Talk:Libya

Flag and coat of arms

Until a formal change of government occurs, these are still the official symbols of Lybia. So having them in the infobox is not taking sides, so please leave them be for now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do - Dn9ahx (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A little patience required. I have no doubt they will be changed by the end of the week, but until then Saddhiyama is correct. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just changed the flag back again... Dpaanlka (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the original flag! The bland green one, made personally by Gaddafi was ridiculous. Andalus7 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" appears to have collapsed, we could remove the long form name from the lead paragraph and infobox but leave it in the name section. Dn9ahx (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed the long form names from lead paragraph but have left it as the official long form in the name section.Dn9ahx (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan mission to the United Nations has changed over to the pre-Ghaddafi flag. As far as the international world is concerned, Libya now operates diplomatically under the monarchist flag. 2ltben (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can you provide a ref for this - would allow us to remove GSPLAJ symbols from infobox - we could leave leave it without symbols to remain N-POV between the two sides Dn9ahx (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Monarchy Flag is used by most Libyan Embassy so therefore it should be changed NOW. fatcowxlive (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Also the Libyan opposition control more than Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, so they can have thier flag on the front page of the wiki. fatcowxlive (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• will remove existing symbols - we could have both in infobox or have none at all Dn9ahx (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you Dn9ahx I'm sure you have made millions of Libya happy! fatcowxlive (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would want the monarchy back(my opinion) but until Gaddafi is out of power the original symbol and flag are still the national flag and everything since the opposition hasn't taken the entire country and no changes to the law regarding the national flag and symbols have been made. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We display no symbols in the infobox for Northern Ireland even thouth the symbols of the UK remain the de jure symbols of that entity. We do the same for Kosovo where symbols are displayed on an second infobox below, not in the main infobox. We could go for a no symbol infobox here to avoid taking sides in this conflict. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have now removed all symbols from the infobox - at least until the conflict is resolved, or until we can reach a n-pov consensus.Dn9ahx (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations itself continues to use the solid green flag of the Great Socialist Jamahiriya. The Libyan ambassador at the UN, or in DC, despite continuing to physically occupy mission grounds, is no longer, by his own statement, representing the government of Libya so it doesn't matter if he's flying the monarchy flag or the flag of Disneyland. Ambassadors are not envoys of the state in its corporate persona, but the personal delegate of the sovereign. Until, if ever, the former Libyan ambassador is issued credentials by a recognized replacement government he holds no legal office and has held none since he renounced the government de jure. This should not even be a point of dispute. We can't go changing the flags of country entries every time there's an insurrection. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Noone has yet to provide a source that says the flag is not accepted as the official flag of the (as of yet) representational government of Libya. The way things are going we are probably going to have to change the flags, but at the moment there is no reasonable grounds for it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I was advocating the solid green flag be maintained as the flag for this entry. I think we agree but I'm not sure. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if I was unclear, my contribution was in support of your statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

so the flag at the u.n. is more relevant to the article than the flag of the east of Libya? - the flags colour, the look of it, its just about power , was the green flag the result of a goddam plebiscite , its just about power, and the powers in the land are split now.Sayerslle (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is only one government that has obtained international recognition as the legal government of Libya. That is the government sitting in Tripoli at the moment. That government has established its flag as green on an unadorned field. That's the only thing that matters to me. When, and if, the insurgency obtains international legal recognition as the government of Libya then we can change it to their flag. However, there are many nations in the world in which rebel actions are ongoing. Just because you have taken an interest in one does not mean the standards by which national flags are displayed should be adjusted. If you have a problem with the government in Tripoli being the legally recognized government of Libya then take it up with the nations recognizing it. However, legality of governance is established by consensus of the nation-states of the world, not by Wikipedia contributors. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

France has recognized the Libyan rebels as the legitimate government: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/France-First-to-Formally-Recognize-Libyan-Opposition--117727673.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.12.193 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

well. I'd prefer no flag to just this one flag,- when you watch the news, you know, whats actually happening, - you see other flags than just the pro-gadaffi green flag - still, I see where you're coming from. Sayerslle (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what you prefer or don't prefer; what images you see on the television or what images you don't see on the television. If you can provide an abundance of objective sources indicating the legally recognized government of Libya is using a flag other than unadorned green then we can discuss changing it. A flag is a legal identifying mark, not a fun piece of decorative sports insignia. It has practical juristic uses in territorial marking, navigation of international waterways, etc. Every man, woman and child in Libya could be flying the pre-'69 flag and yet the unadorned green flag would still be the flag that should be displayed on this entry until the authorizing instruments that establish it as the identifying mark of the incorporated state have been amended. I have reported you for vandalism. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reality is important. thanks for reporting me for vandalism, bit quisling esque, or somethinglike that. I'm not a vandal, thats the reality.Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 'reality' is not important, per Wikipedia policies. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion, and the green flag is the only verifiable national flag of Libya at this time. Alternative flags would be included in pages on the movements using them, but not as the national flag on the country's page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BBC news tonight 'in the east the gadaffi green flag has been replaced by the ..' etc.. who 'verifies' flags anyhow. Obviously not the people of the east of Libya. I think it's indecent seeing just the green Gadaffi designed flag, ..well, whatever, nevermind..seeing the situation develop it's ominous isn't it..power has a lot of (craven) worshippers..Sayerslle (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have noted in the Vandalism report, due to your increasingly aggressive and erratic behavior I would prefer you not engage with me further. Wikipedia is not the forum to engage in factional in-fighting between different ideologies. I appreciate your passionate support for the Benghazi mutiny, however, this does not excuse you leaving incendiary messages on other users talk pages nor does it excuse you engaging in four reverts to a consensus edit in 24 hours. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is this report you've concocted? May I read it? Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Current Count on Flag Issue:

• Keep Unadorned Green Flag on Libya Entry: User:Felixhonecker, User:The Bushranger, User:Saddhiyama, User:Skinsmoke, User:Dpaanlka
• Remove Unadorned Green Flag on Libya Entry: User:Sayerslle, User:21tben

Consensus is needed to change an entry, not to undo changes. The entry originally had the unadorned green flag. One-third vocal participants shouting and edit warring to change it does not equal consensus. No further changes should be made to the flag without an exhaustive discussion here that should allow many days for a very, very long and contemplative dialog. To reiterate, the national flag of Libya should not be changed to the flag of a single political party engaged in an armed mutiny in a remote eastern region anymore than the flag of the United States should be changed to the flag of the Republican Party on the basis of them winning recent elections. Note User:Sayerslle has made 4 reverts in 24 hours and has been reported for edit warring. On a personal note I express my earnest hope he is censured or restrained from his continued vandalism of the Socialist Jamahiriya's WP entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• • Er...I only count three edits to the page in total during the last 24 hours by User:Sayerslle, which is perfectly in line with WP:3RR (although WP:BRD should have been followed instead of continual reverts, there is no policy violation). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Per User:Toddst1: "While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." Felixhonecker (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, kindly take into account this article "Libya - What's in a flag" http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/02/2011224123588553.html . Also realize that, whether you like it or not, chosing a flag to represent Libya IS a political decision and IS taking side. (Which political entity does Wikipedia consider as legitimate for Libya?) --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "consider" which entity is legitimate for Libya. Wikipedia simply reports the entity that is recognized by the world's governments as the sole, legal government. In the unlikley event that changes, so will this entry. Your efforts would be better spent lobbying the UN than Wikipedia editors. Until specific legislation is enacted by a legally recognized government restoring the flag of the absolute, totalitarian monarchy this entry will not change. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the tri color flag isn't being waved by people who support totalitarianism erichhonecker, but those who favour a move toward democracy and less power in the hands of an unelected elite - Sayerslle (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a very simple matter. Until such time that someone who is recognized by other governments as the government of Libya takes formal action to change the flag, name, coat of arms, anthem, or any other symbol of the country, they should remain as they are. That's how Wikipedia works. When/if a formal change takes place, the people who are eager to see Gadaffi fall can all cheer to see that change reflected here. But it hasn't happened (at least not yet). Until it does, we need to leave those parts of the article alone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not a vote or poll. We rely on secondary sources, and until such time reliable secondary sources recognise any other symbols as the present ones shown in the article as, we don't change them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious questions: Is this page about a country or about a government? Does the Libyan State the symbols of which are displayed still even exist? If the answer is no (which is pretty clear to me given the definition of "Etat" in French: "Sovereign authority acting on the whole of a given people and territory" - translated from "Petit Robert"), why keep on displaying them, and them only? And, as what is left of the government controls only a small part of the country, why refuse to even display the flag that is all over the rest of the country, and recognized as a symbol of most of current Libya by the Libyan people, and, for an example among many that you can find easily if you need, by the secondary source "What's in a flag" above? (And please, for a good faith discussion, refrain from using arguments given from a position of authority - "It is like this because that's the way it is". This is particularly inappropriate here...) --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that says that the tri colour is the flag of the government of Libya and we will gladly change it. The thing is, it is not. Until the nutjob that runs that country is ousted (hopefully soon) and the new government gets around to changing these symbols, the old symbols stay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence on the Libya page. It is about a country, not a government. --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It is about a country that has a government, which has chosen these symbols. That government may be corrupt and collapsing, but it's the only one the country has so far. I look forward to that changing, but declaring victory prematurely wouldn't help that happen. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To take an example from elsewhere on Wikipedia, there are many different flags currently flying over Somalia, and most of the country is not under the control of the Transitional Federal Government. However, the TFG is still the internationally recognized government of Somalia, so its flag goes in the infobox.

