Talk:Libya

Lead rewrite

The lead currently summarises the geography of the country, its economy and development and recent (2011-) history. It needs to be expanded with a summary of Libya's history, its culture and demographics (including religion and ethnic groups). -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the geographical stuff in the lead be moved to the Geography section and a short summary of that (Geography) section then be used to replace the moved text. Same applies to other content in the lead, which I suggest should be moved to relevant sections and lead being reworked accordingly. I will do it if nobody else feels up to the task, but some early consensus on my suggestion would be helpful at this time.41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. User Hazhk above seems to imply the current lead is satisfactory in some respects but needs to be expanded, whereas I'm suggestion the opposite. It needs to be contracted and reworked entirely to be consistent with the relevant rules, which are clear enough. A fair amount of time and effort involved here if lead is to brought up to standard, hopefully without any later edit wars. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

New population statics

The Libyan Bureau of Statistics and Census has lunched new statistics about rates in Libya

http://bsc.ly/index.php?P=vf&sec_Id=17&dep_Id=6# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkpens Spraypaint (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.171.226 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Feb 11 "revolution" -- liberation or occupation?

There is clearly a big fog about the events that took place in Libya since this so-called Feb.11 "revolution", which is cited in the article as being a "liberation" (instead of a more proper designation as "occupation" as many of those so called rebels were foreign fighters, paied for by Qatar, most of them from Al Qaeda and clearly had an imperialist agenda in overthrowing one of the last remaining socialist states).

Clearly, such approaches are very biased, and reflect the western imperialist media propaganda, but are not very well founded on evidence on the ground.

The new "government" has not and will not succeed in controlling the country. Instead rebel militias are de facto controlling the country. The government services have collapsed, causing breaks in electricity deliveries, water deliveries, and so on. Basic security is lacking, due to militias that don't operate under governmemnt control. Oil production never recovered to the pre-2011 levels. De facto the east part (Benghazi) has formed her own oil companies and is no longer part of Libya.

Democracy in Libya is just a farce and part of western media propaganda. Libya today is more like a failed state controlled by rival militias.

The Green resitance are still fighting, esp. in the south, and in many cities all over Libya the Green Flag has been raised. Robheus (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is serious confusion of terminology in the article sections titled "Revolution" and "Post-revolution era". As the preceding section ("Independence" etc) makes clear, the 'Al Fateh' Revolution took place in 1969, and Gaddafi was "leader of the revolution". It follows therefor that the 2011 armed rebellion / insurgency / uprising was a counter-revolution. I propose changing the section title "Revolution" to read "Counter-revolution" or "2011 Insurgency" or "Rebellion". Anyone have any objection? 41.134.206.2 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What any of us think is really not at all important. What is important is reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to source a heading? (Reason for proposed change is self-evident and elaborated above, (i.e. to replace inaccurate and misleading heading). 41.134.206.2 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Revolution is fine. Calling it a 'counter revolution' is a violation of NPOV it seems to me. It has been called a revolution in a lot of reliable sources as well. For clarity's sake saying 'post 2011 revolution' rather than 'post revolution' is fine I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If by "a lot of reliable sources" you are referring to the dominant narrative purveyed by Western mainstream mass media based in NATO-member states, then IMHO we are possibly dealing here not so much with NPOV as with some kind of systemic bias. It is worth noting that while those media consistently favour the word "Revolution", the insurgents are somehow never referred to in Western mass media reports as "revolutionaries" but rather paradoxically as "rebels". Moreover, "revolution" implies a clear ideological imperative, whereas as events have proved, the 2011 revolt lacked any cohesive political ideology and was driven largely by the imperatives of radical Islamic religious fundamentalism.

The only academic study of the 2011 events that I'm aware of, written by an reputable expert in the field, does not use the word "Revolution" at all, but refers instead to "uprising". So, I'm going to go with the expert's terminology, rather than be influenced by the gutter-Press. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: the academic source referred to above is Kuperman, Alan J. “Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene.” Policy Brief, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, September 2013. Published in summer 2013 issue of journal International Security.

