Talk:Libya

Libya Capital

The libyan capital is Sirte, it got changed by brother Gadaffi. Tripoli is merely a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that the NTC is recognised by the UN, AU, and 94 nations, right? And they consider the capital to be Tripoli. So yes, Tripoli is the capital of Libya. -- 48Lugur (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

To OP. This Discussion is to improve a (Wikipedia) article, not disseminate propaganda. Please find an appropriate venue. Tapered (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The First Article of the Transitional Constitution states Tripoli is the capital; even before this constitution was issued, Tripoli was declared the capital while the NTC was stuck in Bengazhi until the August push into the city. I have not found anything in the news that says Gaddafi moved his central operations to Sirte or changed the capital of the Jamahirya to Sirte. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This claim of Sirte being the Capital is ludacris and unheard of. Libyans are proud of all their cities and all of them are of the same importance, but when it comes to the assigned and recognized capital, this would be Tripoli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirajaborig (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tuareg & Tubu

This tribes/ethnic groups were described as "black African," a classification not supported by the reference cited, or by the respective Wikipedia articles. Therefore reworded article accordingly. Tapered (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

University

Alfateh university was the name Gaddafie(fallen dictator) had given to the university, it has now been renamed "University of Tripoli" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirajaborig (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Federal Republic?

The infobox states the planned form of government will be a federal republic, while I have seen it mentioned that the new Libya is planned to be a republic, I have seen no media source which states whether this will be federal or unitary, it appears to be undecided at this time. This either needs a citation or a simple change to "Planned Republic".--90.199.141.240 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's already a republic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not "already a republic". At present, it has no constitution. It has a "constitutional declaration" stating the aim of turning it into a republic by 2013. If things go as planned, 2012 will be a period of transition during which the country recovers from the state of anarchy and civil war. By April 2013 they want to have a full-fledged Republic of Libya with an elected government and legislative. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Republic" can refer to any state without a monarchy, and by that definition Libya most certainly is technically a republic. Swarm ^X 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A Republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch, so who is the President of the Republic of Libya, when was that Rebublic formally constituted. If there is no answer to those two rather important questions then there is no Republic of Libya, Federal or otherwise. -- Felix (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the articles pre-amble to clarify the issue of current (immediate post killing of Gaddafi) governance in Libya. The article appeared to somewhat mis-represent the NTC as a 'government' when it is not. To address this I have inserted some additional information into the article preamble..."Libya lacks a formally constituted government and is loosely administrated by a coalition of rebel groups known as the National Transitional Council ...". It will need to be reviewed if and when the NTC does actually form a government of any kind. I think we should try to avoid having this article led by the western press as much as possible and keep to primary sources if possible. In the interests of trying to maintain some calm here I have however only cited to western mainstream sources in these edits. We should as editors try to avoid being swept up in the enthusiasm of the NATO allied nations to paint in between the dots they have placed upon the canvas, much as they would like the world to believe the previous government has been replaced by a caretaker government in a transition a democratic republic arising from a sweeping revolution seeking democracy, the actual reality of the situation is far from this. Lets wait and see what actually happens before we write it up in the article as having occurred already. -- Felix (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu1, please do not engage in the ablation of cited and accurate article content. The previous information was incorrect. If you wish to challenge the encyclopedic nature of the article content please do so here. If there is something in the content of my previous edit that you consider to be factually flawed or in error in some other way then please outline your opinions here on the discussion page, block edit reversion is not the way to deal with your POV. -- Felix (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "incorrect" just because you don't believe it. You've already revealed yourself on this Talk page to be skeptical of sources Wikipedia considers WP:RS; you claim to have your own understanding of what the situation in Libya is, and it bleeds through in your editing through weasel phrases like "so-called" and your cherry-picking of Jibril's quotes. Your edit clearly and obviously violated multiple provisions in WP:LEAD and contained prominent examples of WP:SYNTH, going beyond what sources say to construct your own narrative. That's not what Wikipedia is for. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should I hide any skepticism, it is an important requirement of any serious enquiry. Perhaps you would benefit from reading WP:LEAD yourself, to assist you I have cut and pasted some of it here for you to examine:

• "The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects".
• "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".