The situation in Libya changes daily, and it seems likely that the opposition will soon take power, establish a formal government, restore the old flag, and change the official name of the country. If and when that happens, we can edit the page accordingly. Until then, let's all be patient and calm and wait to see what happens. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Check it out people. the anti gaddafi groups have fromed an interim govt headed by the former Justice Minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Ajleil http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/26/libya-protests-interim-idUKLDE71P0IS20110226

Xerex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.159.215 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected this to happen, now, they have to be recognized, and they have to change the flag, name and coat of arms, and then we can do it, but not until then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Libya is headed down the same route as Sudan, or for that matter most of Africa. War Lords are claiming territories and cutting up the map. Look at the former Yugoslavia and the Czech republic... it's history people.Redcitydubs (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan flag

The official Libyan flag is still the green-flag, until the flag is officially changed by the government and by international organizations. So please don't put any other flag, the flag used by the opposition is not used officially by the government or by international organizations. A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a 'business as usual' argument - but things are not 'as usual' - the green flag icon represents the official power you say- but not in Benghazi it doesn't - benghazi has different flags flying, a different power has prevailed - so why does wp gives precedence to gadaaffi power and the gadaafi designed flag , rather than to benghazi people power , and the tri colour flag they fly. NPOV violations.Sayerslle (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, different flags are being flown in Libya and on Libyan embassies. But, no law has been issued that the flag is officially changed nor none of the international organization is using the new old-flag. The tricolor-flag flown in different cities of Libya is mentioned on Flag of Libya article and on the main article also. A.h. king • Talk to me! 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When documenting matters of international law (e.g. national flags), WP gives precedence to international law. Sayerslle, if you can show us a legal declaration by some recognized government of some other flag – any other flag – as the official flag of Libya – or of East Libya, Outer Libya, or whatever nation state you imagine exists at this time outside of Tripoli – I will cheerfully change the article myself. Until then, please drop these tedious demands that Wikipedia make this declaration on its own authority. We (and you) don't have it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not submittable as it is Original Research, however, on a purely anecdotal note I telephoned the IMO in London late yesterday and asked about proper flagging of Libyan-registered merchantmen. A man named Darek (Darrekk? Sp?) Sulleman at the IMO told me, for purpose of navigation in international waterways, the Libyan (green) flag must be displayed on merchant shipping, not any variants, no matter how many pop culture references there are to them due to current events. Legal identification of ships is one of the few remaining - and probably most important - practical applications of flags these days. If Sulleman was correct, and I have no reason to believe he was lying, a ship in international waters flying the monarchy flag would be - under international law - a pirate vessel and could fired upon or boarded indiscrimantely. If we put the monarchy flag up we are de facto stating that the nation of Libya's entire merchant fleet consists of pirate ships. Considering the history of the Barbary Wars this borders on outright cynical racism. Please do not let the racists win this edit discussion. Do not take down the green flag until it is legally changed. Berber1 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The green flag is the flag of gadaafi supporters , as well as ..whatever else it is... so NPOV is being violated, because other libyans are at this moment choosing another flag - -just the green flag, is POV in the current situation - I didn't make any demands - sorry this is tedious for you, keeping you from peter pan and his adventures.if someone comes to the page and wonders what does the flag of libya look like - the infobox should have, well it looks like this, or this, as of late february 2011 - wp is not an arm of officialdom, documenting the situation in international law is it?, isn't it about providing information on realities isn't it? what is the wp:policy on flags? The current reality is the flag looks like this, or this. - you say, no it doesn't look like that tri colour -one-at-all- and- you -erase- it-from-the-infobox-muttering-about-tedious-etc.. blah blahing about international law . anyway, i'm finished. Sayerslle (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The green flag is also the current flag of Libya. This has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions. If you truly think this is a POV problem I suggest you take this to the NPOV noticeboard. Currently there is absolutely no consensus to change the flag, and, there is no government using that flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I add my support (edit) to the overwhelming consensus to keep the current flag of Libya as-is on this entry. Sayerslle, I've just jumped in here but read everything before I posted this and it appears abundantly clear that your position has been duly noted and duly rejected. Continuing to scream about it just junks up the discussion page. With due respect, please stop. Thank you. Berber1 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

you add your opposition to the consensus to keep just the one flag - isnt that what i wanted? .. Im not screaming - i'd have been screaming perhaps if id been stuck in one of them prison cells in Benghazi that got liberated by the new forces in the city - but I'm not shoved in a prison, so I am not screaming. With due respect please curb your sarcasm and hyperbole - the colours of the revolution, in Benghazi are tri- coloured - the helicopter pilots would not attack their own people , and the new flag has been painted on the helicopters, -- some normality returns says the BBC man - they've uncovered the burnt out cells of the internal security headquarters , they kept 5 in a cell, just one tiny window, the BBC man spoke to a man beaten with a leather whip and given electric shocks under the old green regime, -then I'd scream, if i was being tortured but that isn't my case thank God, so i aint screaming, so i wont continue to scream about it - - dead interesting report it was , you'd have found it enlightening, - 'shining a light into the darkest corners of gaddafi's rule' the journalist said - he was in the east of the country Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

lolwut Berber1 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:GREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at that policy - I think I know the gist -'the talk would talk and go so far aslant' kind of thing, William Empson,..I just think the one flag infobox is misrepresenting the reality, for POV reasons when all is said and done, - thats my last thought on it , and 'lolwut' berber. i thought you were trying to clear the junk from the page. all talk, hYpocrite Sayerslle (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of you. The next personal insult you post on this page will result in a WP:CIVIL complaint. Berber1 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera: "Gaddafi's control of Libya is now limited to Tripoli" [1]

• The current upper part of the infobox (Gaddafi's flag only) is a serious violation of the principle of neutrality of point of view.
• According to Sovereign_state, it would be more appropriate for a "State of Tripoli" (and still not all of it), maybe, but certainly not for the country of Libya.
• (Where are the Wikipedia rules that would state that governments, or legal documents, would be the only acceptable sources of neutral point of view, or the only verifiable sources?)
• A box with both flags, or with none, would offer a more neutral point of view - RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RecognizeFreeLibya, especially on his third item. Asking for "legal documents" is a flawed rule, and it is especially flawed during a civil war or revolutionary events. I don't agree with the inclusion of both flags, since we have currently no source showing that the insurgent flag is in a reasonable sense a flag of the state of Libya, but we have numerous enough sources which show that the PoV according to which the green flag has ceased being relevant is not marginal - it has been removed from some embassies, which are state organs ; and of course it is now down in large tracts of Libya. The solution "no flag in the infobox" until things get clearer is the one I do support. French Tourist (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me a RS that says Libya has no flag, then we will show no flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your requirement is not reasonable. I do not suggest the insertion of a new information as you seem to imply, but the removal of an obsolete one. I don't assert that "Libya has no flag" and that this information has to be inserted in the article - if I did a RS for this information would be of course required. I simply ask the removal of the assertion "The flag of Libya is green" (assertion included graphically in the infobox) because I think this last assertion is now outdated, and can give sources supporting this assertion : [2] ("Even the flag outside Libya's mission at the UN in New York has been changed from the one used by Gadhafi's government") or [3] ("A Tale Of Two Flags: Libya's Battle Of Symbols"). I think I do enough when I prove that the situation is very different from what it was a few years ago when the green flag was inserted in the article, that sources that were relevant say in 2008 are no longer relevant in the present situation. French Tourist (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I simply require sources, as does all of WP. Libya has a flag. We display that flag, when the Gadaffi regime falls, and changes the flag we can change it. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You first required sources for an assertion I did not support. Hence I did not give the sources. Now you simply require "sources" - I gave two above. Why are they irrelevant ? You write "Libya has a flag" - I have given two sources supporting the assertion "Libya had a flag until recently, but now things are slightly trickier" - I don't think the infobox in its present state is consistent with this assertion. French Tourist (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not acceptable because (1) NECN made no mention of any flags, (2) NPR was not a radio report but hosted on the "blogs" section of their site. Blogs can not be used by WP as sources regardless of the parent organization authoring it. Your request is dismissed. There is no need to refile it. You may make the suggestion to change the flag again in April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya has a flag - is a flat lie, in late February 2011. Is the green gaddafi flag the only one you see when you watch the news? Disgusting. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying? Please assume good faith. As noted at WP:ANI 'The side who wins on Wikipedia doesn't actually determine which side wins in Libya'. Please remove this statement. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the whole east of libya flies a different flag to the green flag so how can I agree that libya has just one flag . the sentence 'Libya has a flag , in my estimation, is a flat lie. That's how i see it. How can I cease seeing things as I see them? Its just my opinion. I do assume good faith - do I have to share all the sentences , and judgments of others? Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When that flag is internationally recognized I will be happy to call that a lag of Libya. No you do not have to vet your statements of course. I also believe you understand my position. Then you call what I typed a lie. That is certainly not WP:AGF which is a pretty darned important principle around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If I can mediate (while of course I have shown I have a strong opinion), I suppose Sayerslle simply means "this is inaccurate" when he refers to a lie, and indeed this is my position. I really do not see why a flag should be "internationally recognized" to be a flag - Category:Flags is full of flags with no interaction with international law at all, from the Flag of Lisbon to the Rainbow flag. You seem to ask a strange condition to admit a "flag" as a possible candidate as a flag of Libya (and could I ask, have you sources proving that the green flag has ever been "internationally recognized" ? I know of recognitions of states or governments, but flags ?). Even if you had proved the assertion "the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya" -I don't think you did- this proof would not prove as a corollary that "Libya has a flag" is accurate. Libya might, as I think, have now a blurred number of flags, something between zero and two (it would be "between zero and one" if you could prove that the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya, of course). French Tourist (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we know where we 3 stand. I see no consensus at this point. Others will likely weigh in throughout the day Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't "recognition", it's official adoption. The old flag is widely used in Libya right now, that's no doubt, but that doesn't automatically make it a state flag. To use Egypt as an example, the Arab Liberation Flag was introduced in 1952 and was widely used during and after the Revolution, but the old flag of the kingdom remained the official national flag until 1958. Now, do I think Libya is going to follow that same path? No, that seems unlikely. But the point is we can't know for sure what the new flag of Libya is going to be until a new flag actually gets adopted, and it's not our job to predict the future. Just like with everything else concerning this ongoing revolution, we need to wait and see. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My disagreements at every step of this discussion (there is a similar one on :fr) always stand on words like "official", "legal" - here the expression "state flag". This article is at the same time about Libya (a country) and about the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a state). It is a normal thing to have only one article for the state and the country in most situations, since there are seldom great discrepances between both - French Republic redirects to France, and it is very reasonable. There are noteworthy exceptions : I think of China, with no infobox and no flag or of Western Sahara with no flag in the infobox, while Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic gives one. Presently (I don't try to "predict the future" - I don't claim to know what the article should look like next week), there is an increasing gap between the country Libya and the Libyan state. Were the infobox about the state of Libya, there would be nothing contentious (if I forget the embassies) : the flag of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is green. But this article is not only about a power structure but more generally about a "country". Obviously, the flag of a power structure, may it be a state or a province is ruled by law, international relations and so on. In this case, the state is losing control on part of the country (as in Somalia) but, supplementary circonstance, the populations of the areas where the state does not rule any longer do not recognize the state flag as the flag of the country (while the problem does not arise in such terms in Somalia). In such a special situation, we should not forget that this article is not only about the power structure. French Tourist (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That "problem" very much arises in Somalia. Al Shabaab does not fly or recognize the state flag, but the TFG's info is still in the infobox because the TFG is the official government of Somalia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

