at WP:Requested moves, and follow the instructions at Requesting a single page move. I would strongly suggest that is done before anyone moves this article anywhere. Otherwise, you are likely to find any move promptly reverted. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the best option. Will do so now. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Consensus reached, article moved. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Green Square, Tripoli → Martyrs' Square, Tripoli – I have already stated my reasons above, please write here only whether you oppose or support this move and please do not turn this into flamewar as above, we have already established that there is no consensus so lets see who has the majority. Above all I listed this requested move even here Wikipedia:Requested_moves#September_15.2C_2011 so we can get administrator/mod opinion on this matter. Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --SilverTW (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Current best name. If the politics and conventions change yet again, the title can change yet again. No harm. Noetica^Tea? 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Just a quick recap - authority which now controls the square, the city and the surrounding area reffers to it as Martyrs' Square in same menner as it refers to former Fateh square in Benghazi as Freedom Square. --EllsworthSK (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. --Barzdonas 08:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support TV and newspapers refer to it as Martyrs Square now. Sayerslle (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support - Certainly appears to be WP:COMMON now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support I would have moved it weeks ago. --CASportsFan (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martyrs' Square, Tripoli. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306081100/http://www.libyaonline.com/tourism/details.php?id=4 to http://www.libyaonline.com/tourism/details.php?id=4

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) 14:04, 4 June 2017 (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:

• L-armee-algerienne1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)