I believe the emphasis is appropriate and in context, the article discusses the nation of Libya, if it has a government or not is notable and the controversies are outlined, that being; that the previous government of more than 40 yrs was overthrown and the nation is lacking one at this time, and that the NTC has publicly announced this and postponed the forming of a govt. What is is you object to in the use of "so called", it is simply descriptive. This is how the 'rebel groups' have been commonly referred to, certainly many of them do have names and allegiences that generally go unexplained. However it is not appropriate to engage in discourse on that detail in the article preamble, so hence the 'rebel groups' have been described as "so called". Are you suggesting they are something other than "rebel groups", or that they are not commonly referred to as that? If so that is probably an issue best taken to a different article or an entirely different venue. What would you prefer some jingoistic NTC call to arms? I think you are peddling an agenda here. Dispute the sources, dispute the cites, provide some sensible detail in you criticisms or quieten down. I have removed Jibril's quotes as they seem to have upset you, however they are the reasons he gave when he announced he was going to resign... that is why they were in quotation marks. The emphasis you refer to came from the article, not from myself. I think you are peddling your own bike here and I cannot see what you are so agitated about. Did the conflict not overturn the Government of Libya, is the country now lacking a constituted government? The NTC is not even claiming to have constituted govt, are you proposing that they have? If so provide the detail and cite it. I would certainly like to see this information and would be happy to see Libya ave a formally constituted Govt. However they do not, if that upsets you then go talk about that in a blog somewhere. This article is meant to deal with the facts, not wishful thinking. -- Felix (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu1, the lead would be far too detailed and would not be a summary of the article anymore. Let me remind you that the article is about the whole country (including geography and demography), not what happened in the last months. --McSly (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• It does actually refer contextually to the previous 40yrs of rule by the previous Govt, and on the NTC view of the future path, not just the events of the last months, I agree the article was top heavy though, and that is why I move the naming history detail into the History section, it really should not have been bulking up the lead in the first place. -- Felix (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Felix, don't cherry-pick WP:LEAD and pretend you haven't blatantly disregarded it. Let me help you out:

• Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
• The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