More to the point though, the situations in all three of those countries (China, Western Sahara, Somalia) date back decades. The division between the ROC and the PRC is firmly established, as is the division between the SADR and Morocco's Southern Provinces. The situation in Libya is fluid. At some point in the near future it will begin to solidify into a new form. When that happens we can start changing the article to reflect that new reality. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no gap between the country and state of Libya that warrants action. Any gap is transient and will solidify shortly. EuroAmerican media have been cheerleaders of this revolt; the ground reality is that it will - short of foreign intervention - be absolutely crushed by the government de jure et de facto of Libya. The world is not going to end if the flag on this article is out of date for a couple weeks. The discussion should be tabled until April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit of both, but it still boils down to recognition. Because who are going to adopt a new flag? The Libyan government. And who is the official Libyan government? The government that is official internationally recognised as such, and that is still the regime of Ghadaffi. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who are going to adopt a new flag. the Libyan government you say. Poppycock. the answer to your question - who is going to adopt a new flag , is - the forces of the uprising - this is who bloody well has, adopted the tri-colour flag , it has become the symbol of the uprising. Their organisations are developing - but their flag is completed. you answer the question wrong so you can arrive at your own conclusion. the people of much of Libya have adopted a new flag, the regime will stick with its green flag - the ongoing symbolic denigration of the flag of the uprising as being in any way relevant to the infobox of the country Libya is weird. and NPOV violation. Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a technical difference between adopting a flag, which the uprising has clearly done, and legally adopting a state flag, which I don't believe they have. This isn't a matter a bias for one side or another, it's just a matter of gauging what the uprising has and has not done. It's entirely possible that within a few days we won't even have to draw that distinction. Until that time let's stay patient. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The so-called insurgents are on the verge of being crushed as the counter-offensive has begun; that's why western reporting has dropped-off, there's no "good news" to report. There's no point in changing the flag at this moment since the rebels won't exist in a week and we'll have to change it back. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sayerslle if you truly find it weird and an NPOV violation (which you clearly do, as you have said so) might I suggest taking this to the NPOV noticeboard? Perhaps you will get some satisfaction there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The flag of a police state is not the flag in the east of Libya at this time - why do I need to ask what reality is, at a noticeboard.Sayerslle (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we disagree about which is the appropriate approach for Wikipedia. Essentially, myself and other editors like Orange Tuesday are arguing that "flag" in the infobox can only represent the official flag of a country. You're arguing it should represent the flag that is commonly seen on videos and pictures in areas not under state control. I don't know about others, but for myself, as soon as there is some sort of official announcement of concession or surrender by the Qadaffi government, I would then be content to remove all flags from that section until a new flag is legally adopted. Remember, Sayerslle, we're not actually arguing about "reality" here. We're arguing about a Wikipedia article, and what various fields in infoboxes represent, and what reliable sources have said, which points back only indirectly at "reality". Since you seem convinced that you're right about how this flag does or doesn't match up with our NPOV policy, then the next step is for you to take the issue to a noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the green flag is only now hoisted in Tripoli and Sabha. Nowhere else... -- 92.4.114.2 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Whew! That's a lot to read about a dispute concerning what is or is not an official flag for a nation and government in a state of flux. What no one else seems to have pointed out is, is that flags are also used as a method of keeping score. Whether you be a rebel or not, usually you would have a flag to represent your side, if you've had the time to make a new one like the USA did and later the CSA did, or you're in a rush and reuse an older flag design until you have the time to come up with a new original design, like they seem to be doing in Libya. But anyway, either side chooses a symbol, tempoary or not, to represent their side in debates, demonstrations, arguments, fights, battles, wars, rebellions, revolutions, et cetera. If territory is lost or gained, flags are raised or lowered accordingly by whomever gained the new territory for their side. It seems to me, that the Rebels of Libya, in their haste, chose an older flag design to represent them, as they've not had time to make a new one. It could be that they have since made an official decision to make that their official flag. But either way, they need a method of showing the world which cities and other territories, et cetera, are controlled by whatever side for the time being. Once the conflict is resolved, then we should know for sure what the new Flag of Libya will be, if there is one. Right now it just seems to be a method of Libyans on both sides of the internal conflict, showing each other which side they've chosen to support. I was just reading in another article in "Wikpedia" about how the first CSA flag caused battlefield confusion by being too much like the Union Flag. The Libya factions don't seem to have that problem of flag confusion at least. As for what is official and what is not official, well, the leaders and the people of the CSA, officially approved of their flags, as each one came along. Meanwhile though, the rest of the World did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate nation, even though they had their own currency, and so on and so forth. Libya is in a similiar scenerio here, but not exactly the same, because France and maybe someone else that I'm not aware of yet, has recognized the Libyan Rebels' leaders as an official government entity. But I somehow don't see the Libyan Civil War in progress, lasting as long as the U.S. Civil War did, what with today's technologies. So what I see here is a conflict between the patient and the impatient. The impatient want to see the flag changed to show the World, at least for a little while, that the Flag of Libya has changed once again, while the patient want to see if is is worthwhile to make the bother to change the official data. In the meantime, the flags on the battlefields seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Rebels. Yet as far as I know, the old regime is still the official government replete with their symbols. The United Nations and other official bodies, don't seem like they are willing to announce a victor just yet. Changing the flag from the green one to the older one, the tri-color one, would seem to indicate that the war/game/event is over for all parties concerned, with a definite victor. Shoot by the time I'm finished here, that just may be the case. Whew! That's all for now. Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war: Libyan government

