This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I've reverted 126.96.36.199'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. 188.8.131.52 (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. 184.108.40.206 (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. 220.127.116.11 (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? 18.104.22.168 (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. 22.214.171.124 (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. 126.96.36.199 (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)
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. 188.8.131.52 (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. 184.108.40.206 (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_committee220.127.116.11 (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: . (Meanwhile, of course, most of the country appears to be outside the direct control of either government: ) -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)
I am not 100% confident but isn't the following sentence misleading?
"Muammar Gaddafi remained in power until a US State Department-backed coup 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.