I intend to use this source in the article once I've figured out how to do citation markup. (Newbie. Learning curve. Thanks for your patience). 41.134.206.2 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We go by the 'mainstream narrative' that is how it works. I would like others to comment if possible. I don't have much of a problem with the term 'uprising'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The "mainstream narrative" in the Western society of nations is not necessarily the same "mainstream" in other parts of the world. If we go only with the Western narrative (as reflected in the present Libya article) then IMHO that would be in violation of NPOV. Note that the reference sources cited in the article are nearly all from Western sources, to the exclusion other, non-Western reliable sources available in English language translation. But enough of this for now, in the absence of further commentators to build consensus. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Government

Considering the Libyan parliament was sacked by a rogue general who now presents himself as the head of a Libyan version of SCAF, I think we should probably note that the government of Libya is disputed in the infobox and article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Libyan parliament has not been "sacked". Parliament building was attacked a couple of times by Hafter forces, and current parliament moved to a "safe" venue somewhere else, as yet not attacked, but who knows what's to happen next. Considering the present, volatile situation, we should avoid trying to report the non-encyclopeadic news as it unfolds. Rather wait for the dust to settle in the fullness of time. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that Libya today is a de facto failed state with no functional government, with three different "prime ministers" claiming legitimacy, and with numerous rival Islamic militias vying with each other for military-political control, I suggest the "Government" section be scrapped for the time being. Whatever can be salvaged should be moved to "post-2011 uprising" section and brought suitably up to date. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Berber

I do this edit, because the "Berber language" is not official, to be added along with the Arabic language

Secondly, all the Libyans speak Arabic (Libyan dialect), and there are no other languages ​​used --41.254.31.59 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Madam / Sir,

First of all, the text you have removed does not state that the Amazigh name is the official name; that is indeed acknowledged. It merely states how the indigenous Amazigh populations refer to the country, which in turn brings me to the next point.

The statement you are defending, i.e. "all the Libyans speak Arabic (Libyan dialect), and there are no other languages ​​used" is at best an uneducated guest, and at worst a very biased description. As a matter of fact, sizeable Amazigh communities exist in Libya, and they use multiple linguistic varieties, including Nefusi and Tamahaq. You yourself have removed previously sourced information about the presence of these languages in Libya. Please refrain from doing so in the future and commit yourself to Wikipedia's standards of Wikipedia.

If you happen to be genuinely unaware of the fact that there actually are Amazigh-speaking Libyans, you could look up the names of known Amazigh performers such as Ali Ftis, Danya Ben Sassi, and other. You could as well check Libyan Amazigh media such as Libya Ibraren, and equally check that a Google search, google.com/search?q="berber"+"libya", requiring both words to appear returns around 3.5 billion entries, which is itself a significant return. You may also refer to previous events where Amazighs required the language to be official.

To summarise, I will be reverting your edit, and I ask to try to come up with a structure that you find suitable, keeping both names and further specifying that the only current official name is the State of Libya. You could check the example of the consensus achieved about Tunisia. To reiterate, the Amazigh name for Libya is indeed not official, at least for the moment, yet it states how the indigenous Amazigh populations in Libya refer to the country.

Also, please make sure that your future contributions are written using proper English and with accompanying references.

Regards

E3 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not official, so do not reverted my edit. And of course, Libya has the Berber, especially Houara (the most prevalent), but they speak Arabic and identify themselves as Arabs --41.254.31.33 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Madam / Sir,

I hope you read my previous response, and understood it. It does not help you to omit the same information from the Tunisia page. Please refrain from such behaviour otherwise I will have to report you. I am still hoping we could reach a comprehensive consensus on this.

Regards

E3 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• E3، فلنكتب بالعربية وخصوصاً لدي إعتقاد بأنك عربي، أولاً ليبيا وبقية البلدان العربية (باستثناء المغرب) ليست معترفة باللغة البربرية ولغتها هي العربية لذا هنا في ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية يتم كتابة الاسماء الرسمية (الغير إنجليزية) في بداية المقالة، لذا تعديلاتي صحيحة. ثانياً في ليبيا جميع السكان يتحدثون باللهجة الليبية ولا غيرها. كما أمل أن تكون قد فهمت وألا تصر على أي سخافات --41.254.31.33 (talk)

• Google Translate translates that Arabic answer as "E3,Let to write in Arabic language and especially I have a belief that you are Arabian, firstly the Libya and other Arab countries (except Morocco) is not recognizing the Berber language and language is Arabic, so here in the English Wikipedia is written the names of official (non-English) at the beginning of the article, so my edits are correct. Secondly in Libya all Libyan people speak Libyan dialect nor the other. I hope you to be understood and not insist on any absurdities". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony, I hope from you to solve the problem, a Berber names writing in articles, the Berber is not of their names, and especially what I observed in the English Wikipedia, as "Amazigh" users impose their amendments and administrators are protecting of them edit articles, I will not mention names - (I used Google Translate) --41.254.31.33 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

41.254.31.33,

Yet again, please use English and commit to Wikipedia's standards. If you think that you cannot use English, Wikipedia has plenty of other languages where you might feel more confident and contribute in a more efficient way.

Undocumented claims such as yours, "as "Amazigh" users impose their amendments and administrators are protecting of them edit articles, I will not mention names" are not of any help at all, Madam / Sir. Please either source your edits or refrain from such comments that do not help advance the encyclopedia at all.

