Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya

Casualty listing

should we really put casualties up? maybe im wrong but dont think casualty rates, especially those produced by the libyian government , should be considered fact..its just seems too early to do

And US Army or CNN rates are reliable and independent?

we should not use any source until its it independently confirmedZyon788 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Specific Discussions

Agregated name-specific discussions - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename

Article should be renamed International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. No-fly zone is just a small part of what is going on. - Atfyfe (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This matter has been raised at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#What's a no-fly zone?. The name of this article isn't helpful to those trying to understand what's going on. (I don't think "Operation Odyssey Dawn" would help either.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest to leave it as "Libyan no-fly zone" until a name catches on in the press etc. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for Operation Odyssey Dawn, or at least a redirect thingy. Same way we have with Operation Just Cause. Just my two cents on the deal. Have a great Wiki kinda day folks! Sector001 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Just give it its true name: International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising. Wikipedia is not only a set of extracts form renowned medias, its creators can analyse the reality too.83.17.84.82 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It should not be redirected to Operation Odyssey Dawn, which is just the US military involvement. The British, French and Canadian components have different operational names. Leave it as is for a day or so until we get a clearer picture of what is going on. ShipFan (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is not it done yet? It definitely should. Many people just do not search the whole article so they do not find that small in size information, but great in the meaning - it must be mentioned in the title.83.17.84.82 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the three operations should be bundled into this one article and the article should be renamed International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising (flows better) until this thing as a whole has its own common name. We can't favour the US op in this as this go-around, we're not even the main guys. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As each of the antions have thier own code name, and this is only what the USA calls thier participation the page should be renamed (as it appears to be about the whole operation not just the US part.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what we call this article now: Frankly, this whole article will eventually be merged into a section in an article named something like "Libyan Civil War (2011)". This international military intervention is really just one of the components in that war: You have to keep the big picture in sight and not try and focus too narrowly on just one aspect of what's going on. Right now, I suppose it's acceptable to have it as it's own article only because it's front-page news, but from a historical perspective, it would not right to try and completely separate the revolt on the ground from the international coalition-style response in the air. The two are very closely tied together. 69.11.99.202 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they'll be kept separate as per WP:SIZE. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Odyssey Dawn

This is apparently the name given to the operation by the US DoD, afaik it isn't the name assigned to the entire libyan no fly zone and at this stage may well only refer to the phase of operations when the US takes over co-ordination from the french. As such can editors (particularly US ones...) please refrain from labelling the entire NFZ operation as what the US DoD calls it. Similarly Operation Ellamy shouldn't be used as the name given to the entire NFZ.Zaq12wsx (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok im writing this as Obama is giving his radio address, it seems the US will contribute to the 'front end' ie SEAD operations but 'coalition partners' will take over the actual enforcement of the NFZ; as such id suggest Odyssey Dawn is the name given to the SEAD phaseZaq12wsx (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't insert that catchy rosy flowery sunny name like it is like a picnic in a sunny day like Operation Wild Rose, Operation New Beginning, Operation New Birth, Operation God is Coming, Operation Glorious Mountain. Keep those simple and childish names out basically. 174.16.120.220 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The operation name should not be the title unless it becomes the common name like Operation Desert Storm. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to Operation Odyssey Dawn??

Should we move the article to Operation Odyssey Dawn? It is much more than a no-fly zone now. noclador (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Operation Odyssey Dawn" refers only to US involvement. Ellamy is UK involvement, and names for other countries' involvement are yet to be announced. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The current name is wrong, but whatever we choose it must mention Libya. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Lynbarn (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No that either refers to the US contribution or the SEAD phase; its like asking whether we should rename it ellamy!Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation in support of UNSC Resolution 1973 is what we want, but it seems there's no official name for the coalition effort. Flatterworld (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem that their would be a joint operation name, every country participating has its own name for the operation. So let us call it Coalition military operation against Libyan government forces. It is definitly more now than just "No-fly zone". Olegwiki (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no. Not "coalition" again. That seems to have been dragged out in every conflict involving the USA since Vietnam. It seems to mean "The USA plus whoever else is on its side". In Iraq it facetiously became "The coalition of the lying" because of the absent WMDs. It's not at all formally defined. We have to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We should wait a while, secondary sources might converge on a common name – hopefully less cumbersome than the two proposed above – but agree that "no-fly zone" is not what it is. WikiDao ☯ 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Intervention in the Libyan Uprising until a common name is established imo. Coalition is the common name being used afaik. WikiDao's got the right idea. We need to keep our own biases out of the editing, but the editing can reflect the baises of the RS's as there is nothing that can really be done about it in some cases, like with Libya. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to Coalition intervention in Libya

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: The seven-day period has been overridden and the name has been changed from Libyan no-fly zone to Coalition intervention in Libya to 2011 Military intervention in Libya to 2011 military intervention in Libya within about 24 hours or so of the proposal. This procedural step is intended as a clarification of de facto closure rather than closure itself. Keeping this particular request formally open would lead to a lot of confusion. A new WP:Requested moves procedure can be started below if someone thinks that there is a reasonable chance that the proposed name (whatever that might be) will receive consensus. COI: i have been involved in this discussion, but since this is clarification of a de facto closure rather than the closure itself, i believe that this justifies overriding the COI closure paragraph. See Non-admin closure for more procedural discussion. Boud (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Libyan no-fly zone → Coalition intervention in Libya — The U.N. resolution as well as the current actions by France, U.K., and the U.S. clearly indicate that it is not only a no-fly zone, but authorizes all other uses of force short of invading ground troops, to strike at forces both in the air and on the ground.

For this reason, I suggest renaming this article to Coalition intervention in Libya in a similar fashion to Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War, Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, and NATO intervention in Bosnia. As of now, it is uncertain what to call the intervention force, so "coalition" will probably be a temporary name, although it is clear that it is not NATO (as of now), nor can it be said that the U.N. is directly involved (other than merely authorizing the action). This is even more clear as China and Russia, the two abstainers from the vote, have expressed disapproval at Saturday's airstrikes. (However, there still might be a case made that it is U.N. intervention.)