As for your points about the NTC, your brand of "truth-telling" seems to be to insinuate that the NTC isn't actually functioning as the Libyan interim government (it is) and to go on at length about reasons why the NTC is untrustworthy. I suggest you should take that to the dedicated article for National Transitional Council and perhaps start a new section in the body of the article in which to place criticism of the NTC by notable commentators (there is plenty), though you should also avoid WP:SYNTH there as well as here. That would be a more appropriate place for it, though. I am going to change the contentious reference to the NTC as a "caretaker government", because I think it's more appropriate to describe it as provisional and that's what it's called in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are assuming there is an agenda where there is none, Caretaker Government is a formal term and the current arrangements are not formalised. Provisional Government is closer but I think possibly still murky. I have seen a few other attempts at defining their current arrangements, Transitional administration may be more appropriate as it both encompasses the 'transitional' aspect and the attempted administration of Libya. The NTC themselves have made no claims to be doing an effective job of this and that may have a lot to do with Jibril's own announcements. It is a daunting task and clearly the NTC is seriously factionalised. This is not my own narrative as you suggest above, rather it is their own. They quite openly admitted they were not very good at the task of overthrowing Gaddafi and clearly could not acheive it without considerable outside assistance. To suggest that they have got a government together in the background of this chaos of war is absurd. It would have been near impossible under the circumstances and the NTC do not appear to be claiming to have done so, indeed they are openly saying that they have not and that factionalism is making it near impossible. If this article is to be credible it should not just play out a popularised line spun out by the NATO allies, that may work in the press but we are meant to be providing something encyclopedic here not a mirroring of the popular press and political spin. I am cetainly skeptical of the detail and I think I have good reason, it was flawed. There is and was no caretaker government. Maybe one will emerge soon, maybe the place will just degrade into a mess like Somalia. However at this time the NTC claims to be 'administering', Libya and the UN have recognised the NTC as the body representing those doing that. The politics surrounding that are a matter for different articles.
Contemporary Libya is defined by the last 40 years or so and that needs to be addressed in the article lead. The content in my edit is a preamble to information appearing later in the article. Have a look at a well developed article like United States, the content in the lead ranges from 1776 and the declaration of independence and includes the Cold War, their battles with the British, the annexation the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii, disputes between the agrarian South and industrial North over the expansion of the institution of slavery and states' rights and the issues that provoked the Civil War of the 1860s. That seems to digress a fair bit and is acceptable to other WP editors, really I think you are trying to censure me and I do not like it.
I have not cherry picked WP:LEAD, rather I have drawn you attention to what it states. Your reaction and notes here give the appearance that you have an agenda, I hope that is not the case. I have nothing to hide in relation to my skepticism, your suggestion that I am using "weasel phrases" somewhat identifies your attitudes towards editing here. You appear to have been editing intensively on articles in the region encompassing Libya and with your existing experience as an editor here you should understand that block reversions and edit warring is not appropriate. Indeed when you performed you reversion you did so without entering into prior discussion on the article Discussion page. You may have allowed yourself to get swept up in this conflict, try not to let it seep into the article edits, lest it starts looking like you are propagandising, your reactionary and name calling behaviour is certainly suggesting you have some issues of your own. Please do go ahead and objectively detail what you find to be conflicting with a "neutral point of view". -- Felix (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"loosely administrated", "so called rebel groups", "a murky and confused matter." These are not neutrally worded statements, and they definitely strike me as unencyclopedic. Plus, why are we mentioning the old official name of Libya in the lead section? It doesn't look like you have consensus for these edits, so I'm reverting that paragraph back. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Orange Tuesday I think you have some confusions about consensus editing, a consensus is not required to make an edit here. Though I believe it may be required to revert an section of content that is correctly cited to a verifiable and notable source, well that is what you have done so you arepossibly needing to brush up on the concept of 'consensus' here. So what are you suggesting, that loosely administrated is not the case here? The NTC is riddled with factionalism, there is even ongoing disputation as to who is the leader, they cannot seem to organise a ministry, they have only a "Constitutional declaration" which is often misreported as either being a draft constitution, or a constitution in itself, and their leader has publicly announced on several occasions that they cannot form a government due to intractable factionalism, I did provide quotes and cites on that. Further to that the leader of the NTC has recently announced that he is resigning due to the problems of unresolved disparity and conflict within the NTC. You have further critised my contextual use of the old name of the Libyan government when describing it. Well, they did have a name and it clarifies who is being talked about when describing the government that was overthrown, this is an encyclopedic article, not some schoolyard popularity quest. That was the official name of the recent Libyan government, certainly it was wordy but we are not here to rename it retrospectively or too not mention it in the article lead because we don't like it, they were the rulers of the nation for 40 years, not 40 minutes. -- please do not engage in any further block reversions, they are not justified by WP policies as you have insinuated and are entirely inappropriate . -- Felix (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Orange Tuesday I think you have some confusions about consensus editing, a consensus is not required to make an edit here. Though I believe it may be required to revert an section of content that is correctly cited to a verifiable and notable source, well that is what you have done so you are possibly needing to brush up on the concept of 'consensus' here. So what are you suggesting, that loosely administrated is not the case here? The NTC is riddled with factionalism, there is even ongoing disputation as to who is the leader, they cannot seem to organise a ministry, they have only a "Constitutional declaration" which is often misreported as either being a draft constitution, or a constitution in itself, and their leader has publicly announced on several occasions that they cannot form a government due to intractable factionalism, I did provide quotes and cites on that. Further to that the leader of the NTC has recently announced that he is resigning due to the problems of unresolved disparity and conflict within the NTC. You have further critised my contextual use of the old name of the Libyan government when describing it. Well, they did have a name and it clarifies who is being talked about when describing the government that was overthrown, this is an encyclopedic article, not some schoolyard popularity quest. That was the official name of the recent Libyan government, certainly it was wordy but we are not here to rename it retrospectively or to not mention it in the article lead because we don't like it, they were the rulers of the nation for 40 years, not 40 minutes. What do you think is more appropriate aka Gaddafi's henchmen. -- please do not engage in any further block reversions, they are not justified by WP policies as you have insinuated and are entirely inappropriate, try and remember the core purposes of WP it is certainly not WP:OWN so please back off with the implied assertion that I need your permission to edit here. -- Felix (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FAITACCOMPLI. The former clearly states that consensus is necessary for editorial decisions on Wikipedia; the latter includes this gem: "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others)." Your approach to justifying a major edit that violated a number of WP guidelines has been to insult and berate fellow editors and to claim you don't need consensus to make a change, which is completely false. I think you have a valid perspective on this issue, but your entire approach to discussion and editing is wrongheaded and not helpful. Please take it easy and just discuss the changes you think should be made rather than making sweeping WP:BOLD changes and getting angry when those changes are challenged. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking about policy, can I suggest that you look at WP:POINT? Adding "citation needed" tags to the entire article is not productive. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well Orange Tuesday, do go ahead and put in some citations and show how productive you are. At least I have done it and it needed to be done. Perhaps you should swing some attention toward things that are lacking citations to verifiable and notable sources rather that deleting and reverting content that does have citations. -- Felix (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I hardly think "On December 24, 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya's first and only monarch." was in need of a citation. Indiscriminately throwing tags on to an article isn't helping anyone. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What's going to prevent it from becoming another Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights whatsoever?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC).

