Talk:Operation Odyssey Dawn

listing the 4 branches of the military

it was mentioned that not only the U.S Air Force and U.S Navy but also the Marine Corps is participating as well. should we make a split under the Strength? USMC harrier jets conducted some missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out! fixed that. noclador (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

comment

All U.S. strikes inside Libya to come from ships off coast, only missiles from subs and destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifedania (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Other countries

I've just removed all the countries other than the US and Libya from the infobox. This operation is the US component of the multi-national operation, so other countries are not participating in a 'Operation Odyssey Dawn'. I suspect that this article should be redirect to Libyan no-fly zone Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Recommend moving "Command" to above "Summary of Events" .. as the hour-by-hour summary is going to get very long. Rosetta1207 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some previous operations involving the United States and there is no sign of a "Command" section. Perhaps it can just be rolled into the overview portion as a one-liner instead. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It doesnt make sense to have separate articles for US, UK and French operations in Libya, simply because they each have different code names. They are coordinated coalition operations against a single enemy. The articles should be unified under a new title, perhaps Coalition operations in Libya. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You suggestion is essentially already a part of Libyan_no-fly_zone but each operation should indeed have its own page. There is no telling at this point how long each operation will last or how large they may become and should therefore remain on separate pages. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree We now have 4 separate stub pages detailing actions taken by various countries to enforce the Libya no-fly zone - Operation Mobile, Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn and Opération Harmattan. This is overkill, we should simply have separate sections on the Libyan no-fly zone page for each country's actions. If the Libya NFZ page gets too long or the operations continue for a substantial time we can separate them out then. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, these are 4 separate operations at the moment. i.e. the French Ground Strikes around Benghazi on March 19th were done without the coalitions command structure. Also until a central command is set up each nation operates a national operation, based on the requirements of the strategic command (US African Command) and then in the theater of operations are conducted under the tactical command of US Naval Forces Europe. noclador (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, Each can stand on their own at this time, as the stories are emerging and individual country's efforts are not yet being merged into a cohesive action. Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

use youtube videos

I propose the use of youtube videos for use on this article as reference from military accounts--Nrpf22pr (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Such sources are generally considered unreliable. What information do these videos offer that written articles don't? Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Lybian state media is not a reliable source. Wait for some independent reports first.--Terrillja _talk 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed LIBYA STATE TV is NOT a reliable source, they have been known to spread misinformation, please change Libya casualties figures to unknown until an independent source can be cited Andalus7 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. We have no evidence that Libya state TV is not reliable, no evidence. Stating unknown seems as if people are not certain. But media have aired footage from the hospital which shows that at least there were wounded people. We report both rebel and western claims of massacrs and tanks destroyed. We need to report government claims as well so to stay neutral. We already noted that the numbers are a government claim, that is enough. Let people make their own conclusions, that's not our job. Our job is to writte claims of both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, because the french jet they shot down, 100% sure, they didn't according to the french air force, which would probably know if they were missing a 100mil euro plane. And yes, we still have policies here. Time of war doesn't mean all policies go to the wind. Libya clearly isn't reliable.--Terrillja _talk 04:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tossed an inline disputed tag on the figure, I agree that the 'official' figures from the Libyan government should be reported, but it should also be brought to the attention of the reader that many feel the figures are unreliable, as a reader may not know that. I don't think just mentioning they are government figures (potentially ambiguous as to what government) is sufficient. Monty₈₄₅ 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan rebels have also made claims that have not been confirmed as true. For instance, they said the plane shot down this morning was Gaddafi's and later it turned out it was one of their own. The rebel's also claimed that there have been thousands of civilian deaths in massacers, however no independent group has confirmed this still. In fact, now it seems no more than 1,000 people have died, and more than half of those have been combatants. Nevertheless we report rebel claims. So we also report government claims. In any case, they didn't show any footage of a french plain shot down but HAVE shown footage of people wounded and dead in the hospital along with Gaddafi ministers.EkoGraf (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