Additionally, although most news reports prior to Saturday referred to a no-fly zone, most news sources today are referring to today's actions as bombardments, air assault, air strikes, etc.--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Anything but "Coalition", please. "Coalition of the willing" was used by Dubya in Iraq, and quickly became "Coalition of the lying" among those publicly wondering where the WMDs were. It seems that, with limited thought, people want to use "coalition" to describe any collection of America and some friends (different every time) who attack somebody else. Not saying this one's not justified, but let's be a little more creative. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Allied any better?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UN would work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UN seems to me to be OK since "allied" forces are currently operating under a mandate very similar to United Nations Security Council Resolution 84, which opened the way to escalating the Korean War. Peasantwarrior (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this is about the no-fly zone, and the operations are in support of maintaining the no fly zone, or operations adjunct to that which are outlined in the UN resolution that declared the zone. Besides, the Arab League declared a no-fly zone as well. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: that could be argued about the 110+ missiles fired from ships and planes today. However, the first attacks by France at least 1 tank (and possibly 4), I cannot see as being solely about a no-fly zone since the tanks were not in any way an immediate thread to air forces. How is that part of a no-fly zone?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Your requested name still does not make sense, WP:COMMONNAME says it's the Libyan no-fly zone. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What you say would have been true if it had been Friday. However, as of Saturday, most sources are no longer calling it a no-fly zone. Almost all sources now refer to "attacks," "assault," or "airstrikes" in Libya. --192.5.109.34 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Most sources i see still call it a no fly zone! which sources do you refer to?Zaq12wsx (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support No-Fly Zone can be a section of the article but should not be the entire article.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. like NATO intervention in Bosnia--78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed new name is not a widely used name, so doesn't qualify as a common name. It's rather ambiguous as a descriptive name; Qadafi still seems to have influence in organising a coalition called African Union, but that's not the coalition that this article is mainly about. The proposed title also can be seen as not NPOV enough for a descriptive name, as pointed out by 192.5.109.34: it has a strong political connotation with the present officially 50,000 or so non-combatant foreign fighters occupying Iraq. See the "Title etc." section below for an attempt to find a better name that has a chance of being accepted in a requested-move. Boud (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As per aboveZaq12wsx (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to consesus decisions on Wikipedia? Why has this article been moved when so few comments have so far been made, most of which (see above) are opposed to it, and it has hardly been discussed. I suggest whoever made the change should revert it until due dilligence has been pursued. Thank you. Lynbarn (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree its appalling that this article was moved 'Coalition Intervention in Libya' is a nonsensical name that i can't see used anywhere else; Libyan No Fly Zone was far more descriptive, i won't move the article to avoid edit wars but this does need to be looked atZaq12wsx (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• page move done by Ronnotel at 19:42, 20 March 2011 despite non-consensus and non-closure of the requested move discussion, see this edit: Template:Sec link auto or Template:Sec link auto for the move summary. Boud (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone move it back, at least until its been discussed more? despite wanting to avoid an edit war (as i said above) i would do it but im unsure howZaq12wsx (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing a move is technically tricky AFAIK, since you need to be careful about talk pages, history page, etc. Boud (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, i think as per the Title etc discussion below we'll wait and see what the 'coalition' call themselves once the handover is complete and rename it from there. Its just annoying and frankly bad manners when editors take it upon themselves to make such changes without even listening to the concerns of other wiki contributors!Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support What is happening is more then merely a no fly zone, article title should not restrict it to that. You don't attack tanks and other ground assets for a no-fly zone. (I realize the move has happened, but it should not be undone) Monty₈₄₅ 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i put a note at the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents, and after that i noticed that User:Ronnotel is an admin! So s/he should reverse the move him/herself. Admins do not have any special rights to override consensus. Boud (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins need to respect consensus, but they also need to apply common sense, and remember its not a vote. While what the article should eventually be named is a good question, it really should not go back to being no fly zone. Monty₈₄₅ 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Please note that this was not the only place this topic was being discussed and I attempted to determine consensus across all input. Also, consensus is not a vote. I based my decision to move on the persuasiveness of the arguments, the rapidly changing nature of the topic, and the incongruity of the article name with recent events. I should also mention that the article is now linked from the main page, which made the matter somewhat more time-sensitive. That said, if someone feels strongly enough that Libyan no-fly zone better describes the current situation than the current title I'm open to revert. Ronnotel (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The move might have been discussed in other places, but people discussing here, in the obvious place, were not alerted to those other discussions. You haven't even tried to tell us now where those other discussions are. Since you felt urgency to override the normal process, please either revert to the previous name, or else change to the closest thing to a consensus, which is option (e) in the "Titles etc" section below: 2011 military intervention in Libya. i started adding a comment there suggesting that (e) was probably best, but i couldn't save it because of the move. Many people editing recent events related pages may feel that the names are "time-sensitive" - does that many that everybody should move the page because s/he feels it is urgent and there's no need to wait for consensus? Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There was an utter mess in page moves for the main "2010-2011 Arab world protests" article a month or so back - let's not get into the same mess with this article. Boud (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(BTW: HJ Micthell over at the admin noticeboard page kindly pointed out that "Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page back to where it came from, provided that that the only line in the history of the redirect is the move, which, in this case, it is." In this case, Ronnotel has turned up to talk abou this, so IMHO it would be best that s/he either revert the move, or else change to the closest thing we have to consensus below. Following that, a new move proposal could be made with less "urgency".) Boud (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Title etc

I'd just like to sum up the discussion above into something more less confusing. I'd seem there does (?) exist a general consensus for name change, but not on what the new title should be. As I see it, these would be the possible names:

• (a) Libyan no-fly zone (Current name - probably the most recognizable, but does not fully represent the nature of this undertaking.)
• (b) Coalition intervention in Libya (Does not make it clear who constitutes the coalition. As such, it does not provide any more information or recognizability than, say, 2011 military intervention in Libya.)
• (c) Allied intervention in Libya (The same comments about Coalition intervention in Libya apply.)
• (d) UN (possible variation: United Nations) intervention in Libya (While more information, again not the most precise name - UN doesn't have any of their own forces ("blue helmets") or missions currently in Libya, it merely gave permission for this intervention.)

Also, I'd like to propose another name which I've mentioned before:

• (e) 2011 military intervention in Libya (I'm not saying this is the best possible name, but it does address the grievances with who the "coalition" or "allies" are, while providing a fully correct and recognizable title. One could argue Gaddafi's own military movements are another 2011 military intervention and that as such the name does not uniquely describe the topic. However, the word intervention, per Intervention (international law), implies a foreign interference, so Gaddafi's own military movements do not constitute an intervention.)

In the first run, I also forgot two proposals, so I'm adding them now:

• (f) International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising (Generally the same as (e), which means I think it provides a correct and recognizable title. However, it seems to me to be a bit too long and, as I've argued in the previous paragraph, intervention is by itself international, so "international intervention" seems to be a pleonasm.)
• (g) Operation Odyssey Dawn (While probably recognizable, this title is not precise in my view - this is merely the US arm of the operation and there seems to be no inherent reason so far as to why prefer Odyssey Dawn rather than MOBILE or the other two names.)

I'm sorry once again. Through careful reading I managed to find another couple of proposals.

• (h) Operation in support of UNSC Resolution 1973 (While fully correct, I don't think it's really recognizable - at the very least, word Libya should probably be used somewhere.)
• (i) Coalition military operation against Libyan government forces (Again, using "coalition" doesn't really say much and can only be confusing. The title is correct, but it does seem to me to be a bit long.)
• (j) 2011 Libyan police action (I think this title is very confusing, due to double meaning of the word "police". Also, it could be confused with Gaddafi's own actions, which is not the point of this article.)
• (k) 2011 military action against Libya (Essentially the same as (e) and (f) and it seems to me to be quite reasonable, although perhaps a bit undefined, with regard to rebel movements also being a form of military action against the government.)
• (l) Libyan no-fly zone and intervention (A compromise solution using our current title. While technically correct, the addition of just "and intervention" at the end seems to me to be somewhat unnatural.)