I'd like to request consensus that the government of Libya is presently disputed between Gaddafi's regime and the opposition government in Benghazi. This seems entirely reasonable considering that most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps have expressed their loyalties lie with the opposition, most of Libya proper is under the control of the opposition, and yet Gaddafi is still considered to be in control of the capital at Tripoli. Gaddafi is no longer Libya's undisputed ruler, nor is the opposition wholly unorganized as of 26 February 2011. This edit war is pointless and unproductive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and as soon as reliable sources declare him to be toppled, been killed, arrested or having fled the country, we will be able to update the article and close the period in Libyan history. But not before. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that matters as to saying Gaddafi is no longer head of government. But it's clear there are now two governments in Libya with some modicum of control and claim to legitimacy, and they are actively disputing control of the capital city. Once Gaddafi is gone, he'll be removed from the infobox altogether. As of right now, the government of Libya is disputed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that the government is disputed. Which is exactly my point, since we don't know what side is going to prevail in the dispute, and we don't have any reliable sources stating that Gaddafi is not in power anymore, adding a closing date to his "reign" is most definitely premature. We are not here to anticipate events, just reflect them after they have occured. --McSly (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that point; examining the facts, putting an end date does seem premature. I'm strictly referring to the infobox when I say I think it should be changed and I'd like to get consensus before I change it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need some international recognition before such changes are made. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The Tripoli-based government of Libya de facto et de jure is recognized by 192 different nations. The rumored insurgent government of Jalil is recognized by 0 nations. Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports or Wikipedia discussions. Read the entry state if you need a primer on this. As for "most of Libya proper" - the fact that vast expanses of desert MAY be under insurgent control means nothing when the city and environs where 50% of the population lives is still under government stability. As for "most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps" ... the moment any ambassador renounces the Tripoli-government they no longer comprise part of Libya's diplomatic corps. As pointed about by another editor above, accreditation papers are accepted by a head of state from a head of state and are not legally transferrable at the will of the ambassador. Ergo, the former Libyan ambassador to the UN has lapsed accredidtation at this moment in time and is no longer ambassador. So you're talking about "Libya's FORMER diplomatic corps" which is meaningless in the same way it would be meaningless if Jimmy Carter declared himself King of Ohio. Berber1 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your pro-Gaddafi bias is showing. Credible reports indicate the opposition controls all of Cyrenaica and most of the cities and towns in the west surrounding Tripoli and Surt. Furthermore, the UN continues to recognize the Libyan mission as representative of the country, as does the United States, and the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. has recognized the opposition government. There's certainly a question as to international recognition (though it should be noted several countries, including Peru, have terminated relations with Libya, and many more have called for Gaddafi to step down or be removed), but I think there's little question as to de facto control that doesn't verge into "Baghdad Bob" levels of logical fallacy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Flooding the talk page will not change that. Stop injecting false statements. If the UN continues to give full accredidation to the Libyan ambassador then point to a verfiaible reference. Because "Kudzu1" said it does not make it true. Termination of diplomatic relations does not equal termination of diplomatic recognition. As for "Baghdad Bob levels of logical fallacy" - reported for WP:CIVIL violations. Berber1 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're going to base that on. I have yet to see one credible media report, or a statement from someone who isn't part of the Gaddafi regime or one of Gaddafi's few remaining allies, contradicting the images on other pages - to which this article links repeatedly - of maps with Gaddafi's de facto control shrunk down to Tripoli and a few other towns in the west. If you'd like to provide one, and it becomes apparent there is no consensus as to the opposition controlling anything but some patches of desert, then that opens up a much broader discussion that will impact far more articles on this website. As to the matter of the UN ambassador, I linked to an article when mentioning Libya's expulsion from the Human Rights Council, and the Libyan Interim Government article and others include links to articles describing the ambassador to the U.S. as active and not former. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have neither time nor desire to dig through your past comments in other threads to find this link. If you can't provide it here I am inclined to believe it is of dubious quality. The city of Tripoli houses 1/3 of the nation's population and the immediate environs another amount equal to 50%. I understand and appreciate you are a supporter of the Florida-based Libyan Youth Movement and their CIA-trained leader 70 year-old Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Sahad, however, please do not let your POV cloud edits to this entry. Whether or not we are supporters of the US Defense Department's oil acquisition operations in Libya, many of us want to see Qadaffi removed from power. That doesn't mean we need to inject personal dreams and aspirations into an encylcopedia entry, nor insult people with whom we disagree or start chest-thumping, finger-pointing and yelling "Pro-Qadaffi!!! Get 'im boys!." Please choose to behave in a mature and restrained manner moving forward. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Kudzu1, assume good faith, that is very important. Because someone disagrees with you, they are not necessarily pro Gadaffi, hell, I cannot wait until he is out of power, but, I still say we stay with the de jure government, as I noted, if a plethora of nations suddenly recognize this new group, then we can revisit this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The assumption was more based on the language he used rather than his position in the debate, but your point is well taken and I apologize. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology and will not continue in the filing of the WP:CIVIL complaint against you. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports". Sorry to disagree - any source of sufficient quality can be used. The important thing is that enough recognized authors (scholar, renowned journalist,...) consider the interim government as a government to justify allusions to this government in the article. The POV of diplomatic relations is an important one, but it is not the only one. French Tourist (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if you disagree or not, that doesn't change the fact that governments do not obtain legal recognition by "recognized authors." This is a fact that is not open to debate. This is a legal question, not a pop culture question. Governments obtain legality through one method and one method only. There is no government - not even 1 - that has recognized the existence of any government de jure in Libya other than that which is sitting in Tripoli. We've been over this a thousand times. Edit the entry for cat or something if you have time to kill.Berber1 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox has no entry about "legally recognized governments" or "government de jure" but about "government". (Incidentally, the topic of "recognition of governments" is not a trivial one, since today loads of states have a policy not to recognize governments but States, see [4]). About the "entry for cat", please remain polite - this is not an acceptable remark. French Tourist (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is implicit in the conventions and standards used in the editing of every other country infobox. If you have an issue with that it would be better you take it up with the WP country working group, not here. And, I regret that I did errantly write "government" where I meant "state." My apologies for the confusion you may have experienced as a result. Berber1 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I think this diff [5] (removing from the infobox the indication of a muddled situation as concerns "government") was perhaps judicious when it happened a few hours ago, but we might think of reverting it again, in no hurry. We should begin first by looking for reliable sources hinting that the determination of the government of Lybia is not obvious, integrate this information in the article if we can find it, and as a final step change the content of the infobox. French Tourist (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I have browsed through some sources on the web, typically The Guardian. As far as I try to distillate the information they contain in a useful shape for our infobox problem, it seems that the following informations are now ascertained :

• the Tripoli government has de facto no authority on large tracts of the country ;
• there exists a self-proclaimed "provisional government", supported by some Libyan diplomats but we have very few informations on its authority over the rebellious areas.

In the present state of knowledge (things could change in twelve or twenty-four hours, of course), I think that hinting at this self-proclaimed governement in the infobox would not be reasonable. On the other hand, since the Kaddafi government is obviously in a difficult position, I would suggest to follow the solution presently used in the Ivory Coast article : that is replacing any names of rulers in the infobox bye the mention "(disputed)". Any objections ? French Tourist (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian's liveblog for today contains a relevant item on this: "3.01pm: Some clarification from anti-Gaddafi forces in Benghazi, where the revolt began, on that interim government. They say the National Libyan Council they have formed is not an interim government but the "face of the revolution". At a news conference, they said an interim government announced by the former justice minister was his own "personal view"." [6] I would be hesitant to give too much credence this new government before we really know what's going on with it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this article. If there is only one authority in the country claiming to be a government, the situation is more related to Somalia than Ivory Coast. My suggestion might be a bit premature (or unappropriate, I don't claim I know what will happen next week). Let's wait a few more hours or days ? French Tourist (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

or weeks Berber1 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

YES I OBJECT. I object for the reasons Orange Tuesday outlined above. Can you people maybe take a walk or rent a movie or something? Wikipedia is not a race. Had we made the change French Tourist wanted - for the reasons Tuesday outlined - we would have made this article inaccurate. Just take a valium ... when there are clear indicators from a large swath of reputable sources then, in a contemplative, slow and deliberative way over a period of days, we can consider changes to this entry. Put a yellow ribbon on your Facebook page or something if you want to engage in meaningless cyber-gestures that have no impact. Sorry - but you people really need to back off and not get so caught up in the hysteria of the moment. Berber1 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just take a valium is not acceptable either. Please stop talking this way. French Tourist (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret you feel aggrieved. Berber1 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation is unclear at the moment - it was reported on 27 feb that a Libyan interim government had been formed by former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil and that he was planning elections in three months time. On 27 Feb it was announced that a National Libyan Council has been formed and that it was not a provisional government. A spokesperson for the new body stated that "Mr Abud Al Jeleil's plans for a Libyan interim government were his "personal view"" Dn9ahx (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While Berber1's choice of words above leave something to be desired his/her sentiment is dead on. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. We do not need to get this right right now. We don't need to be continually combing through the papers/other sources, waiting to spring on the moment when we can confidently say "Now, right now, the sources switched ever so slightly into saying the old government is illegitimate and the rebels will form a new one." Our job is never to try to capture the state of "truth" right now, especially in a situation like this one that is changing moment by moment. When the situation becomes totally clear, then we can make changes. At some point it will almost inevitably become correct for us to remove the flag, leaving it blank until a full government is formed, then eventually we'll be able to add in a new flag. But Wikipedia should always be lagging far behind both "new media" and the traditional media. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We should settle this issue as we did for the two Chinas, We should make Libya talk about the region and put links to the two governments. We can change the Gaddafi government to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and then a page called Libyan Republic. This shouldn't be a page for the region, and both government infoboxes --Gimelthedog (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support splitting the page like that if the conflict in Libya settles into a stalemate like the conflict in China. I feel like we'd be jumping the gun to do it now though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A formal declaration from the National Council

Details here: [7].

I think this might be a good point to rewrite some of the article, since it appears we now have two entities claiming to be the legitimate government, each with de facto control of some of the country, and it could still be a while before the situation is fully resolved one way or another. I propose removing Gadaffi specific details from the infobox as a first step. [8]

Thoughts? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I just created Mustafa Abdul Jaleel, who is supposedly the head of the new "Council". It's a placeholder article, and badly needs more information. People will need to know who this guy is. --John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There's already a page on him. I put in a redirect. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If we do go ahead with this I would also propose rewriting the lead section. Maybe something like this? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it a few days. Let's see who wins. --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion. Control of Libya is split between factions, both of which claim to be the Libyan government. We can't predict the future, but we can and should update this article to reflect current information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Tuesday and Kudzu1 - why 'lets see who wins?' - lets keep it as accurate as possible to reflect current reality - thats what wp can do isn't it - nothing is set in stone. Jeremy Bowen this morning on BBC 'more than ever, in this divided country, there are two versions of the truth.' the country is divided, the infobox looks like it is controlled by, (Christopher Hitchens words.).the 'hideous old man and his terrible offspring' who envisage his 'continued private ownership of Libya and its people'. - Sayerslle (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have created a status neutral infobox on my talk page User talk:Dn9ahx Dn9ahx (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and use that. Not sure what convention would be for disputed flags/coats-of-arms, but it's easy enough to address that with an embedded picture in the "Libya under Gaddafi" section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We do something similar for Northern Ireland (where the Union Flag is de jure but not shown in the infobox) and Kosovo (where independence is disputed). I tried to use this infobox before but a user undid it as vandalism and threatened to report me to INTERPOL as an "al qaeda supporter". The user was banned for 24 hours for this. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a fun experience. Now that the UK government is holding direct talks with the National Transitional Council, and now that the council is claiming itself as the Libyan government and exerting an observable degree of control (and wielding an observable degree of legitimacy) over the parts of Libya in revolt against Gaddafi's regime, I think it's safe to go ahead and update the infobox. This wait-and-see approach is putting Wikipedia behind the times. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The combination of the neutral infobox and the new lead section would look like this: User:Orange_Tuesday/Libya Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. I'll let you do the honors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Both of these additions seem to be apt, as for waiting to 'see what happens', this is Wikipedia and doesn't wiki mean 'quick' i.e. quick to respond to changes in this case ? As a further change should we have theNational councils flag as an alternative ( i.e. have both in the info box ? ) Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I created File:Both flags of Libya 2011.gif for this purpose, unfortunately it was reverted out of this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We still do not have any international recognition of the council as an actual government though, so we I think, have to wait on this until there is recognition. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure that we do. Somaliland for example doesn't have international recognition but since it has de facto sovereignty and it declared independence it's treated as an independent state on Wikipedia. Libya isn't an identical situation, obviously, but I think the core principles are still there. There's a regime which claims to be the government of Libya. It has de facto control over half the country. I think that's enough to warrant a mention regardless of the international community's official stance.