People are already aware the numbers could be just propaganda, however nevertheless our duty and job is to report the official government claim on the number of dead, like we report the official French government claim on the four tanks destroyed. And that is what it is, an official government claim. EkoGraf (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More on the matter here (I know I'm guilty too, but let's try to place all comments here on the talk for Operation Odyssey Dawn from now on). I see good points on both sides, but have to say I believe a change to "unknown" is the best option for now. The Libyan Government and the associated national tv have a clear history of providing misinformation (it was only yesterday they announced ceasefire... only to move ~150 km and attack Benghazi). In addition to WP:RS where the Libyan Government is questionable at best, please also see WP:GEVAL and WP:Balance (quote: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence"). I'm not convinced the prominence of a claim by a proven unreliable source is high enough to justify its placement in the infobox. But I'm off to bed, so I'll leave it here for now. RN1970 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gun cameras don't lie. And Wikipedia's duty is to provide a neutral, reliably sourced account. Which there isn't at this time. No one has reported casualties independently or said how they were hurt. The red cross or some other NGO will in time.--Terrillja _talk 05:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Found neutral wording. Noting with an asterix that the numbers have not been independently confirmed. Is this ok? EkoGraf (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The plane they shot down was proven to be a rebel plane, not a French plane. Off topic, but proving a point, the rebels shot down their own plane. The Libyan State run news service has proven to be unreliable time after time, (ie saying every rebel was drugged) so their claim of massive civilian deaths can be pure propaganda for all we know. On the BBC today there was an interview with a man who lived 800 meters away from an army base in Tripoli who was saying all of the missiles were incredibly accurate, and that the coalition forces were doing a good job. Furthermore we don't know where this 'footage' of wounded people is actually coming out of and or how they were wounded in the first place. Wounded civilians from Benghazi might have been trucked into Tripoli. Quite simply we don't know. I understand that we must report any 'government' claim, but then (I know this is clearly Godwin's law; I try to avoid it when I can) under that justification it was published under Nazi state news that nothing was being done against the Jews. The weight of the French government is much more than the weight of the Libyan government in reliability, and in that perspective, who would you listen to legal advice from, a lawyer or a person who has taken 1 business law class? johnsmithy678 —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Saying again. Found neutral wording. Noteing with an asterix that the numbers have not been independently confrimed. Ok? EkoGraf (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's still unknown if it's propaganda. I mean there is obviously some element of it, but moving casualties from one hosputal to another to sensationalize it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Or the people were victims of other fighting. Not like the international strikes are all that is going on in the country and everywhere else they are just kickin it happy as can be.--Terrillja _talk 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By noteing that it's not indepedently confirmed it leaves the possibility it's maybe propaganda. We said it's a government claim and we said it has not been independently confirmed, that is enough. But again it is not up to us to say if it's propaganda or not. In any case we HAVE TO tell the other sides story and not just writte it one-sidedly or we are breaking the NPOV rule. EkoGraf (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV says telling both sides based on reliable sources. Which there are not. So the neutral statement is to say unknown. Not none, but unknown how many. Could be 2, could be 2k. No reliable source knows.--Terrillja _talk 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