Anyway, hope the thing is a bit less confusing now. :) Personally, I'm in favor of (e), then (f), (k) and (d). Sorry about editing. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

wait for the unification of the coaltiton command to occur in Naples Italy, they will certainly make a new code-name. --78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

E seems good. If they do give it a single name, that would be nice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i also agree that (e) is the best so far. i can see possible problems (the 17 Feb revolutionaries, at least a week or so ago, preferred to interpret the term "military intervention" to mean "ground soldiers" while "no-fly zone" was seen as non-interventionist), but given that Ronnotel sees an urgent need to change from Libyan no-fly zone, IMHO the instantaneous new name should be the (e) option, and after that we can go through a normal page move discussion for one of the alternatives to (e) if there seems to be a viable one. Boud (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Title very bias, needs changing

I just read Wikipedia but I am so surprised at this title that I am speaking out. Please do not attack me like Colonel Gaddafi would if he is mad.

The word intervention is very propaganda like. Would you imagine "German intervention in Poland (1939)"?

Call it "UN Resolution 1973" or "Air strikes in Libya (2011)", but not intervention.

The news media is not using the words "coalition intervention". Sounds like a government bureaucrat invented it.

So, my proposal is

UN Resolution 1973

or Air strikes in Libya.

Invasion of Libya is also possible though it's only an air invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbme (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Germans invaded Poland with the intent to make it part of their empire. The Coalition is launching air strikes and missile attacks on military targets to give the opposition a chance to take control of Libya and end the murdering of civilians. Dosen't really make sense to compare the two. As for the name I think it should be simply "Libya No-fly Zone". Just like the Iraqi no fly zone page. TopGearR814 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intervention is also when you have a crisis of some sort. Poland didn't have a crisis at the time. We are probably going to build a base or two there if this succeeds, plus some nice oil contracts for sweet crude. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intervention is an appropriate word if the articles so chooses to use it. Libya was attacking and killing its own citizens so outside forces "intervened". With Germany attacking Poland, that was a case of a country attacking another country to annex it; no intervention there. An "invasion" can stand on its own, such as the case with Poland and Germany. An "intervention" results from a crisis and then may consist of air strikes, a blockade, naval strikes, or even an invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

Is there a reason We have it simply named Coalition and not specifying which "Coalition?" Like "UN coalition" or United Nations intervention in Libya? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. The reason is that we don't know what to call the coalition yet. Therefore, we are waiting until this coalition calls themselves something so that we can give this article a more appropriate name later.--192.5.109.34 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to 2011 Military intervention in Libya

I've moved the page to 2011 Military intervention in Libya.

First of all, why? Well, I don't see any consensus for the move done by Ronnotel - the only thing close to a consensus was proposal (e) in the section Title etc. The word "coalition" itself has problems, as mentioned previously multiple times on this talk page and does not provide any substance as it does not give an accurate description neither of what kind of intervention (economic, diplomatic, military...) this is nor who forms this coalition. Therefore, it is pretty much meaningless. I understand that this might not be the ideal move, but it does reflect the consensus much more accurately.

Second of all, what if I'm stupid and I shouldn't have done this? Needless to say, if anybody deems this page move unnecessary or plain wrong, please, Ronnotel or anybody else, do move the page (back) to an appropriate place. I will, of course, not engage in any page move wars and will not engage in any futher moves. There also may be issues with capitalization of the word Military in the title - as I'm no expert, please feel free to change that. I apologize if this was too bold a move. Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

BOLD is great, but moving this page around is unhelpful. A couple of days with the "wrong" name (e.g. the cap "M" in "Military") is not the end of the world. Just wait for a bit of consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Theres no reason for leaving the "M" capitalized. I think that 2011 Coalition intervention in Libya is a little more precise. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do please change the capitalization if it is incorrect - I apologize. I do not see "coalition intervention" as any more precise than "military intervention", for the reasons I mentioned above. Would you like to give some arguments why it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking if you could explain it a bit. :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this a circumvention of consensus seeking? (ie. you should not boldly rename things when an officially filed active discussion is underway) 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That crime had already been committed, leaving the article with a very poor title with little support. This latest move is at least a step in the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the coalition title was fine, and I think this one is fine, I'm just glad its not still using the no-fly name. I think either one will do fine until things settle down and in a week or two we can make an informed choice on what name will be best in the long term. Monty₈₄₅ 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best would be 'United Nations intervention in Libya' considering it was a UN proposal with countries enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone under UN auspices. SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with "coalition" is that it's a word that acts like it has a clear meaning, but it doesn't. It's been used for a couple of decades now to mean "The USA plus whoever decides to go to war with it this time round". Not precise at all. It got a bad name in Iraq when those wondering where the WMDs were changed it from "Coalition of the Willing" to "Coalition of the Lying". Not a wise choice these days. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "military" shouldn't be capitalized per conventions, I'd suggest performing the related change. Brandmeister t 09:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and would do it but the move tab is not there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "M" shouldn't be capitalised. - SSJ ^t 10:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The proper title is coalition intervention in Libya. The "2011" isn't needed because there isn't another article about another coalition intervention of another year. The rather lame "coalition" is needed so far because the intervening forces are still quibbling over command structure. Once they have made some more stable arrangement, this can be changed to "allied", or possibly "NATO". --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Proper title"? How is that "proper". Who has defined it as such? And how is "Allied" much better than "coalition"? They're both just clichéd words that really don't mean what some people seem to think they sound like they mean. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 UNSC intervention in Libya would be more sensible. 'Military' clarifies absolutely nothing. There's been nothing but military operations going on in Libya since the conflict began. This is NOT about Nato or 'allied' or whatever. Read the resolution, and note the signers Flatterworld (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

i suggest that discussion of new names go to a new section. The name change by Peasantwarrior was only intended to help clean up a procedural mess. Boud (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It resulted in a new procedural mess. We've got two separate discussion areas about the naming of this article, and a potential revert to Libyan no-fly zone when the requested move expires. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Title etc another try

After reading through #Title_etc and other discussions above, arguments for and against the most likely titles include... Are we ready to try a WP:Requested moves procedure for XYZ as the new name for this article? (this is just a template to help the discussion get started) Boud (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Strenght

Its needed in the battlebox a streght ondicator of teh opossing force...at lest indicating how many US ships have taken part or how many planes gadhafi poses over libya , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