I'd add that the question of international recognition isn't exactly clear cut. France has strongly supported the new council, the UK sent a diplomat to Benghazi, and the US said that Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to rule. And the Libyan permanent mission to the UN defected and no longer represents the Gadaffi regime. There hasn't been any official change in recognition yet but the Tripoli government is rapidly losing its capacity to participate in international affairs. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that precedent does apply. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting the new infobox and lead section on the page but with an added sentence explaining that the opposition government doesn't have any international recognition. I don't imagine this is any kind of permanent solution but it seems like a reasonable one for now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if say what happens at Georgia (country) and Cyprus could also be instructive here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the most analogous situation is Afghanistan from 1996-2001, when the Islamic State controlled very little territory but had most of the international recognition and the Islamic Emirate controlled most of the territory but only a handful of states recognized it. Unfortunately this predates Wikipedia so there's no precedent set in terms of style. China might be the next closest example. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We could use the Kosovo model for this - in the politics or history section have two infoboxes - one for the GSPLAJ and the other for the Libyan Republic - both which claim to be the sole authority for Libya. Dn9ahx (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the modifications which were tried these days, sadly reverted by editors who don't participate to these discussions. I completely disagree with their edit summaries ("Restoring common sense. Wiki-activists don't get to determine who or what a nation's government is. Until there is recognition by actual public bodies, e.g. the U.N., there is one recognized gov't of Libya", "Restoring lost info, agreed with tarc here, wikipedia can not just all of a sudden drop the official government here and pretand it's not still in power and not recoginized by the outside community indluding the united nations"), both included the word "recognition" or "recognized" : this is not an article about international relations but an article about "Libya" - points of view of the "outside" community are of course very important (note that this "outside" community also includes mainstream media though, not only international organisations and ministries for foreign affairs), but "inner" points of view, and considerations related to loss of territorial control are also very important. Erasing an information from an infobox is not a "loss of info" (the information stays elsewhere) but a necessary step towards NPoV when including all relevant information is impossible, due to its complexity. French Tourist (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It doesn't even matter whether the part of Libya no longer controlled by the regime is goverened by a transitional council or in a state of anarchy - the regime can not claim to be the Libyan state and hold the sole authority over all state-related issues (name, insignia, type of government etc pp.) if in fact they are limited to areas controlled by their militias. Neither should wikipedia pretend that the regime still has the authority to define anything for all Libya. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

International recognition is a rather important part of government though. The situation is in flux it seems, and, I think we are rushing a bit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's important, which is why the Council's lack of it is worth mentioning. Perhaps more prominently if need be. But I feel like there's a pretty clear precedent set by the inclusion of the states with limited recognition on various sovereign state lists and the like, which is that unrecognized claims are given strong weight on Wikipedia if they are backed up by some kind of de facto power. The view of the international community is one POV. We shouldn't ignore it by any means but we do have to balance it when it is out of sync with the situation on the ground.

I disagree with the claim made in the edit summary that we would be "pretending the old regime isn't still in power" if we made this change. Gadaffi is clearly mentioned in the infobox and the lead as being still being in power. I also disagree with the claim that we would be "determining who or what a nation's government is". We would not be making that determination at all. We would be instead be acting on reliable sources which tell us that the government of the country is disputed between two entities. I would also add that both reverting editors mentioned that recognition from the United Nations was a factor, but "recognizing" isn't really one of the things that the United Nations does. And anyway the fact that Libya's Permanent Mission to the UN claims to no longer represent Gaddafi certainly muddies up the entire UN question.

I agree that we should be patient and I am comfortable with waiting more before changing the article again, but I do feel like this recent declaration is precisely the type of major milestone that we should be patient for. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• When/if the actual government falls and another takes its place, that is when the box and related information should be changed. An encyclopedia is not a platform for breaking, up-to-the-second news; we're here to provide information on the nation of Libya, not to advocate for change, not to presuppose events on the ground. As much as some may not want to hear it, Libya still has one leader, one government, one flag, and one coat of arms. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You talk about one government falling and another taking its place, but that isn't necessarily the course events will take. There isn't always a clean break in between regimes. Again, look at Afghanistan from 1996-2001 for an example.

I'm not trying to predict or advocate for anything. What I'm saying is, according to reliable news sources, there are two entities right now claiming to be the sole government of Libya, and both of them do indeed exercise control over a substantial portion of the country. We should be reporting on the details of this dispute in a neutral manner. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the green gaddafi flag alone in the infobox, still looks POV in the current situation. i liked the 'activism' that changed the look of the infobox. AS Hitchens wrote yesterday " Inaction favours Gaddafi "- so inaction over just leaving the green flag is POV - it favours gaddafi - reliable sources recognise a divided reality - the international community recognises this. tarc may not like it , but that is the reality. tarc if you want things to stay as they are with Gaddafi's flag alone,just his flag in the infobox you are a wiki-passive-ist (not pacifist of course, Passive - meaning - hands off the infobox, leave it as it is ), , that is just as POV as wiki-activist. (and divorced from reality)Sayerslle (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see this as a POV issue, again, I would suggest taking this to the NPOV noticeboard, rather than just saying it s a POV violation. The Gadaffi regime is still the government of the country, while this is contested, especially during a civil war, they are still the internationally recognized government. I remain unmoved by the arguments presented so far. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure international recognition isn't the only factor we should consider though. Look at Côte d'Ivoire for another example: Ouattara is internationally recognized but the infobox just lists the president as "Disputed". Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

'one nation, one leader one flag' the tarc/brodbeck line looks a bit strange if its so united that towns like Zawiya, from which the worlds media have been barred,have to be flattened into unity, there are two governments, two flags, disunity, - RS sources abound for the dual nature of the country , the dual flags, the dual governments -Sayerslle (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say 'one nation, one leader, one flag'? There is a civil war going on, which may be over soon one way or the other. Gadaffis is still the internationally recognized leader of the country. When, precisely when, or where, did I say the country was united? Honestly, please if you are going to quote me, don't make stuff up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Was there consensus reached on changing the infobox, flag etc? I don't see it, but perhaps I am missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't appear so. However before someone reverts I would say the situation we were discussing has changed pretty significantly now that France has officially recognized the National Council. And when I say officially I do mean officially officially. Like with a planned exchange of ambassadors. [9] I can't see how one could argue that Libya doesn't have two governments at this point. Gadaffi's regime has more recognition to be sure, but that's a difference of degree, not type. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Edit summary people. The place for a discussion is the talk page, not a revert war. Also can we try to tone down the personal attacks please? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah true enough, things seem to be changing quite a bit today. One of the reasons I figure we should be extra careful is the fluid nature of the situation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should also consider the fluidity of the fluidness. Clearly its all very fluid and there is alot of fluidness and fluidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.38.230 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ok.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

The leader of Libya is listed as Richard and the title is Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Dance. Also, instead of Secretary-General of the General People's Congress, it has been changed to Secretary-General of the Elvish Committee and the Crossdresser Council.User:Mountainmenace is responsible for the vandalizing. Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

Fixed, and user warned. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Republic

"Libyan Republic" would certainly be the most logical name for a new state, but the phrase doesn't appear at all in a Google News search. Do we know for sure that ntclibya.org is actually the website of the Council? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Independent I see Benghazi called the capital of 'Free Libya' - don't know if that's relevant.Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be more of a description than anything. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I kind of feel like this was added too hastily. We don't have any independent corroboration for the name or the site. For all we know it was just registered by some random person. Would anyone object if I removed it until we have something that can be more clearly traced to the Council? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. vive la france. Sayerslle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Map issue