talk on the BBC website of pro-Gaddafi forces moving bodies of people they killed to missile-strike spots and reporting them as casualties of allied attacks... definitely incorrect to use Libyan TV figures. 213.249.173.118 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) No no no no no. The Libyan government is the absolute and utter antithesis of a reliable source right now. Come on, we want independent, third party sources, not claims from one of the belligerents! This could, in fact, be a blatant lie! Does anyone truly think that the Libyan propaganda machine is giving accurate counts of casualties? No information may not be ideal, but wrong information is worse. Worse still is disinformation, which is what Wikipedia propagates by using the Libyan government claim. I fully support whoever removed it. Swarm ^X 05:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Than how about this. We put in the note section after the asterix No independent confirmation on the number of dead. Possibility the provided number to be a propaganda claim. EkoGraf (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why bother to list formation that the media clearly is taking to be made up (google it). Consensus is that Libyan media is not reliable. So including that the numbers were likely chosen at random as a PR stunt doesn't make it any better that you are including unreliable and likely partially made up casualties.--Terrillja _talk 06:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Best course of action is to ignore the Libyan number. Swarm ^X 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And in response to "We have no evidence that Libya state TV is not reliable," that's kind of the point of WP:IAR. If it comes down to using common sense to omit a source, we can do that. Swarm ^X 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please show me evidence where it says the media is clearly taking the information to be made up, in those exact words. And please, your opinion that the numbers are a PR stunt is a non-neutral point of view and may be even original research since you don't have evidence. I don't deny the possibility the numbers may be propaganda, but that doesn't mean we don't include them. The numbers weren't given by the Libyan state televion, they were only broadcasted by state tv. The number was an official number given by the government military. Our opinion on weather we think they are liares, butchers, rapists or whatever DOESN'T COUNT. Every mayor news media is now reporting the number given by the government. EVERY major news media, that makes the number at the very least notable since it is being brodcast by everyone. If the media thought like you that just because the number may be unreliable they wouldn't even mention it. However they did mention it, because the major news media is sticking to a neutral point of view and so should WE (Wikipedia). And WP: IAR is just an excuse to ignore the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality) and if that rule is used than that makes Wikipedia a hypocrite. EkoGraf (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The government's propaganda machine has been using state television and texting through mobile phone networks to spread its triumphalist declarations. Enough for you? Took me two fucking seconds to find. Swarm ^X 06:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First of the triumphalist declarations made in those text messages have now been proven as true since Zawiyah was taken the day before as said and troops had taken Ra's Lanuf that day. So I don't see any lying there. Second you are in violation of Wikipedia's civility rule by saying the word fuck so please show some respect and watch your language. EkoGraf (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNCENSORED. Sometimes you just have to read the policies.--Terrillja _talk 06:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know that rule you pointed out applies for text in articles, not in talking between editors. There is a rule that editiors need to be civil. So please read that policie. The langue Swarm used was highly offensive to me. EkoGraf (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it was offensive to you, it still isn't against policies. For example, Fuck you is uncivil. Fuck's sake is not.--Terrillja _talk 07:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We have confirmation that the Libyan state press is part of the government propaganda machine. Every shred of common sense should tell you that propaganda machines don't constitute reliable sources. If there's nothing else, let's move along. Swarm ^X 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe from where you come from Terrillja fuck's sake is not uncivil. But where I come from we are taught to watch our language. And actully you just told me that I am pissing you of, and that was directed toward me, so that was even under Wikipedia rules offensive. In any case Swarm has appologised so we can move on. EkoGraf (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know where I come from. So back off.--Terrillja _talk 07:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a preaty good idea but nevermind, like I said, moving on. EkoGraf (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the government number altogether. It might be disinformation. Wrong information is acceptable. Disinformation is not. Swarm ^X 07:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:Civility "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users." And it is not NPOV to omit Libyan government figures. We should not be approving or disapproving one side or the other's accounts of the conflict. If reliable sources are reporting the Libyan casualty figures, they would seem to be notable, whether or not they are true. I remember some government leader telling us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq a few years ago, so any government's claims are suspect. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Libyan claim again, with a note that the numbers are unverified. Hopefully that works. Bart133 ^{t c @} 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is some strong BS, IMO. First of all, ss there any confirmation that the civilian casualties even came from the US operation? I don't see this in the other operations on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos and copyright

I see the copyright of the picture inserted in the article is disputed but the pictures are available form navy.mil, that makes them public.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=98686
http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.191.153 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, all photos by the US military are public domain. Which photos are being disputed? BurtAlert (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Nevermind, I replaced the infobox image with one from Commons that has a proper license tag. BurtAlert (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is being vandalized by clearly pro-Kadhafi editors with outrageously partisan sentences such as qualifying the no-fly-zone by the terms "no-life-zone". This article should be protected RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.250 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)