French losses

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[1]][[2]][[3]].11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First source doesn't mention any plane shot down, second source says "Libya says", and the third says "France denies plane was shot down"- no mention everywhere of a Kub 2K12 too. noclador (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is France covering it up. I clafifyed my 1st post that it was a plane not a Kub K212.11:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Libya just lies. noclador (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth is the first casualty of war. Certainly we shouldn't believe it just because France says so, but at the moment there is little reliable evidence to suggest a French plane was shot down - and I'd it would be quite hard for the French to cover up. At the moment the accusation is article-worthy, a statement of fact not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is not a french, is a MiG-23 "Flogger" with Libyan markings. I do not know if he from Libya gov or the rebels.187.112.138.144 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.break.com/index/fighter-jet-shot-down-over-libya-2027136 89.214.233.50 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The video shows the widely-reported event where a 'rebel' plane was shot down by the Benghazi forces themselves. --77.188.74.170 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian president

hahaha put then QEII as the british commander--78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why, she's not a commander...raseaC^{talk to me} 16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

what about irony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.63.162 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fellow was saying if you're going to put Heads of State as well as the requisite Heads of Government then you should put Queen Elizabeth II. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fellow was trolling. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to assume WP:GOODFAITH, so I put a nice explanation (Don't think it counts as trolling, just a silly joke. The term trolling is so misused these days that the artform itself is not appreciated). :X Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

someone added Napolitano again. He is a ceremonial figure I wanted to say--78.2.63.162 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well now you say it, but now you must regain WP:GOODFAITH or else die a death worse than death! (jk I really don't care =p) But yeah, ceremonial leaders, and people who're just heads of state shouldn't be included. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Italian President is the formal commander-in-chief of the Italian military, but has no operational control. Similarly, the Queen theoretically commands the British and Canadian armed forces. This is also true of the Kings of Belgium, Norway and Spain and the Queen of Denmark. Therefore, unless we are prepared to list all these ceremonial leaders, the Italian President must go. 128.59.181.56 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Italian President's role is not merely cerimonial both in general Italian political life and also in these particular military issues. The article 87 of the Italian Constitution states "The President ... has the command of the Armed Forces, presides the Supreme Council of Defence constituted with respect to the prescriptions of the law, declares the state of war after a deliberation of the two Chambers." The position of President Giorgio Napolitano about the military intervention in Libya has been, according to many national newspapers, extremely relevant for deciding the Italian active participation to the coalition. Therefore, in my opinion, President Napolitano should figure among the commanders and leaders. Sligrone (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about this, put commanders-in-chief. That should work, regardless of actual position. Makes the most sense. (Thank God it's not Uncle Silvio =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just updated the page with the agreed change, hope it's fine.

In Italy the President Napolitano openly spoke in favour of the military intervention, whereas Prime Minister Berlusconi did not, I think Queen Elizabeth can't do the same. Rumors said that Minister La Russa is talking directly with the President. He is allowed to do this because both are members of the Consiglio Supremo della Difesa (Defence Supreme Council). This Council is similar to the Council of Ministers, but: there are only few Ministers and it is chaired by the President and not by the Prime Minister. The President can act by means of this Council directly towards the Ministers and the Armed Forces. In Italy each act of the President must be countersigned by a Minister, whereas each act of the Prime minister must be countersigned by the President. Actually the Prime Minister countersigned President's acts, but this countersignature may be only cerimonial (that is because the Presidnet acts can legally and directly be countersigned by normal Ministers - e.g. the Minister of Defence-, if Prime Minister refuses)--147.162.139.132 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

US leading

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72J00M20110320

"We are on the leading edge of coalition operations"--84.168.103.29 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'But [Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff] cautioned that "in the coming days we intend to transition it to a coalition command."' Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well but the first strikes were lead by the US. So I thing we should mention this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.103.29 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You could put something about US missile strikes clearing the way for other coalition partners to begin their operations I guess. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that said missiles were also fired by British submarines....raseaC^{talk to me} 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did mention two British missles, yeah, was wondering where they came from. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In a press statement about half an hour ago, the US said they would pass over more controls to Europe over controlling the no-fly zone over timel. Jolly Ω Janner 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose you have that in text somewhere, do you? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Pentagon expects to hand over control of allied military operations in Libya "in a matter of days", either to a UK-France coalition or to Nato, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says.". Jolly Ω Janner 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Could a free graphic be created using this information?

BBC: Airstrikes on Libya: mapped. Any map gurus around? I think a free graphic could be useful for the article and the copyrighted ones will likely be updated with the intense international attention. Actually, our map needn't be informationally based on other maps at all as we'll have the location of bases, strikes, etc. from text sources, but it started me thinking. Gotyear (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend User:Wipsenade, who is around here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I could have a go at this. The hardest part so far seems to be finding a blank map to start with, as European maps usually cut off most of Libya if not all of it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this? How about you take a large (like over 3000x1500 or w/e) blank map of the world and then crop it in Paint to the area you want to use? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. File:A large blank world map with oceans marked in blue.svg was very helpful. Jolly Ω Janner 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, the map looks great. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

This article is written in British English and it should be kept consistently so unless a consensus leads to a change (and I don't see why that should happen). However, it should be noted for future edits that Robert Gates is not the "US Secretary of Defence" and the United States defense agency is not called the "US Department of Defence." The US has a defence department, you might say, but its name is the "Department of Defense," spelled the way they spell it. Likewise, Robert Gates could attend to a meeting of defence secretaries of NATO countries, yet he would be addressed as "Mr. Secretary of Defense." In other words, when "secretary of defence" or "department of defence" are used as a common noun, they should be subject to whatever style is being used for the article as a whole, but when they are used as a proper noun (i.e., when they refer specifically to Robert Gates, not to any defense secretaries in general, or when they refer specifically to the department he controls, not to any defense agency in general) they must retain original spelling. That's why the New York Times still refers to Gordon Brown's party as the Labour Party and not the Labor Party.--AndresTM (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For more details, see Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. Boud (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With such a heavily edited article, one way to prevent the change in speling might be to put hidden comments by words, which constantly get targeted for spelling changes. Jolly Ω Janner 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done this with UK date format in lede and infobox. Ericoides (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to comment on the spelling in this article, then I saw that others already had right here. The spelling kind of perturbs me; seeing labor as labour, organization as organisation, color as colour, defense as defence. I find myself being slightly annoyed at that, thus it takes away from the sentence I just read. Someone should just change the words to the American spelling since we are in the US and pulling up the article in the US, not Britain. Even if I were reading an article about, say, the construction of Big Ben in Britain, or an article about the West End, I should stil be reading it in American english, not British english, as I am not in Britain.

Who is "we"? (as in "...we are in the US...") You do realise, I hope, that this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Occam's Razor, about 90% of the time it will be an American who does that, so assume they're a Yank unless they say otherwise (or based on context of course). 'Cause good luck getting us Yanks to do otherwise. =p I really see no issue with it being in the Queen's English. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SEAD

We need to be clear who are the participants for SEAD. The correct list is US, UK, France, Italy, and Canada, according to Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, when questioned in TV. Any one who can cite other sources? Is this correct?

Never mind, the five are correct, problem solved, see article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.7.25 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only France, the UK and the USA participated in the SEAD phase. Italy, Canada and Denmark have only started enforcing the no fly zone.

"Canada has enforced the no-fly zone, and was about to bomb a Libyan airfield before the attack was waved off due to "collateral damage" (probably implying civilians). I don't think we can say it has enforced the SEAD until it actually does, but on the other hand it had the full intention of doing so .206.248.165.18 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab League vs. African Union

Does anyone know the diplomatic reasons given why permission from the Arab League, but not the African Union was needed? I understand some of the reasons [4] why the AU's opposition [5] is ignored, but has the coalition actually said it? If they have, I think it's important to include in the article since it's a question readers would ask while reading this. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-21t11:14z

Hint - The current Chairperson of the African Union, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, is the President of Equatorial Guinea for the past 32 years.

