Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to the Libyan civil war (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.93.15.125 (talk) at 05:47, 1 March 2011 (Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconArab world Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

{{WikiProject Africa|class=List|Libya=yes|Libya-importance=}}

WikiProject iconInternational relations List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLists List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Executive Order

I can't find any info on this executive order which freezes Libyan assets and declares a national emergency: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2011libya.eo_.rel_.pdf What are the ramifications? Historical Precedents? It isn't on any major news source that I can find yet... Spreggo (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

States that have cut diplomatic relations`

Should we create a new sub-section for countries that have cut relations with Libya now that Peru has, or simply move those states to the top of the list? user:mnw2000 18:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we hjave a map for now. let see if it grows.(Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Why doesn't state that the US and Canada have cut or suspend diplomatic relations[1]

Chad

Resolved

In the map, Chad is shown as taking sides with Gaddafi. Nothing is mentioned of this in the article, and someone really needs to provide a citation that this is true. After all, to put it mildly, Chad versus Gaddafi relations have historically been extremely problematic (see e.g., Chadian–Libyan conflict), and it was only in 2007 a few of the final major Chadian groups signed a peace treaty with Libya. Sure there have been recent attempts of increasing peaceful co-existence in the region, but that's a long way from them supporting Gaddafi during this mess. Keep in mind that just because some of Gaddafi's mercenaries (supposedly) are from Chad, that does not mean the country supports Gaddafi (otherwise we should add South Africa to the supporters of Gaddafi, as some of his mercenaries supposedly are from that country; based on the little info that has escaped, he has mercenaries from large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, notably the Sahel and expats from the Congo wars). Unless someone can provide a citation that Chad–the country–supports Gaddafi in this conflict, Chad should be removed as a supporting nation on the map. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mdified it to show 'merceneries' not the goverment of ChadWipsenade (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add sources, but foget it, I found them, but it is best to ignor the accusations about merceneries, since the map is repearedly deleated fom this page becase it said there were merceneries.Wipsenade (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt reaction

Prior to international reaction being moved to its own page here, the Egypt reaction was moved out of that section as it wasn't from a voice of someone who represents an official of the country authorized to speak on its behalf, which is what this section is for. That Egypt reaction has been reinstated here for some reason. Please remove it as the person making the statement is not an official spokesman for the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.203.19.1 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kevdav63 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it can and will be double asterisks when finished. there has been an "official" reaction and per waiting on the source in the meantime, hence it looks official when its not.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pov states

per this page and the MENA page where Western Sahara is part of Morocco (and more reocnigsed than kosovo) and Palestine is not termed as such (again more reognition and declaration of independece) then we cant go about labeling kosovo as its own entity because that is pov (where Palestine is not labeled on this page either).Lihaas (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am very biased in the matter (see my crowded user page), but yeah, maybe put it as Hamas and/or PA separately? Few people can argue with that and it is about as NPOV as you can get. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah, forgot to mvoe that part out (though the change of other palestine was controversyial). the point bein g that you cant it one way for palestube and western sahara and then not for kosovo. Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, and no way we could say that representatives of each said X and Y? You are right that we can't refer to one in one way while giving the others treatment in another. Still, Hamas and the PA are separate from each other and so the reaction from one is not necessarily the reaction of the government of the "State of Palestine"/the Territories as a whole as neither the PA or Hamas represents all the Palestinian people and having it appear to be State of Palestine effectively makes it the reaction of two different governments for the same state. If that makes sense. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: Oh here's an idea! How about put them (Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, etc) under Non-UN Member Governments or something like that? That is completely NPOV and it is not a matter of opinion, it is fact that they are not in the UN and are governments of one form or another! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we have precedence for that. when there is an "official" reaction that would be main and hamas would be double asterisks. i believe we did in the intl reactions to egyopt for the palestine part. think your idea is perfect then. you want to be bold and make the change?Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err sure, lol, but I'm not sure what's so bold about making an edit. :p Is it okay if I change the states header to governments rather than making a separate thing altogether for the three/four entities? Then I can just plop them under there in their own subsection. Also, one last note on the Palestine thing, even though the PA is more agreeable and more widely recognised (afaik) than the Hamas swine (the gov, not the people, hey, I can express an opinion on talk pages =p) in Gaza, I am not sure that it is really fair to consider them the main government. Gaza ain't tiny and they were elected by the Gazans. Even more reason to give them equal footing. Maybe if Abkhazia and South Ossetia say anything (if Russia hasn't annexed them yet) then they can get their own section as Non-UN Member Governments. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hmmm, might someone take issue with the Governments title though? Just wondering. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Reactions

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-let-300-palestinians-return-to-west-bank-from-libya-1.345272 -- Israel allowed 300 Palestinians to go from Libya to the West Bank. It's very small compared to the total there, but it's something and it's a reaction to the situation there. Ha'aretz is a liberal paper btw (some more conservative Israelis (and Ultra-Zionist Jews such as moi) would say the voice of the PA or at least not a good paper for Israel). TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its fair to add. i rpesume under the israel section. no question of po.v.Lihaas (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only added that last bit because at the time the ad for the petition to the King of Jordan to make Jordan the new Palestinian homeland was up top. Even though I did sign it I would think some people would have had issues with the source if they didn't have any background info stating the paper's usual biases. Also, eck, Livni, at least she is talking some sense there though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests

Why does this article inhabit Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests ? It is the only non-main article which has its own category to exist in that does this. Every other international reactions article only inhabits the subcategory (in this case it would be Category:2011 Libyan protests ). This clearly should be diffused into the subcategory, and not be in the main category. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it has something to do with Libya being a majority Arab and Arabised-Berber nation. Please see Demographics of Libya. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt's "international reactions" article is not categorized into that category. Only Egyptian revolution of 2011 is categorized there. None of the other protest/uprising internationl reaction articles are categorized into the upper level category, only into their own categories. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now that doesn't make sense. You should add them then. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
WP:CATEGORY suggest that is excessive categorization. Only the head article of a category should be categorized into the parent category. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

getting a little long. i propose removing the mesia part, adding more to clean it and then adding it to some other page.Lihaas (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSCR 1970

I have found the relevant UN Security Council resolution online at http://www.dipublico.com.ar/english/news/full-text-of-resolution-1970-2011-libya/ which is fortunate because it doesn't seem to have appeared on the (apparently underfunded) UN website yet. I've added a reference in the text of this article, but it would be good if someone with time and knowledge could begin work on an article for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, summing up its provisions and saying something about its political context (tricky business of getting states which oppose the ICC to agree to Libya's referral to it, etc.) Hope this helps 82.46.43.33 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

livni quote

a good edit shortened the quopte (we needed a 2nd eye), but i added back a little more and NOT the whole agenda/quotefarm for just a little context, the fact of an oncoming clash is pertinent to reaction here as you can see the reactions change by region.Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara, Taiwan, Russian mini-satellites (not very NPOV I know)

Can anyone see what reactions these governments have had if any? It's not very important I know, but still (fill in the blank). I found this little one on a Morroccan site claiming hundreds of Western Sahara soldiers are fighting as mercs in Libya, but the bias is pretty obvious. This is the only source I can find on them though. Too sleepy to look for the others though. By Russian Satellites I mean South Ossetia, Abkhazia, that little breakaway area in Moldova etc. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]