Could a color other than green be used for Libya with it comes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libya_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg. I agree with the last edit that countries use this kind of map in the infobox than a relief map, but Green is the main color of the Gaddafi Government and, of course, the color of his revolution and of the flag. I am not sure what color you suggest, but I would avoid green, red and black for the sake of NPOV. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can make a blue version if it's really that much of a concern. Seems a little silly though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just tossing out ideas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever. If it is an issue then it's easy enough to fix. Look good? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Its kind of Detroit Lions blue. It looks fine to me, does wp have a 'house style' for colours to be used in location maps? Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every country uses that shade of green. The one exception I know of is Somalia, which uses the same blue on its map. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The EU states use a bluish color, but it mostly stands for some kind of key. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why on Earth did we change the SOP color just because it offended one or two editors? It's a sad day for freedom of conscience when colors become CrimeThink. I'm not advocating it be restored just yet, for the same reason I'm not going to bother pushing for the restoration of flag and arms: within a week or two this insurgency will have been successfully put-down and then we can get down to the business of undoing all the changes. I would just ask people - before you go rushing to jump into the deep end of the pool to turn this entry into one for a pretend country - take a moment to read the news and know the success of the Libyan people and their Army in retaking the terrorist-held cities. I ask only you tread carefully in altering the entry so, in a week or two, when it's time to undo all the changes, it can be accomplished with minimum pain. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am just here to provide suggestions and perhaps some mediation on this issue. I still personally think we should have the Gaddafi symbols here, but with the developments in France, we need to either include both or none (almost like what was done with Kosovo). As for the map, I was not offended by having the green map, but if the main issue folks have here is NPOV, then suggestions would be made to try and balance it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god it's just a map. It doesn't matter what colour it is. Green, blue, purple, whatever. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; let's go ahead and change it back to Green. To have this one map not conform to de facto country color of Wikipedia is stylistically and aesthetically upsetting. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't care what colour it is. If there is a standard, perhaps they know at WP:WPC. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we have consensus that no one cares what color it is, let's just go ahead and revert it to green. Thanks. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did change the map back to green and the last edit I saw was this; "(diff | hist) . . Libya‎; 04:30 . . (+15) . . Thegunkid (talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 418932326 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) Green map violates Wikipedia:NPOV due to extensive use of that color by Gaddafi ) [rollback]" User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey I originally tried to apply the Kosovo model of using a physical map, before someone else switched it to the blue map citing NPOV, so I'm just going to throw up my arms now --Thegunkid (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-issueas far as I'm concerned, people are imagining bias in a map color that is used in many other nation's articles. It's just a color. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but I am trying to work with the editors and trying to stop possible edit wars. If we did choose a color map, it would be a good idea to avoid the colors of either side. I think the map we have now is a good idea, but I seen edit wars before going from this kind of topography map and go with a one color map, and back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Look obviously this green colour is causing problems and it's way too much energy to endlessly revert it. How about this: Let's all acknowledge that the green colour was indeed chosen for perfectly innocuous reasons that have nothing to do with any Gaddafi-related POV. And then despite that, let's all just be willing to temporarily switch the colour of the map anyway just to stop people from THINKING there's some POV. You know? Just save ourselves some headache. I mean honestly does anyone really care if the map is light blue? I don't. I mean yeah it's non-standard but whatever. There are other countries where a non-standard map colour is used. I really feel like this would be so easy to fix. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:LAMEST. We're not changing the standard map color for some silly ideological reasons. Further edit warring on this will result in blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit war over this but I think you are too laying down the law here - 'will result in blocks' - etc ..are you the law? the fact is green is very very very heavily identified with one side at this time - gaddafi himself was recently offered a red cushion or something and he said 'since when do people offer me red ..' etc he has a green flag, his mercenaries and thugs and torturers wear green bandannas , ( torturers, yes, the BBC Arabic journalists taken prisoner have given witness of the fate of prisoners taken at Zawiya), his equivalent of maos little red book is his green book etc.. it was light blue the location map colouring, that was fine , until some 'the rules say, whatever blah blah ' rule constrained jobsworths, - what about IAR anyhow - anyway i'm sick of morally neutered bureaucrats -who think taking NPOV seriously deserves blocks or summat etc..if a colour looks like it supports the dictator 'stinking with madness and hysteria' - Christopher Hitchens words, why not use the light blue - what harm was it doing - who edit warred it back? Sayerslle (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. The block warning still stands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I frankly do not care what colour the map is, though I do like consistency I must say. Sayerslle if you truly believe this is an NPOV problem, as I have said to you before, take it to a noticeboard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please just use the model of the Kosovo and use the physical map at the top and the map causing all this trouble in the Jamahiriya infobox? --Thegunkid (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Three Libyan males

Do we really need a photo like that? Should we maybe insert a photo of three typical USA males too...just in case? I find it highly nonencyclopaedic at its best.--Dia^ (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we try and include photos of typical citizens from the country to showcase dress, customs, and perhaps an activity that is common there. But the image we have here, I agree, doesn't meet what I think we should have. The fact that Libya is mostly full of young people should be an important fact that should be kept and cited. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly describe those three as "young" - they look pretty grizzled, early '30's each of them I'm sure. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

they certainly do not illustrate the "population under the age of 15" as the caption suggests. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Zscout370 What you are saying is interesting. Funnily enough there is no photo for "typical" USA citizens, nor for Canadians or British, nor even for Mexicans and Japanese. And I could go on and on with the list. I'm removing the photo. --Dia^ (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With topics like the US, Japanese and other big countries, they will have an article about demographics and you will see the images here. I remember when I put Belarus up for FA, I included traditional dresses from that country. I also agree that the photo should be removed. User:Zscout370

I've never noticed these photos outside of the articles for ethnic groups

^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and I'm pleased that we agree on this particular image. Intrigued by your explanation I went to look at the demographic articles on the above mentioned countries. Demography of the United Kingdomhas such images, Demographics of the United States has none too, the same is valid for Japan and even for Syria. Images of traditional dresses would naturally be included in any article about the culture of the place.--Dia^ (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Name of alternate government

The National Transitional Council refers to Libya as the Libyan Republic, which I think would be considered analogous to the Jamahiriya claimed by Gaddafi's regime. However, the media has yet to pick up on "Libyan Republic" as a name. I'd like to request we ignore that and use the official website of the National Transitional Council as a source supporting "Libyan Republic" for the name of the country as recognized by the National Transitional Council, which is at present its government (in the same way Gaddafi and his ministers are the government of the Jamahiriya; obviously, these governments have conflicting claims and thus conflicting names for the same state, hence the NPOV article title "Libya"). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No matter if we use the Republic of Jamahiriya, the article title is still going to be at Libya (unless you are speaking of the infobox and lead paragraph). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So far this website [10] is the only source for the term "Libyan Republic" and we have no way of knowing if it's actually authentic. If the term "Libyan Republic" is indeed in use it'll crop up in another source soon enough. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The website is official according to WSJ and Libyan Youth Movement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and here's the name in an official statement now. [11] Seems legit. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see lies with leadership on the infobox: Gaddadfi heads the Jamahiriya and Al Jaleil the republic. I believe the two terms are synonymous. At the moment it looks as if the two posts are units of the same arrangement. The least the section requires mention that this is disputed (as with Palestinian National Authority). The issue is that Gaddafi is de facto leader while there remains within the Jamahiriya both a president and prime minister neither of whom are listed. As for Al Jeleil, his faction may now be recognised by France and Portugal as the legal authority (with other recognitions forthcoming) but unless I have missed something, he has yet to declare himself and his backers as the new government. Does he refer to himself as the president or does he use another title? Is the old Kingdom flag certain to be the national flag or does the new administration have something else in mind? Which ministers have taken which posts? If one way or another the rebels defeat Gaddafi and the new leader does not formally inaugurate himself on account of his governance having continuity from the time of war then on which date did he officially replace Gaddafi or Al Zwei? Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A few points: 1) There was a declaration and it came on the 5th of March. 2) Jamahiriya is a neologism created by Gadaffi. It's not synonymous with Republic ("Jumhuriyah"). 3) I believe Jeleil's title is "Chair of the Council" 4) The council certainly uses the old Kingdom flag. I don't believe there's been any kind of legal adoption yet. 5) The leadership section of the infobox currently does say "Disputed", although you're right that this could probably be made clearer. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Orange. I did say "unless I missed something" and it is hard for me to follow all events so closely. In this case we do have a disputed state with two opposing heads. I don't think Jamahiriya is a neologism though, I am sure the word is a cognate with the Turkish Cumhuriyeti (pronounced - joom-hoo-ree-yeti) and I think Turkish borrowed it from Arabic. It doesn't matter anyhow, I believe we use Jamahiriya in English to distinguish Gaddafi's entity. If your information is entirely correct then I have no new proposals for the infobox. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can check out the page for Jamahiriya if you want more details but basically it was coined by Gaddafi when he wrote the Green Book. The reason it sounds so much like Cumhuriyeti is because he took Jumhuriya ("republic") and replaced the jumhur ("public") with jamahir ("the masses"). The literal English translation would be "state of the masses", but since there's no single word that really conveys that meaning we just use Jamahiriya. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I did read it, you're right. I speak neither Arabic nor Turkish so I couldn't be sure of the terminologies. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the flag

This country has no flag? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It has two, both recognized by different parties both internationally recognized by different countries. So neither are shown. 66.183.11.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

The flag is disputed at the moment. Two entities are claiming to be the government and they each prefer a different flag. We've removed all flags from the infobox temporarily to keep the infobox neutral. We could potentially clarify this situation by putting something like this in:

|other_symbol_type = [[Flag of Libya|Flags currently flown in Libya]]:

|other_symbol = [[File:Flag of Libya.svg|105px|border]] [[File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg|105px|border]]<br>''The flag of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (left) and the flag flown by the National Transitional Council (right)''