The AU is not opposing the current action. The AU statement referenced is from several weeks ago, IIUC, before the situation deteriorated and the Arab League supported intervention. The only opposition since is from an AU panel of just three countries, which South Africa has said is not representative. Note that all three AU members on the UNSC - South Africa, Nigeria, and Gabon, voted FOR the UNSC resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the AU it should be noted, that Resolution 1973 foresees a "High Level Ad-hoc Committee" of the AU to play a significant role. My expectation is the UNSC will allow this committee travelling to Libya "once the international coalition is done with disabling Col. Gaddafi’s air defences." According to Michael Mullen the mission of implementing a no-fly zone is "practically done". — Regards from Germany! --85.178.216.69 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Main article image needs updating

The article image of the map needs updating, missing RAF Akrotiri (Cyprus), RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall etc --SuperDan89 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On it. Jolly Ω Janner 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

also Decimomannu in Sardinia needs to be put on the map, as the UAE and Spanish planes will be based there. as for from Trapani: Italian planes are departing for missions in Libya from there too. In Sigonella there are Danish and Italian planes. From Souda Bay French and Qatari planes depart for mission over Libya. noclador (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

also British Typoons are now based in Southern Italy - can anyone find out which base they are based at? noclador (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They're at Giaoia del Colle and are already on the map. I have updated the map. Let me know if there's anything else, which is being reported. Jolly Ω Janner 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed someone added the naval forces to the map. What about the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown? That should also be included. Soutsc (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Can someone make an ogg conversion of this recording and maybe incorporate it into the article? http://audioboo.fm/boos/307814-usaf-ec-130j-steel-74-transmitting-on-6877-0-khz-libya-20-march-2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.153.237 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi as a target?

This should be included. The Brits are divided over the issue http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/21/libya-gaddafi-air-strikes-liveOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All official sources have said no. The source you provided is from a blog, so I think we should stick to the story that he isn't a target for now. Jolly Ω Janner 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Parlamentary approval

Has any politician or anti-war activist complained that the military operation has not been authorized by parliaments of the participating countries? In particular, by the US Congress under the War Powers Resolution. 194.186.62.37 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK Parliament will get to talk about it Monday 21st March but this is after the UK struckOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has the authority to declare a state of war without the consent of Parliament. See Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom#Powers_and_constraints.Quite vivid blur (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

US: On Sunday, Jeff Sessions (Republican) was asked about that (Meet the Press or This Week) and he said no, but he thought the President should have done more informing of those beyond the leadership of Congress. iow, there's no official authorization needed nor expected. Flatterworld (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I beleive Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said that Obama is in violation of the war powers act. I suppose Rep. Kucinich could go to court, but the SCOTUS has been reluctant to get involved in squabbles over the War Powers Act (which some think may not even be constitutional) IIUC, and given that Kucinich seems to be alone so far, I think he might be reluctant to take that step.Ricardianman (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

if you move around sections in the article

make sure afterwards that the citations and references are still in order! Moving around section and thus messing up the references is not acceptable. If you wish to rearrange the article - MAKE SURE there are afterwards not big red warnings all over the article for broken references! thanksnoclador (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties wrong info

First, the casualties for Libya are much smaller.

Second, International Forces got 2 planes shot down, whether Pentagon denies it or not.

Third, as long as Pentagon is realiable source, Libyan State TV is also reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indepentdent organisations such as the UN would be best to use. However, I would regard the Pentagon more reliable than Libyan TV, especially for their own forces. Jolly Ω Janner 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Libya state TV is in no way a reliable source. These are the same people who supported the ideas that Gadhafi told the people at the start of the uprising (when it was one) that it was because of was caused by, Al-Qaeda, then drugs, then the West. Then he just outright denied it and the whole time Libya state TV supported and assured the people these were true. TopGearR814 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would sort agree with you on the third part, to an extent. Pentagon itself is not a fully reliable source and I wouldn't use information coming solely from Pentagon. However, Libyan state TV is, frankly, ridiculous, and such a claim, strong as it may be, can be confirmed from multiple sources (Bin Laden joining forces with the US and Israelis to sell drugs to Libyan youth, just to name one of the mental acrobatics offered to us by Gaddafi and the good people of Libyan TV). About the casualties you mention: if I'm reading correctly, the article currently says "Unknown number of civilian casualties", which is very NPOV. If you're talking about military losses, these numbers have been confirmed by a number of videos and still images. Thus, these casualties are something very difficult to deny and my personal opinion is that their inclusion in the article is correct.

Second, about planes shot down. Now, I'm not claiming a priori that's not true. Are there any photos or videos of these planes after their shooting down? One would expect such an event getting significant attention from Libyan TV and I'm sure they'd send a reporter to the crash site. If it crashed in the Mediterranean, are there any images/videos of it being fired at and hit? Any photos of it leaving clouds of smoke behind? Again, I'm not disagreeing with you a priori - "Western" powers have been known to lie (frankly, the whole thing about planes being turned around mid-air once they heard there were civilians on the ground, while entirely possible, seems a bit like a stunt for the world public, if you ask me). I'd just like to at least see some circumstantial evidence of it being plausible. But that may just be me. (I don't think so, though.) Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan TV is a tool of the propaganda machine of Gaddafi. Everything they report is unreliable at best and pure fantasy at worst ("People in Benghazi live in a nightmare! A nightmare"); therefore unless a more reliable source confirms something we shall and will disregard Libyan State TV as a source. noclador (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the "nightmare" part was from an American channel, but yes I would agree that Libyan State TV is in no way a reliable source when it comes to this conflict. -- Philly boy92 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the plane shot down. At least, "unknown" casualties shud be added.Frajjsen (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly a matter of belief. There have been no facts, presented by Libyan TV or otherwise, supporting that claim. Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And then, why we believe in the Pentagon :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you, I do not a priori believe in what Pentagon says. I'm sure nobody does. Let's be explicit here: which parts of this article that have not been supported by multiple sources (especially videos, images, witness accounts etc.) do you find incorrect? The casualty figures you mentioned earlier are indeed supported by an extensive amount of such material. Once again, this is not about belief. To make a classic argument, check out this image: File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg. Now, some people believe that the guy in the left of the picture once existed, some believe that the guy in the right of the picture is the creator of universe as a whole. Now, I don't believe either one of them existed, so I'd need to be convinced by proof. Can you tell me who's right? How do you know? :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I cannot prove that the left guy ever existed to you unless you accept my proof procedures, 2. that guy at the right looks uncannily familiar. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another anti-aircraft fire taking place right now Frajjsen (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Some forces have a record of lying about planes being shot down, some don't. That's what makes some sources reliable and some not. Libyan state tv is, imo, the equivalent of Comical Ali on this. Flatterworld (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know, where all this Libya casualties come, but I douby it seriously. 16 soldiers? Havent they leaved killing soldiers at 3 phase?

14 tanks? Only one - bombed by France.

70 vehicles? I havent heard anything about destoyed vehicles.

Unknown number of civilians? Ridicuolus.

A pic of shot down MIG-21 was also shown. Western powers said nothing. It was rebel plane however(I doubt they have planes however)

Never mind.. this wiki offers only 'encyclopedic' information and simply NO 'US-negative' information.

Hidding, removing... what else?