File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of the National Transitional Council (Libya).svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this seal doing in the Libya article. It certainly has a place in an article covering the NTC but surely not here. Even if they had formed or legally constituted a government, which they have not, then it is still not normal to display a crest, flag or banner of a political or military group that has claimed power or exerted martial authority. For example, I do not see the banner, seal or logo of the Democratic party or the Republican party as likely to appear on the US article. It is surely not the seal of the state of Libya nor does the NTC seem to be putting it forward as that. Indeed they are not even putting forward the idea of constituting a government at the moment and have previously announced that they have postponed the idea "indefinitely". I think it should be removed from the article immediately-- Felix (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libya/Archive_3#coat_of_arms This is where we discussed and felt the symbol would be used, but not declared to be a coat of arms of the country, but just as the seal of the government in control. This is similar to what is done at Japan where that country has no official seal or coat of arms. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Zscout370, I have now had a read of the archive and I think this matter needs to be reviewed. The discussions there appear to be considering an entirely different matter and are discussing emblems and seals of either constituted governments or monarchs. Even the NTC does not claim to have formed a government, indeed they have stated they have "postponed" doing so indefinitely. I think people are getting confused by the massive amount of nonsense propagated by the western press concerning Libya in recent months. Cheers and thanks for pointing me to the archived discussion. -- Felix (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get the symbols straight is very hard for this article. Other than the flag being confirmed in the Draft Constitution (Article 3) the other symbols, such as the seal and anthem, will be determined by law (Article 2). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fall of Sirte