Regards.

E3 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• In the article, this (Amazigh: ⵍⵉⴱⵢⴰ Libya) and this ⵜⴰⵎⵓⵔⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵉⴱⵢⴰ (Berber) Tamurt n Libya Supposed to removed, because the Berber is not an official language in Libya (Arabic is the official and it is ليبيا), and in Spoken languages Berber and in notes and Amazigh languages in certain western and southern areas. Supposed to removed, because it is incorrect --41.254.31.33 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 41.254.31.33 and thank you for your contribution,

Allow me to reiterate my previous post: "The Amazigh name for Libya is indeed not official, at least for the moment, yet it states how the indigenous Amazigh populations in Libya refer to the country". You may see my previous post for a detailed answer. Reasons for removing an information that is in essence useful and not harmful should be well-established. I have nevertheless removed the Amazigh name from the right panel, as that is reserved for the official name only, and kept the alternative Amazigh name in the introduction. See similar examples previously mentioned and other.

You seem to contradict yourself about the status of Amazigh within Libya, you have earlier said: "And of course, Libya has the Berber, especially Houara (the most prevalent)" but you claim that they speak (a certain linguistic variety of) Arabic. If you need proof that there actually are Libyans whose mother tongue is not Arabic, you may browse related material on Wikipedia. If you may need further Libyan material in Tamahaq, Nefusi, or any other Amazigh linguistic variety, aside from the examples I have already provided in my previous post, please do feel free to search yourself and / or ask.

Regards

E3 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• E3, There is no hope of the debate with an idiot like you, I need another user (not an idiot like you or Amazigh others, where they left the Arabic version of Wikipedia and distortion of information here and in the French version of Wikipedia), Regards --41.254.31.33 (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 41.254.31.33,

Insulting other Wikipedia contributors does not help you with explaining your opinion. You may read the same previously-exhibited points again and aspire to understand and evaluate them objectively.

Regards

E3 (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Libya under Gaddafi revert

On 1 July 2014‎ Bgwhite (talk | contribs)‎ . .Removed what s/he described in the edit summary as: "POV edits. Remove 2009 Gaddafi statement... Not about Libya, but what Gaddafi purposed, (sic) also POV. Keep this about Libya and summation. This has already been argued to death at :Libyan Civil War"

The relevant section is headed "Libya under Gaddafi". Gaddafi's policy statement for Libya is therefor within that topic, nor is it POV. Whatever has been "argued to death" in a separate article is irrelevant to the present Libya article, which is the main overview article and as such has precedence. Moreover, edit summaries are not the appropriate place for discussion. If Bgwhite wants to argue, let him or her argue and gain consensus in the Talk place here, which Bgwhite has not done, thereby encouraging an edit war.41.134.206.2 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite also appears to have reverted further content without specifying same in the edit summary. That kind of behavior sails dangerously close to vandalism. Stop it please. If you genuinely want to improve the article in good faith, then there's lots of room to do so.41.134.206.2 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with Bgwhite's reversion. You made the changes, per WP:BRD you have to justify them. Calling someone a vandal is the opposite of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"In 2009 Gaddafi was elected chairman of the 53-member African Union..." has nothing to do with Libya as the article goes. This is either about Gaddafi or African Union. Throwing in non-related statements into the paragraph doesn't work either... "Libya revived ties with Italy, one of its former colonial rulers." This has nothing to do with anything in the previous paragraph.

"A 2013 policy brief published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs" is nothing but a POV edit, especially the weight given and prose used.

The three book added in the Bibliography are all POV that follows-up on the Belfer report. 3 of 4 book mentioned are about a one-sided view of the war.

What's said at Libyan Civil War directly pertains to what is written here. Discussion takes place all over Wikipedia and just because it doesn't take place in one spot, does not make it invalid. This article's statements on the war should be a summary of the main article. Recent history usually does take up more real estate than past history. However you are only focusing on the past few years and in a "pro"-Gaddafi point of view. I say "pro" in scare quotes because that always oversimplifies an argument. Usually people are not just "pro" or "anti", but somewhere in between. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you comply with wikipedia policy re RS. The Belfer reference is reliably sourced to an item written by an expert in the field. It is an academic source -- the only academic source cited in the entire Libya article BTW. Simply because it deviates from the dominant Western narrative does not make it my POV. Encyclopedic content is supposed to reflect all viewpoints, just so long as they're reliably sourced. You know the rules, so stick to them. Same goes for the books added to Bibliography, of which you complain, including one written by a reputable professor of anthropology.