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there would not be much of a consensus for that move. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It has a flag that is internationally recognized as its flag (including by the IMO for purpose of international navigation, as another commenter pointed out). However, some people have seen a flag being waved in Facebook pictures and news reports about things other than the flag itself so, as a consequence, all flags have been deleted.This weekend I may turn on the emergency-band scanner, find the nearest house fire to me and race down to it with the Flag of Mars and begin waving it around so as to be captured in the background of a news report on the fire waving the flag of Mars. I'll then tweet about it. After all this, I'll vociferously demand the country page for the United States delete the U.S. flag and replace it with the Flag of Mars, but will ultimately compromise if all flags are deleted from that entry. Anyway, I joke, though only half-seriously. Those of us defending the legal and recognized flag are just letting the internet activists have run of the entry for a bit. Now that the Libyan Army is engaged in mop-up operations against the insurgents we'll be able to revert the article soon enough so it's not worth making a fuss over. The entry can be inaccurate for a week. No biggie. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, let us WP:AGF. Such WP:SARCASM helps nothing, and certainly does not help build a better encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the claims of the local residents and the official declarations of the transitional gov't in Benghazi, there is at least one country (France) which has recognised the NTC as the legitimate gov't of Libya. Besides this, all the EU countries and the GCC countries have declared the Tripoli government to be illegitimate. Therefore there are at the moment two entities who can claim to be the rightful representative of Libya - with different flags. Thus either both should be shown, or none. The above comment by Felixhonecker is unprofessional and offensive. 82.113.121.87 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If for example some people in the USA carry another flag and for example North Korea does recognise this flag will we remove the American flag from the USA article? Also another question is that nearly half of the Republic of Cyprus uses North Cyprus Flag and so why dont we remove Republic of Cyprus flag from the article? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if the United States fell into civil war and had two entities claiming to be the legitimate government of the country, and that second government had de facto control over the entire Eastern Seaboard, flew an entirely different flag, and was recognized by North Korea, then yes. Yes we would have to change that infobox. But I suppose we can cross that bridge when we come to it. As for Northern Cyprus, that's not the same as the situation in Libya, since the TRNC is a breakaway state, not a competing government. A more analogous situation would be the one in China, where both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China claim to be the sole government of a single country. However, the Chinese Civil War has been over for a long time now, and the situation there has stabilized. If the current Libyan conflict did ultimately end the same way (i.e. in a stalemate with two de facto independent states at peace with each other but still competing for international recognition), then presumably we would split the article and each of those states would have their own infobox with their own flag. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A similar situation of competing governments also exist in Kosovo (between the Republic of Kosovo and the Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (under UN administration)). On the main kosovo page we have a general infobox and two infoboxes below - one for each entity claiming to be the official government. We could include similar infoboxes below the main infobox on this page - I have created examples at my talk page User talk:Dn9ahx. In the event of a long stalemate - we could have one page for the political situation in the GSPLAJ and one for the LR. The main Libya page would include non-political information. Again we do this for Kosovo having a general kosovo page and seperate pages for the RoK and APK&M. Dn9ahx (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added these two infoboxes to the page. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Three infoboxes makes for an awfully cluttered page with a lot of duplicated information. It'd be nice if we could all agree on a more elegant solution. At the very least could we shrink the second and third boxes? I don't think we really need "Demonym" in all three boxes, for example. Nor do we need to tell the reader that the capital of Libya is Tripoli three times. Something the size of User:Orange_Tuesday/Libya3 would be more appropriate. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your idea seems better than mine - do it!

Hmm, it still seems kind of long. I suppose it works for now but we should think of a more concise way to present all this data. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Felixhonecker I am glad you have a crystal ball and it tells you what will happen. I also have a crystal ball and my crystal ball tells me the revolution will be a struggle but soon enough Qaddafi will die in a bunker as Hitler did. Or Qaddafi will be strung on a rope or shot by firing squad by the Libyan people for the war crimes he has committed.JoeC 3rd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

I feel that the hate for Gaddafi makes some of the wikipedians get away from objectivity and force the article and a state to be lack of a flag. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Mulaz. However, let's AGF for now. Since the Libyan people and their army are now in mop-up operations against the "rebels" we can best contribute by just starting to compile a list of things we'll need to put back in the entry in 2-3 days once the last city they hold - Benghazi - has been liberated. At that point it would probably be germane to sit down with all editors and have a critical post-mortem about how we can - collectively - prevent future country entries from turning into Wikinews next time it's a slow newsweek and CNN decides to overpromote the revolution of the day. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that everyone on this page needs to stop acting like every single insignificant edit comes down to a question of pro-Gaddafi bias vs. anti-Gaddafi bias. Seriously, I get that a lot of people here are emotionally invested in the future of this country but there is no need to assume that there's an ulterior motive at play every time someone adds a flag or removes a flag or changes the colour of a map or whatever.

Nothing that has happened on this article has been improper. The rebels gained control of half of the country, declared themselves to be a government, and secured a degree of international recognition. This was all confirmed by reliable news sources, so we added the rebels to the page in as neutral a manner as possible. If those same sources report that the situation has changed and the rebellion has been put down, then the rebels will be removed from the page in as neutral a manner as possible. It is as simple and as fair as that and there is no reason why any of this has to involve any drama at all. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.162.89.137, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The opposition and disputes are an internal to Libya and modification of the main page about Libya should await the result of the dispute. Making interim changes only fuels unrest in the region. We can always continue to track the story in progress on another topic and link it to the main page as supplemental information.

Discussing or prompting the change in govt.s is unfair and encourages further unrest. The current govt. of Libya represented in the United Nations by an ambassador appointed by Gaddaffi should be respected.

Let wikipedia be responsible and not get carried away with the "breaking news" tactics.

99.162.89.137 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Ax

Even if it did somehow cause dissent in Libya, that is not our concern, and I somehow doubt in a country where the internet has been virtually cut off that anyone can get to wp anyway. Besides, I think the people there have other things on their minds currently.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When you have a specific edit in mind, please put the edit requested template back up. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't an investigative news group (that would be Wikinews). We just report what other people are reporting, so if the big news organizations are reporting that things are happening in Libya, then that's what we record here. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been a matter we have all been discussing, and I believe the consensus of the editors is that: the conflict is relevant to Libyan history and affects the country's present status, and the conflict is relevant at an international level due to the split in recognition of Gaddafi's government versus the national council in Benghazi. I agree that we should not allow breaking news to clutter this main article, nor should we encroach overmuch on Wikinews' territory, but certainly the fact that two governments claim to represent Libya (and none boasts full diplomatic recognition as of this time) is relevant, as is the fact that (regardless of the outcome) the country was divided in allegiance and plunged into a state of near-civil war in early 2011. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Case of Abkhazia

Abkhazia has a de jure government and a de facto government. There is one entry for Abkhazia (the country and government that controls the majority of territory of that country) and one entry for Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia (the legal government that controls a minority of territory [in fact, no territory at all]). If we accept (which I am not willing to do but will for purposes of this argument) that Libya has two de jure governments, then let us give this country page to the de jure government that controls a majority of territory and population (that of Col. Qadaffi) and then make an entirely separate entry for the political entity that controls a minority of territory. It is beyond ridiculous to have a country entry with no flag and seal. Even Somalia has a flag! We shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a cheerleading platform for each cause celebre. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What you write is simply factually wrong : the article Abkhazia contains two sections of roughly equal lengh whose titles are "Government of the Republic of Abkhazia" and "Government in exile: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", and there are two separate entries : the Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia you hint, but also Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. French Tourist (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is deceptive in the extreme. Which flag is fronted on the entry Abkhazia? A compromise flag? No, it is the flag of the non-Georgian government of Abkhazia. Felixhonecker (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right about this one (as far as I checked who uses which flag, only checking on Wikipedia). This is not a reasonable state of things, feel free to remove the flag from the Abkhazia article, I think this would be a good thing to do. French Tourist (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

um, this is Talk:Libya. The case of Abkhazia isn't comparable because Abkhazia attempts to secede from Georgia, it doesn't try to topple the government of Georgia. In the Libyan conflict, both sides agree as a matter of fact that there is a single country of Libya, the question is just who should govern it. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Abkhazia and South Ossetia infoboxes are indeed very POV - I have tried to apply the Kosovo model to these pages in the past but these edits are usually undone without discussion. Again in these cases there are two competing entities claiming to be the govenrment of these regions, one which claims to be an independent state and one that claims to be an autonomous region. The Kosovo model should be used for these infoboxes. Dn9ahx (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo infoboxes have been the subject of long, repetitive, long, repetitive and long discussion over the past three years or so. I agree with your sentiment that the Kosovo case has seen more thorough discussion, and now should be used as a model for the other two.

But fortunately, this has no bearing on this article (Libya), because Libya isn't experiencing a war of secession, it is experiencing a classic civil war, with a republican force trying to oust an autocratic regime (in former centuries known as "monarchy", but since most monarchies have in fact turned democratic, what used to be a "monarch" (single ruler) is now described as "autocrat" or "dictator".) --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya currently is a republic. NPOV, please. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, although the protesters are referring to the state as the "Libyan Arab Republic", the Gaddafi regime explicitly refers to itself as the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (see The Green Book). Although the state is not a monarchy, it is quite clearly also not a republic. Rather, it is more of a dictatorship in the traditional sense of the word. The Celestial City (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a Jamahiriya may function as a dictatorship but officially it's supposed to be more like a direct democracy than anything. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) If Libya is (a) a state, and (b) isn't a monarchy, then it's a republic. Jamahiriya is a power-source descriptor (analogous to "federal republic", "socialist republic", "theocratic republic", etc.) (2) "dictatorship" is a weasel word. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words are words that present the appearance of support for a statement without actual attributing that support to a specific source. So "experts say", "it is widely thought", and "it has been proven" are all examples of weasel words. "Dictatorship" is not a weasel word. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize "The Celestial City" was an "expert." Felixhonecker (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Celestial City doesn't have anything to do with it. "Dictatorship" is not the type of word that can be a weasel word. Doesn't matter who says it. See WP:WEASEL. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't presume to lecture me on Weasel Words. "Dictatorship", in the absence of widespread use of that word that is accurately cited, is a "contentious label" as defined by WP:WEASEL. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. Contentious labels are WP:LABEL. Weasel words are defined in the "Unsupported attributions" section of that page. And unlike the examples given in WP:LABEL, the word "dictatorship" is not considered a contentious label and is widely used on Wikipedia. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Anyway, both WP:WEASEL and WP:LABEL are in a manual of style for articles. Even if "dictatorship" was a word to avoid, you wouldn't have to avoid using it on talk pages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It hardly seems contentious to note Gadaffi as a dictator. [12] and therefore that Libya is a dictatorship. I don't think the MOS applies to talk pages. All that said, we are getting pretty far afield here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

UN Resolution 1973

This now needs its own section no that the allies' no-fly zone is live and military operations to follow.[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.226.170 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient history section - non-English source problem