Heres another pic of shot down french plane - it is from yesterday.

http://content.marica.bg/news/2011/03/0000012210_w480.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe you think this is a picture of a French plane shot down yesterday. No, this picture is of a rebel plane you mention - a MIG-23, if I'm not mistaken. It was all over the news and the incident is discussed in 2011 Libyan uprising, where you can find exactly the same photo you posted, the one on Wikipedia being of slightly higher quality. It is not from yesterday: actually, you can see it was uploaded on Wikipedia on March 19, three days ago!

About the tanks, vehicles or soldiers, you might have not heard anything about it. However, there are multiple pictures, videos and witness accounts of such vehicles. You can see some here: [6]. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if we didn't have the true story behind this crash (we do, as correctly described by user:Peasantwarrior), separating all French fighters from the MiG-23 on the photo is straight forward. Notice tailplane (both D.Mirage 2000 and D. Rafale lack this completely, and the old Mirage F1 hasn't been used at all by the French Opération Harmattan), and the long relatively slender wings, typical of swing wing jets (unlike all French fighter jets). There are numerous other differences that perhaps are less obvious to people without a military background and I do understand why people would not immediately notice those, but that IP 92.247.220.195 missed the obvious wing and tailplane differences that I just mentioned can only mean that he/she didn't even bother checking. RN1970 (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The current reference for Libyan casualties listed does not contain the information listed. This reference should be removed and the information tagged as needing a citation, or removed completely until information is available. Alousybum (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would it be acceptable to put the countries in alphabetical order in each section? As the number grows, it's difficult to find them. The sequence in which they acted seems fairly irrelevant to the box, and it's in the article anyway. (I'm assuming that's the current sequence.)Flatterworld (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, noclador (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on Libyan navy

There are numerous reports that the Busetta naval base near Tripoli was bombed but no indication of who did it. The eyewitness reports seem to indicate bombs rather than cruise missiles. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India's Position

So why on earth is India's position on this listed in the "Mixed" section? Indian and non-Indian media are all saying that India is basically against the air strikes, and they're in the mixed section?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8393950/Libya-attacks-criticised-by-Arab-League-China-Russia-and-India.html http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Russia+China+India+Turkey+condemn+Libya+strikes/4474784/story.html http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories/2011032151180100.htm http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRlDpPNOeggu1Rkz8-vUd32INbLw?docId=CNG.26f4275431f3c791c245845a136980cf.1301

Ridiculous!99.255.196.49 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is ridicuolus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And someone just moved Russia's position into the mixed position. Good grief.99.255.196.49 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Country participation

There are media reports of Danish, Norwegian and Spanish aircraft taking part in combat operations over Libya but no indidcation of which of the four operations this falls under. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The US operation, also the Italian participation is under US command. noclador (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To do

• A new section title "Media coverage"
• A section on the protests against the intervention. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already a "criticism" section, protests would seem to belong there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Evo Morales

I think the fact that Evo Morales was awarded the 2006 Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights needs to stay in the article, as Morales demanded that U.S. President Barack Obama be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for authorizing the attack against Libya, while he himself has no problems to keep a prize for Human Rights he got from a man that currently is violating all and every human right there is. noclador (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as the fact that he got the prize is sourced, there's no real reason to take it out. You could say it's irrelevant, but it is of interest and has some relevancy to their relationship at least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

flags in the box

According to news reports the US is currently leading the allied intervention so why is their flag all the way at the bottom along with their commanders. Being that this is a US led operation their flag should be listed first, along with the commanders, like it is in the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, War on Terrorism and a million other associated articles. I don't know why Canada is listed first in this article and the 2011 Libyan Civil War article, the French have had much more involvement than them.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

After briefly looking over all of the coalition operation articles, such as Operation Odyssey Dawn, it seems the US is providing the majority of warships and aircraft so thats another reason why their flag should be on top. A general standard for flags in the military box, which is used on a large number of wiki military/naval articles, is that the strongest force involved is listed first. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and so far alphabetical has had a lead. Although I see your point, there are a range of reasons why other ways of doing it are impractical. By leadership: The US have clearly stated that they soon will hand over the leadership. What to do then? Have US for a period, and then switch order every time the leadership changes? And what when it is over? Should we then start counting who had the leadership for most days? By strength: This, too, will change over time, and even if taking any single point of time it is not easy to judge throughout (certainly not when WP:RS are required, and WP:NOR should absolutely be avoided). Are Frrance or the UK most involved now? Who should be first in that order? This is even more problematic when reaching lower levels of involvement. We'd have to deal with impossible questions like how many F-16 fighters one country has suplied are needed to equal the use of an airbase by another country. Or a frigate? Consequently, alphabetic is the most practical. If other articles related to this situation (what is happening in Libya) have done it differently, and they are not about the operations by a specific country (e.g. Canadian Operation MOBILE), it is likely the result of people adding or changing order randomly, perhaps purely for nationalist reasons (initially France seemed to be moved to the top by some users). Alphabetic thus also matches NPOV best. RN1970 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, the three UNSC permanent members on top, followed by alphabetical. Both your POV is solved by this. Please don't change again. Removed long list of political leaders too, kept the names of soldiers similar to Iraqi no-fly zone battlebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. None of the problems I mentioned above were commented on: WP:Consensus. If just by UNSC permanent members, you need to provide arguments why US is first, then UK, and then France. Why do you judge that UK is above France? And what when the US steps down in a few days, as they have said repeatedly they will? I did not invent the alphabet and did not name the countries. If you can find a solution that is more NPOV than alphabetic, I would be interested in knowing about it. RN1970 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I SAID NOT TO CHANGE IT. Who uses alphabetical in all the battleboxes? Not wikipedia. The order was PERFECT. This is the reason the other NATO allies are not joining yet, because it started smelling like a French led mission so early. You are jeopardizing the mission, because all the Euro and Arab partners are reading this page, where it looked like the US was not on top. Did you see the change I made in the commanders box too? Change it all back now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the fundamentals of wikipedia. You can't command people to not change your edits. I strongly urge you to follow WP:Consensus and reflect on the questions asked previously. The claim that I am jeopardizing the mission by reverting your edit is completely laughable (even if someone made edits that could pose a risk, wikipedia thankfully is not a primary news sources for actual decision makers in Europe and Arabia). Who should be listed among Commanders and leaders has been discussed at some level, but I do agree that it had grown too large. However, I have no strong opinions about the Commanders and leaders section and will not participate further in that discussion. RN1970 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you have your wiki rules to follow. (but also know that Italy was threatening to withdraw their bases unless NATO take command soon. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander has always been American since 1951.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

This article transponds only claims (loses) by western media, not neutral sources. At that fashion, we`ll need to mention at least some claims by opposing sides (french loses,...). --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see this earlier discussion about the claim that a French plane was shot down. WP:RS is important. RN1970 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all that western media claims are same as in all wars in last 20 year. First of all, "media preparation" was launched weeks before air strikes, by getting into program "innocent" citizens of Libya that required strikes (same as Kuwait scenario in 1991, when a daughter of Kuwait ambassador to US claimed that she was a girl, that was a victim of Iraqi attacks). And all those people were anonimous! No opposite side had a chance to give their point of view. Also, we need to keep in mind that in 1999, when F-117A was shot over Yugoslavia, Pentagon claimed that it crashed due to mechanical faillure, all untill December 1999, when Kosovo War was over long ago.--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS. Please also remember this is not a WP:FORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, read WP:UNDUE. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why he should do that(read WP:UNDUE)? Maybe because you ignore every one with different position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well he could read it to see whether Reference suggesting he do so was right. There's as good a reason as any. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Military losses section

Somebody has added this section. I've tidied it a little, and added refs to the F-15 loss, but the Libyan losses quoted aren't backed up bythe given ref, and in any case this is only a small part of the likely casualties incurred.