The systemic bias of some North American-based WP editors is wellknown, and their bias violates the NPOV rule, which of course they will never admit to. I don't have the time or inclination to engage in edit wars with editors like you and Dbrodbeck who appear to be demonstrating some serious ownership issues. If it's your intention to drive good-faith editors away, then clearly you're succeeding. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that's clear is the obvious determination on the part of some editors to underplay the significance of NATO's intervention, without which the so-called "revolution" would never have been possible and everyone knows this. Nor was the intervention really motivated by any "right to protect" civilians. It was aimed at regime-change, and everybody knows this as well, but you would never guess it from the bias of omission displayed in the relevant section of the article as it stands.

BTW, the sentence about Libyan-Italian ties which you cite, was not my contribution. It was there long before I started, and nobody seemed to take offence until now. All I did was change some of the wording for clarity. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, feel free to point out where I have violated policy and then please take me to ANI if you see a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If I've implied that you violated policy, then I withdraw the imputation. My remarks above are directed essentially at Bgwhite, though you're probably guilty by association, having given your support to his reversions of my edits as complained of. And no, I can't be bothered to go weeping crybaby fashion to ANI. If people can't work together harmoniously and collaboratively, then no amount of ANI referral or gnashing of teeth is going to cure the malaise. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:AGF. Nobody here is doing anything against policy, except your assumption of bad faith and my 'guilt by association'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have one edit, but you accuse me of ownership issues and driving editors away. You accused me of being a vandal. You accuse all North American editors of bias, yet more edits are made by Europeans or Asians. You are only adding anti-Nato material on a page ABOUT Libya and yet we have POV issues. You are the one making accusations of vandalism, ownership, bias, guilt by association, and yet we are the ones not working harmoniously, collaboratively or in good faith. As you have no intent of following WP:AGF yourself, there is no further need to talk. I'll continue revert anybody's POV edits and if you have problems, take it to ANI. Musician Bob Marley's backing group "The Wailers" at Zimbabwe independence celebration, 18 April 1980. (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite: I deny all your allegations above. Nor is it your prerogative to arbitrarily order me to ANI. I intend to adhere to WP:BRD (and a few other rules) whether you like it or not. Thank you for your interest and assurance of your good faith. A new discussion section below will follow shortly. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I look forward to a frank and fruitful discussion with you and/or whoever else wants to join in. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaches of policy by User talk:Bgwhite

Dbrodbeck says (above)"Nobody here is doing anything against policy (except me, allegedly). So this discussion is initiated in terms of WP:BRD with a view to improving an understanding that may be acceptable to all interested parties and thus avoid an edit war.

User talk:Bgwhite has deleted content including three bibliographic entries on the grounds of what he wrongly alleges (see section above) is "POV", "one sided", "anti-Nato", "pro-Gaddafi", etc. In so doing, User talk:Bgwhite has violated policy as specified in policy shortcuts: WP:BALASPS; WP:BALANCE; WP:NOTTRUTH; WP:TRUTH; WP:VNT; WP:WEIGHT; WP:DUE; WP:BIAS;WP:WORLDVIEW; WP:V; WP:VERIFY; WP:VER; WP:VERIFICATION, among others.

Neutrality requires that an article must represent fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The item at issue which User talk:Bgwhite deleted, which deletion he then attempted to justify in terms of "policy", was properly sourced to Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. ‘’International Security’’ purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.”

There can therefor be no question that the source conforms in all respects with REF Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) ENDS REF

The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. ‘’International Security’’ purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.” REF Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) ENDS REF

The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. International Security purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.”

There can therefor be no question as to whether or not the above source conforms with WP policy. WP criteria for reliable sources (RS), specifies that “academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources”. In determining proper weight, editors must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it. When reliable sources diverge, editors must present what the divergent sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.

User:Gwhite claims his deletions/reversion were done in good faith. If one accepts his assurance of good faith, then his breaches of policy can only be attributed to sloppy editing or to unconscious systemic bias. As far as I know, he has never complained of or reverted existing content and sources in the Libya article such as "Libyan terrorism: the case against Gaddafi", which is not supported by research documentation, and the tone and slant of which is stridently anti-Gaddafi, nor is it properly referenced, and it has been that way for a long time without any objection by Gwhite or anyone else for that matter. (see ref 56, Libya article). There are numerous, similar, other sources in the article that give weight to the dominant Western anti-Gaddafi narrative. So much for Gwhite's alleged concern for neutrality when complaining about the tone and slant of "anti-Nato" sources contributed in good faith by me in the interests of balance and NPOV. 41.134.206.2 (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Policy shortcut: ·

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Truth,_not_verifiability ·

WP:RECENT WP:RECENTISM WP:RECENCY Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted, but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Proper perspective sometimes requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time.

VERIFY

When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.