Bertarelli, L.V. (1929) (in Italian). Guida d'Italia, Vol. XVII. Milano: Consociazione Turistica Italiana <-- used as a reference. I cannot find this book at the local universities, nor can I read Italian. Aside from the use of a non-English source in the English wiki article, the following is cited from it: "On the other side, Cyrenaica hosted the first Christian communities by the time of Claudius, [19] but was heavily devastated during the Bar Kokhba revolt, and from then started its decadence." Well, first off, the first Christian communities were not here, but in Judea and Asia Minor - I think this is a translation issue, and should say that "Cyrenaica's first Christian communities were established by the time of the (emperor) Claudius." Additionally, it was during the earlier Kitos War that the city's Jews and Greeks/Romans had their conflict - I can't find any reference that there was still fighting by the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in my various 60 books on Roman history. Does anyone have this book, and since it is in Italian should it not be used for the English wiki article, and does it even qualify as a reliable source? The information should be corrected anyway, and perhaps different sources used to cover it. And finally - no flags were harmed in the making of this commentary. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hallo HammerFilmFan,

I am the delinquent. :-) I have the book, which is a gold mine of information about Libya, not only historical, but ethnic, geographic, etc.. About the first issue, you are right, it is a problem of my (Italo-)English, I corrected it. About the second issue, you are right again! I put the wrong link. The Italian sources, (not just Bertarelli), always write about the Great Jewish Revolt, and place it under Traianus. I looked under it, and I landed under what by us is called the Jewish War. There I took the wrong link, but today I wanted to check, because in my "unterbewusstein" I knew that Bar Kokhba's revolt took place under Hadrian (Yourcenar docet :-)) By the way, my source says that order was reestablished in Cyrenaica by Marcius Turbo, but I did not reported it, because I did not want to inflate the article too much. About the reliability of the source, "Bertarelli" did not write a single line in this book (at that time he was already dead), but his name appears as author since he was the initiator of the monumental "Guida d'Italia". This book is the last volume of the series, and covers Libya, Eritrea, Somalia and the Aegean Islands. The contributors are sixty, and represent the best which Italy could offer at that time about the subject. The author of the history part is Prof. Micacchi, an archeologist, director of the archeological museum of Tripoli at that time, and very reliable: at the end of the book there is a bibliographic note 12 page long (about 400 book and publications, of course all written before 1929). Anyway, I worked on the ancient history section because it was almost completely unsourced, contained such "pearls" as "By 64 BC, Julius Caesar's legions had established their occupation", and treated often Cyrenaica and Tripolitania as a whole, forgetting that in that period they followed completely different historical paths. I found most of the problems in the Roman period: what is written after in the article coincides 99 % with what I can read (another proof of reliability?). A last example about the reliability of this book: last week I read the pages where it is explained how to reach Kufra (at that time still independent) from Benghazi (not by car, but by camel :-)). I checked it with Google maps, and the itinerary coincides up to the last palm tree :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for responding. I wish I had an English version of this book/series. I'm a little uncomfortable with it being used in the English wiki, but if editors can quickly reference and respond to questions here, I guess it will be satisfactory. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Thanks! The book is very easy to find, and also cheap, but unfortunately exists only in Italian. By the way, yesterday I read the "Libyan" part of my Rostovtzeff (2nd edition, of course), which for Africa uses almost only Italian authors :-), and I will update the sources accordingly. At least this book is in English... Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya under gadaffi section

Im just looking at some of the older versions of this article. Its funny how two weeks ago... life under Gadaffi wasnt so bad. The americans liked him because he was only moderately socialist and he denounced terrorism against the western powers. Now here we are two weeks later and Gadaffi's been oppressing people for decades.

Yourliver (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. The American people have not "liked" Gadaffi at any time - especially during the Reagan era. The U.S. government tolerated him after he started to behave himself (only as far as overt terrorism goes) - sort of 'the devil you know' - but they would always have preferred a peaceful democracy there. However, despite international perceptions from time to time, the USA, nor NATO, is the world's policeman - that would be impossible politically and economically. More importantly, what has this to do with improving the article? Wiki is not a forum, nor is it to be used to right great wrongs.  ?HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I believe that Yourliver was commenting on the state of previous versions of this article, and how they differ from the current one, rather than any sort of truth or real life issue. An interesting observation if true, and something that should be looked at once all this fuss ends. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic are equally treated in this article, it should be written as a civilization.

If Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic are equally treated in this article, it should be written as a civilization, in corresponding to China and Korea. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is definately not a NPOV if China and Korea are "civilization"s, while Libya is "a country with two governments". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We may ultimately need to split this article, but right now things in Libya are up in the air. I'd say give it time and once things settle we can decide what the best way to present this information is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Why don't you say "give it time and once things settle we can decide what the best way to present this information is" in the article China and Korea? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we know what the situation with China and Korea is, it has been settled for over 60 years. Libya, it changes by the day. Plus, there is no "Libyan civilization." Culture yes, civilization no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the situation with China and Korea has been settled for over 60 years, but till now they're still in a civil-war state (even-though ceased-fire). So no difference to Libya.

You must have defined "civilization" as a much developed culture. But by its definition, where there are citizens, there're “civil” things, incl. civilization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of China, you have two distinct landmasses (Mainland Proper and Taiwan). The Communists and Kuomintang are clearly defined in landmasses so that is not like Libya, where the battle lines and borders are changing on a daily basis. Korea, while it is technically one landmass, has been defined by the 53rd Parallel for many years. While skirmishes have happened in the past year, there has been no significant movement of troops from either side to take over the other. The problem with Libya is that in this same landmass, you have unclear lines of battle, and based on the actions the French have taken, now have two competing governments. A lot of information is changing constantly, so it will be impossible to split articles up now. Once we figure out what is going on, then we can make our move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so: Dachen Islands may one day become the mainland side and one day become the kuomingtang side, as well as Matsu, Prata, etc. Also, the sea near Northern Limit Line is one day controled by North Korea and the other day get back by South Koreans. This is quite similar to the current Libyan situation. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The islands were given to the PRC in 1955 and there is no active claim to get them. No matter what kind of sea battles take place between the Koreas, we both know there is a North and a South Korea and has been for over 60 years. The splitting of Libya like this has only occurred for 1 month. If this split does become the norm, then we can turn Libya into China and Korea. Until then, the way the article is will work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we all calm down here? This is a real-life evolving situation, and facts are unclear. We've already got a gross WP:RECENT problem here, which is expected. We don't want to go around making things all the more complicated. It's not like theres a deadline, so perhaps hold back on the massive overhauls. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison to China and Korea is valid, but another one you might make is to the Congo Crisis. Now obviously Wikipedia wasn't around in 1961, but if it had been, and we had acted too hastily back then, we might have ended up splitting the page into Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) for Mobutu's regime and Republic of the Congo (Stanleyville) for Gizenga's regime, only to merge it back like a year later. Would this have been a valid way to organize the DRC page for that year? Maybe, but I can't imagine that the resulting pages would have been well-written, clear, or helpful for the reader.

We can comfortably split Korea and China because the divisions there are decades old. The relative age and coolness of the conflicts has basically made them a permanent fixture of the international scene. The conflict in Libya started a month ago, and for all we know it will be over in a month. It is too soon to make major changes to the structure to this page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What Orange Tuesday said. This is a completely unreasonable suggestion. Also, there may be a "Chinese civilization", but there is no "Libyan civilization" any more than there is a "Sichuan civilization". The larger "civilization" of which Libya forms a part is the "Arab" or "Islamic civilization". There isn't even a historical region called "Libya" (as there is one called "China". "Libya" is just an ancient name for "Africa" revived by the Italian colonists for their Italian Libya in the early 20th century. The historical regions are actually called Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, and the two are incidentially very similar to the de-facto division between Gaddafi's Libya and liberated Libya at this point. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, there is Sichuan civilization (巴蜀文明), include ancient Qiangic peoples, Qiangic-influenced Sichuanese people and language, culture, and Kham Tibetan culture, etc. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay but regardless identifying "Libya" as "the Libyan civilization" is just not something that is done in English. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah change it to say Michigan and Wisconsin or Ontario and Manitoba... Either way OT is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox footnoate about capital of Libya

I have removed a footnote in the infobox relating to the capital city. The footnote stated that Benghazi was the de-facto capital. Reasons for doing so: 1 - No source given. 2 - The Gaddafi regime is still recognised by most countries (as much to do with diplomatic convention and the wish to avoid creating precedents elsewhere, rather than an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the Gadafi regime). 3 - The current attacks on Libya seem to have sidelined the Libyan rebellion; the so-called coalition is led by the US and European countries with oil interests in Libya, and also includes Arabian peninsula monarchies that are suppressing opposition to their own regimes e.g. the racist and homophobic Al-Saud regime. If anyone wants to restore the footnote with a proper source, I will not object. However, all the fighting that matters is in the skies over Libya, and Wikipedia ought to restrict itself to reporting verifiable news events rather than making news or attempting to lead events. Rugxulo (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That footnote didn't say "de facto capital of Libya", it said "de facto administrative centre of the Libyan Republic". That's just another way of saying "headquarters of the Libyan opposition". Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. As for the rest of the concerns listed, please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 oil-producing countries?

The article's introduction currently says: "Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries." However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Production lists it at #17 in petroleum production. On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country lists it as #10 in proven oil reserves. The meaning of the term "richest" is ambiguous anyway. Does that refer to GDP per capita? I am editing this statement to "Libya has the 10th-largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production." 146.163.166.75 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

truth or myth?

can someone please verify each of these, and give a WP:RS if possible.

Few facts about the life of the population in Libya (under Gaddafi)

- interest-free loans, - in the study received an average wage for this occupation - if you do not find a job after graduation, the state has paid for to work in the profession, - upon entry into marriage, the state pays an apartment or house, - purchase of vehicles obvalja to the factory price, - do not owe anyone a cent, - free health care and education at home and abroad (the state pays) - 25% of the population is highly educated, - 40 loaves of bread costs only $ 0.15.

Thanks. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)