I'm not sure, what with all the normal propaganda and "fog of war", that this section will really help - with all the claims and counter claims, etc., it may be better left out for now? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think: leave out would be better. noclador (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for now I think leaving it out makes sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

new order of article

Following a logical order (and wiki usage) I suggest the article be arranged in the following order:

• Proposal for the no-fly zone
  • Chronological development of the no-fly zone
• Enforcement
  • Operation names
  • Forces committed
  • Bases committed
  • Action by international forces
  • Countries in preparation
• Military losses
  • Coalition
  • Libya
• Reaction
  • Support
  • Mixed
  • Criticism

I suggest this change because the current structure has losses before actions, which is the wrong way around and also to have critiques before the enforcement section is wrong, as the article is about the military intervention in Libya and not the critique. in short: article subject needs to be the first thing in the article. If there are no other suggestions I will in a few hours rearrange the article as suggested. noclador (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

that seems like a good move to me, although see the comments above re "Military Losses" - we could leave the whole section out - for now at least. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, noclador (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

{{flagicon}}

For flag icons, please use

• {{flagicon|Libya|1951}} for the rebels
• {{flagicon|Libya|1977}} for the Gaddafi regime

We should stop using simple {{flagicon|Libya}}, as we need to anticipate the possibility that the flag of Libya could be anything, or either of the two, in 2012 or 2013. So if you want to ensure that the flag icon displayed stays the same even if the current flag of Libya should change, specify which flag you want explicitly. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian mission part of US Odissey Dawn

See their page: http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Pagine/default.aspx

Is that logical?--78.2.15.204 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the operation currently being conducted by AFRICOM. From the Pentagon: "Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973." "the commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, which is the name of this operation, is Admiral Sam Locklear," [7]- this is like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, the only difference is that some nations (France, Britain) as of now have chosen to have their own operations alongside the main operation! noclador (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

to illustrate the point: in 1991:

• Operation Desert Storm
  • Operation Granby were the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Opération Daguet were the French military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Operation FRICTION were the Canadian military operations during the Gulf War in 1991

and now:

• Operation Odyssey Dawn
  • Operation Ellamy are the British military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Opération Harmattan are the French military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Operation MOBILE are the Canadian military operations in the military intervention in Libya

and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller military contingents are today again under direct command of the US main command. noclador (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, when talking about Libya. I see them here as equal, not as a hierarchy. Cheers,--78.2.15.204 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Forces of nations under US Command

Please help me. The Operation Odessy Dawn page states that non British, French and Canadian forces fall under US Command. I believe they are not!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

we are already discussing that one topic up of this--78.2.15.204 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway

The six Norwegian F-16s are now based at Souda Bay in Crete.[8] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Map'd. Jolly Ω Janner 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Costs

This topic was covered by BBC News 24 and by Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 today. The costs for UK are quite staggering and must be very similar for all those other nations similarly committed. I see no reason why this topic should not warrant its own section in the article, provided WP:OR could be avoided. It currently seems to get a mention only in Ref 86 currently. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Find some more sources talking about it and put them in the article as best you can then. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Country Categories in Infobox

I feel that the four different categories of coalition countries (those providing aircraft for SEAD, those providing aircraft for CAP, those providing ships to enforce the arms embargo, and those providing bases) is too complex. There is significant overlap, and I can't find any examples of doing this from infoboxes in similar articles. Why not make one list? If necessary, we could mention any important qualifications in parentheses, like Greece (provides airbases only). Thoughts? 128.59.182.166 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_War_On_Libya_Belligerents.svg

Why is Greece not included, but Sweden is? Sweden isn't even providing anything until asked. The Greeks are actively allowing military bases to be used for operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.233.23 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because there's a lot of conflicting reports about Greece, including that they will not partake in military operations. [9] Allowing military bases to be used doesn't make one a participant in a war.--Sloane (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And Svenska (Sweden)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sweden has offered to join, if they were asked by NATO, but so far nothing has come of it (probably because the operation has been in disarray with the lack of leadership). --Sloane (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hence Sweden shouldn't be included in the belligerents... SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing in the sky, nothing in the (info)box. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest rename to 'UN Coalition intervention in Libya'

There has been the criticism that 'coalition' is too vague as it doesn't actually identify the coalition party. There is the equal criticism that 'military' is likewise too vague for similar reasons. It occurred to me that 'UN Coalition' is the proper and superior term for usage here, as it identifies the UN, and more specifically the coalition acting under UN mandate, as the principal actor. Regards, -67.161.54.63 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We should rely on WP:COMMONNAME methinks, and wait for a common name to emerge. Is it me or is everything about this whole thing, that is name-related, just one big point of contention? Though I think we can agree the country is called Libya (joking of course in case y'all think otherwise. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why this love affair with the meaningless word "coalition"? It's a filler. It's imprecise. It doesn't tell the reader anything. And it's associated with negatives - "Coalition of the willing/lying" in Iraq. I agree that at the moment it is a UN endorsed action. That could be added. And surely it IS military in nature. And it IS an intervention. Exactly what is the problem you're trying to solve? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's very easy to confuse it with George Bush's coalition, and I personally don't like it one bit. I liked them being called Allies more, but then of course you have the problem of the Allies of World War II/United Nations (which no one uses ofc). I do wish they'd create a nice name for our forces, or at least a unique one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• NATO's taking over, so you might start using that.--Sloane (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Until we have a common name I would not worry. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "NATO Intervention in Libya". No 2011 at the beginning cause this could go on to next year but if it does end in this year the 2011 could be added. TopGearR814 (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO works. Let's wait till they take it over officially though and the papers start talking abotu it like that though. Or ~just when they take over, whichever. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. It should be say Military enforcement of UNSCR 1973.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, except for the fact that it took me quite some time to figure out what UNSCR stood for. Happy for it to mention the UN. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"coalition" was just a preliminary vague term while people were still bickering over command. One should hope they will get their act together over the next few days, and if the whole thing ends up under NATO command, we can just call it a NATO mission. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, 'NATO intervention' does not work here, simply because the NATO is not currently the active party. Also, there are non-NATO members in the coalition. NATO is not the party currently engaged, therefore it would make no sense to rename the article to accommodate a late addition. 'Coalition' does mean something if the context is given, and the context here is a UN mandate. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter if the French come first then the UK and the US

I'm referrring to the Commanders and Leaders info boxOther dictionaries are better (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the tidiest, easiest, most NPOV way is to list items alphabetically, so, "no"! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

