Talk:Libya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Libya is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
July 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
June 28, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa / Libya (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

ISIS in Libya[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Libya under Gaddafi revert[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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)