NTC presumably now control all the country... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15385955 DJR (T) 13:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the war is over. Gaddafi and at least three of his sons are dead, Sirte and Bani Walid have fallen, and the rest is just a mopping-up effort and a struggle to control infighting between factions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Some qualified commentators consider that the place is going to go downhill even further and I will not be surprised if this odd assemblage of provocateurs, traitors and defectors from the original government, various ex-muǧāhidūn and so-called al-Qaeda elements don't go even more feral soon and start shooting at each other now that they are apparently running out members of the Libyan armed forces, Gaddafi supporters and angry residents to blaze away at. It would be naive to expect any democratic form of governance to emerge in Libya in the foreseeable future. As for the NTC, Mahmoud Jibril recently announced he is quitting. "We have moved into a political struggle with no boundaries," ... "The political struggle requires finances, organization, arms and ideologies,".... "I am afraid I don't have any of this." Indeed what the western press avoids reporting is that many of these so called rebels are not even part of the NTC and are likely to become combative if the current controlling elements of the NTC try to exert power as a national governing body. Indeed even putting the NTC flag in the article is highly questionable. It has every chance of turning into a madhouse of quasi corporate governance mixed up with combative and competing private militias and extremist groups squabbling, maneuvering, shooting at each other and assassinating their competitors. Libya is now a very unstable, fractured nation with seriously damaged infrastructure from the NATO aerial campaign and ground based conflicts and no established civil governance. I think there is a fair bit of unfounded optimism being shown here. Also, contrary to the myths promoted in the media, the NTC has never formally constituted a government. In fact they have formally announced on more than one occasion that they were postponing the concept of even forming a 'caretaker' regime indefinitely, and are no where near forming a cabinet and never have been. -- Felix (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Politics of Gaddafi should be removed

now that he's dead.. --Gian (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of Libya

A Berber (Amazigh) rendition of "Libya" should be included as the TNC uses Amazigh in the backdrop of their press conferences Ybgursey (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence that this is more than a random design feature? The NTC makes very clear that the one and only official language of Libya is Arabic. It is true that there is a 5% Berber-speaking linguistic minority, but there is no evidence whatsoever that they have any kind of special status. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Constitution is not written, nor was approved. Also no law in Libya puts Tamaizigh as one of the official languages so nope, at least not yet. When constitution, which (or if) will include Tamazigh as one of the official languages, will pass the referendum we will change it. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Present Tense References

There are a number of present tense references in the history section that should be changed to past tense. Such as the statement that "10-20% are employed in surveillance" 63.241.247.137 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is NTC providing governance or administration

I propose we change the emphasis in the article to present the NTC as an transitional administration rather than as a provisional or transitional government. The NTC has not formed a government, a legislature, nor even appointed a provisional cabinet or ministry. The matter of the UN recognising the NTC as the "government" of Libya is not straightforward. What they did was recognise the NTC as the as the legitimate holder of that country’s UN seat. Libya was already recognised by the UN as a nation state, albeit under the previous government known as the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, aka Libya. I will not digress here, Recognizing States and Governments – A Tricky Business-Canadian International Council, by Jennifer Welsh, 20 September 2011 explores the issues in some depth. Suffice to say it is insufficient to call the NTC a government when they have stated themselves that they have postponed the formation of a government "indefinetely". The issue here is not of course whether Libya is a state, the question is do they have a government. It seems that they do not, so best we refer to the NTC as a Transitional administration or something similar. We should not allow ourselves to be led astray by a sometimes over enthusiastic western press, for example it was widely reported that the UK recognised the NTC as the legitimate government of Libya, yet, to quote from the Canadian International Council doc referred to above; "Furthermore, some states – such as the UK – are adamant that they do not engage in the practice of recognizing governments at all. Therefore, when questioned about whether Britain recognized the NTC, Foreign Secretary William Hague insisted until very recently that it was a moot question, since ‘the UK only recognizes states, not governments’." They already recognised Libya previously, and had done so for decades.

• So I propose we change Provisional government to read either Transitional administration, Provisional administration, Interim controlling body or Transitional administrative council. -- Felix (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction requested to History section

The line that says "home to the Severian dynasty, was at its height" under "Roman era" has an incorrect link to the article 'Severian' when it should say 'Severan dynasty' and be linked to the article of the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.128.130 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya declared its liberation

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Libya on 23 October 2011th at 17 hours declared national liberation after 42 years of dictatorship Muammar Gadgafi. President of the National Transition Coucil Mustafa Abdul Djalil in a speach in Benghazi called for national reconciliation and the rule of law, and said: "I invite everyone to forgiveness, tolerance and reconciliation. We must get rid of hate. It is essential to the succes of the revolution and the future of Libya.". 93.137.56.241 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)