 Done The lead sentence sounds a little POV to me. Stylistically, the sentence should strive to include some aspect of the article title in bold to give the reader a better understanding of the topic. As it stands now, it looks intended to emphasize the humanitarian aspect of the operation. However, that seems at odds with the title and content of the article, which focuses on the military aspects. Can we change it back to something more on point? Ronnotel (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreeOther dictionaries are better (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot agree. "the sentence should strive to include some aspect of the article title in bold" is a terrible policy. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface."

as for "military aspects of the operation", I am not sure this makes any sense. This is a military operation. It does not "have military aspects". Its purported motivation is humanitarian. Its nature is military. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree on the purportness of the humanitarian part. If you look at the text I replaced, it looked like someone was trying to invoke the phrase "humanitarian intervention" and was employ rhetorical devices to support that interpretation. Whether we use boldface text is, in my mind, not that important - I just want the reader to be clear what the article describes - a military intervention. Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"In March, 2011, a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US launched a military intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone established over Libyan airspace by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011."... "Since the beginning of the war, the initial coalition has expanded to 14 nations, with newer nations mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade." - It is annoying that all the time one editor tries to add his "War on Libya" POV to this article. noclador (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The most NPOV term we can use here is "military intervention". There's no evidence of actual humanitarian assistance underway at this time. To call this such is mislead. This article describes bombs being dropped, not school building and other do-gooderisms. Ronnotel (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey statements

User Noclador has deleted this summary of statements by Turkey from the article (again):

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution and said that he had called for Gaddafi to step down several times. However, he said that Turkey would never point guns at the Libyan people.

This summary of statements by Turkey seems like a relevant thing to add to this article. If there's a problem with the characterisation as "mixed reaction", this can very easily be solved by simply deleting the "Support", "Mixed" and "Criticism" titles from that section of the article. Which might be a good idea anyway. More info on Turkey's rather ambivalent position is needed too (like their opposition to NATO taking control).--Sloane (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution - so he does not criticize it, also Turkey sends ships to enforce the weapons embargo; criticism is something different. I do not see any criticism in Erdoğan statement. noclador (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comments again. Turkey has a pretty ambivalent attitude towards this operation. This can simply be covered by including some of the comments they've made over the past week. If you dislike the characterisation of "mixed" (not "criticism "as you wrongly state), we can and probably should just remove the classification of all statements, just one big reaction section seems much more suitable anyway. --Sloane (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

don't wiggle around now! the paragraph as it is now is fully in support of the intervention!! If you add other comments that may change the things, but you can not put Turkey in a category because comments they have made that ARE NOT in the paragraph. If you add some real criticism then naturally the paragraph can stay. But do not say, this must stay because of comments they made, but which are not in the paragraph; if it is not in the paragraph and it is not sourced, it is not there, if it is not there, then it is not there. noclador (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More criticism from Turkey: Amid arguments over the scope and command of the air campaign against Tripoli, Turkey both blocked Nato planning on the no-fly zone and insisted that Nato be put in control of it, in order to be granted a veto over its operations, senior Nato officials said. "Turkey blocked further planning while the coalition [of the willing] continues," said a senior official. Ankara wants the broad coalition involved in the air campaign to cede control to Nato in order to limit its operations, the official added. The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks on ground targets in Libya and signalled that agreement on this would be the price of their assent. [10]--Sloane (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

is this criticism? it sounds more like "arguments over the scope and command of the air campaign against". criticism of the command structure is irrelevant. Has any Turkish government official said the no-fly zone, the operation ecc. is wrong? if yes, then put Turkey in the critics section. if not, then there is no criticism of the no-fly zone and operation. noclador (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks" --Sloane (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He is right that it is not related to actual criticism of their air attacks though, rather a desire to have a direct say in the goings on here. As well, could you two please tone it down a notch? You've been at each other's throats for a while (I saw the 3RR complaint) rather than working together to help improve the article. Let's just chill, fellas. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sloane, please quote completely: "The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks on ground targets in Libya." they did not call for an end of the arms embargo, they did not call for an end to the no-fly zone. noclador (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

lead paragraph

As it is now the lead paragraph omits every mention of why the UN resolution was taken and on why the intervention happens. Also to call it "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US" is factually wrong, as the coalition was much broader from the start (look at the nations represented at the Paris summit) than the 5 nations, that were the ones capable to launch the first strikes. The lead paragraph needs to mention for what reason the intervention is underway, a reader wants to know! noclador (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

see above - this change was discussed. Motivations are not central to the article - it describes the end result. Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Participating in the Paris summit, doesn't suddenly make you a participant in the war. Belgium for example participated in the summit, but didn't start taking military action until a few days later. But by all means, if you have a good source on nations participating in the initial assault the first days, provide it and we can add the country to the opening statement of the lead.--Sloane (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing regarding the lead, I think we best move the "On 22 March, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle arrived off the coast to provide military planners with a rapid-response air combat capability" further down the article. It's not really lead material.--Sloane (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Something else, the original rewrite of the lead had "in support of an armed uprising" in it, that in part addresses the cause and motivation of the war. We can add that again. --Sloane (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you have to distinguish - Belgium did not take part at the start, because it took them some days to get ready for the mission. But it pledged its units at the summit! To say it was not part is factually wrong! As you say - initial assault was just 5 nations, but only because time was of essence and the other nations had to get their units in position first! The coalition included from the start Qatar, but they needed some days to get their plans to the theater of operations. About the de Gaulle - agreed take it out. But do not say it was a 5 nation coalition!! this is an error. noclador (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Undid revision 420366383 on 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

I undid the undo of my revision. Both countries were bombed after UN Resolutions. Both countries are in the Middle-East region. The date may be coincidence, but the two are hardly unrelated.--161.28.254.255 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this should be added. It is entirely irrelevant. The 2003 war in Iraq was not UN sanctioned. It was also not about Libya, which strike me as the two possible reasons to put thins in the see also section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Germany???

Germany needs to be taken out! Today there was a huge uproar when it came out that the German government actually wanted to vote "No" to the UN resolution[11] and Germany rushing it's ship out of the Mediterranean today! The current government - heavily criticized by the opposition today [12][13]- seems to be the only government in Europe that is trying to stay as far away from anything that could sniff of intervention in Libya. In my view Germany is "Not currently committing forces", but also never will! (although the opposition calls for participation). I say: take Germany out! noclador (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For all of those reasons, I say: keep Germany in! If and when NATO takes control, the incongruity will only increase. But very important that the German view is included in this article. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Drat, I'm only in second semester German and can't really understand these sources well without a dictionary. =( Könnten Sie mir doch bitte einen englischen Artikel finden? =) (we're learning the Dativ, so I hope I phrased that right) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arms embargo

This needs a separate article, Operation Unified Protector. It is part of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 but will be a separate NATO operation performed by a separate naval force.[14] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

put balance into images on the right sidebar

i only see western planes and ships. what is this -- a military propaganda? if there have to be so many images, balance them with the military equipment owned by Libya - airplanes, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.. .

also, since west is attacking ground troops as well, those weapons being targeted can also be placed in the same section of images. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)