Jump to content

Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.17.84.82 (talk) at 09:00, 20 March 2011 (→Rename: yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rename

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

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

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

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

I'd vote for Operation Odyssey Dawn, or at least a redirect thingy. Same way we have with Operation Just Cause. Just my two cents on the deal. Have a great Wiki kinda day folks! Sector001 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Just give it its true name: International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising. Wikipedia is not only a set of extracts form renowned medias, its creators can analyse the reality too.83.17.84.82 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deletion?

Why would this article be flagged for deletion when there is obviously a need for it and a large amount of work being put into it. Please remove that flag or state your case clearly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.69.226 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 March 2011

rough restructure

i've done a rough restructure to reduce the "newsy" aspect of the presentation style, while trying not to change the content except for minor cleanup.

One obvious problem after restructuring is that a huge portion of the article consists of criticism. i don't know if i want to do the work of trying to compress that without dropping "notable" criticisms. But in any case, for the WP:LEAD, in principle we should have a brief summary of that section. Summarising without giving cross-refs risks being weaselly "Significantly, however, there were reports that some criticised the NFZ." Maybe choosing one or two of the criticisms by people/organisations that are most notable might be the way to do this.

In any case, i wanted to get the restructure in place before people added more content too chaotically, making a cleanup more difficult. Boud (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

libyans want air intervention, don't want ground intervention

In this edit Template:Sec link auto, the WP:WEASEL wording and original research "though - in seeming contradiction" was added. If you look around for more sources, it should be easy to find the explanation: Libyans (and the Arab League) consider a no-fly zone to "not" be "military intervention". We need to cite a source before explaining this in the article, but we do not need a source to avoid weasel wording and original research. The contradiction is only a problem of not being careful enough in words.

For the moment i'm just completing the quote to a fuller quote. The reader can interpret this him/herself without Wikipedia interpreting that the protestor is being self-contradictory. Boud (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability discussion

A notability tag was added in this edit Template:Sec link auto and half an hour later a deletion proposal was made Template:Sec link auto by the same editor. Notability was not stated overtly as the reason for deletion, but i think that responses to the deletion proposal cover most of the notability question.

i propose that once the WP:AFD is closed (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proposed_Libyan_no-fly_zone) and if it results in keep, then we consider that to close the notability debate as well and remove the notability tag here. Boud (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer just a proposal

The UN security Council has just voted for the imposition for a no-fly zone: resolution 1973 is now in place Lynbarn (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-Fly zone notability has just shrunk massively because the UNSC resolution is much more far reaching. No Fly Zone is a nice part of a future article on the International response to the 2011 conflict in Libya. The resolution calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone and this is just one small part of a far bigger whole now. MLA (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you were unaware of the existing article International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising ??? The notability of this article has NOT just decreased. Do some research before you post. 118.208.53.181 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the events unfolding right now help whoever this anonymous editor is to see what I was talking about. Sarkozy in his post-G8 speech explicitly described much more than a No Fly Zone as is the case with the UN resolution. The No Flying bit of the intervention is not itself specifically notable because it is not the most notable part of the international intervention led by France that is happening right now. The UNSC resolution clearly calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone but the No Fly is part of what is happening in the Zone. The anonymous editor might want to do some research before posting on issues they aren't familiar with. MLA (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Libyan no-fly zone could now become a sub-article of Libyan all-necessary-measures zone or something along those lines. Boud (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article could be changed to Libyan no-fly zone and intervention as UN Resolution 1973 authorises intervention in addition to a no-fly zone but does not permit an occupation. It's likely intervention will be implemented in the form of air strikes, special operations and such. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous resolutions seem to have both wikipedia articles and wikisource sources - some people who know the style will presumably do this soon for resolution 1972(?):

If the following links are red right now 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) but for someone reading later will probably be blue:

Meanwhile:

The press release says "MORE LATER", so a link to e.g. a pdf of the full resolution will presumably come soon.

Boud (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's

not 1972.

This page http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2011.htm - which contains the false statement advertising a trade secret-protected, non-free program, "The Adobe Acrobat Reader, which can be downloaded for free from the Adobe website (http://www.adobe.com), is required for viewing of the full-text documents" - does not yet have resolution 1973. Proof that the United Nations' statement is false can be found here: List of PDF software. The false part is "is required". There's also a misleading part, "for free", since it confuses zero-cost and political freedom. Rather self-contradictory for the UN to encourage the confusion... Boud (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the point. Adobe Acrobat reader is free in that it is not charged for, and although IT isn't required, A PDF reader of some kind is required to read a PDF file - none of which has any bearing on this article! Lynbarn (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement suggests that my statement is false, so i need to clarify: the webmaster's words "is required" are false because there is a lot of non-Adobe software that can read pdf files, and the words "are free" are only misleading, not false. These are objective statements, they are not advocacy. Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, I believe WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Lynbarn (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Let's cite from WP:SOAPBOX: "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.".
You are welcome to add a claim that the webmaster's statement is true. In fact, you sort-of did, but not quite.
How about you stop putting delete tags and deleting text and we end this discussion, since it's now NPOV'd?
Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just one more quick point: i provided a URL to what should be a reliable source. i added a comment which may be useful to consider when judging the reliability. i am not saying that the source is necessarily unreliable for the sort of information we want from it, i'm just giving a warning. Boud (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UN website IS a reliable source, it is just not instantly updated, unlike Wikipedia. Also, whilst, as I have agreed, it is incorrect in that Adobe Reader isn't required to read PDF files, as there are alternatives, it doesn't claim that Adobe Reader is free software, as in open source - that is your interpretation - but that it can be downloaded for free. It still seems to me that you are trying to make a point here, in relation to an article that the point isn't relevant to. If you have a disagreement with the wording on the UN website, then I suggest you take it up with the UN webmaster. If you have an issue with Adobe, their software or marketing strategy, then take it up with them directly. It is not a Wikipedia matter. For information, I don't use Adobe Reader myself, but one of several alternatives. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 vote of March 18

Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[[1]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[[2]]

Nation United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote Political Side
France France[BBC News] [[3]] Yes Rebels
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia-Hercegovina[BBC News] [[4]] Yes Rebels
Colombia Colombia[BBC News] [[5]] Yes Rebels
Gabon Gabon[BBC News] [[6]] Yes Rebels
Nigeria Nigeria[BBC News] [[7]] Yes Rebels
Lebanon Lebanon[BBC News] [[8]] Yes Rebels
Portugal Portugal[BBC News] [[9]] Yes Rebels
South Africa South Africa[BBC News] [[10]] Yes Rebels
United Kingdom United Kingdom[BBC News] [[11]] Yes Rebels
United States United States[BBC News] [[12]] A reluctant yes Undecided
Brazil Brazil[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
Germany Germany[[The Guardian Live Blog] A reluctant abstain Pro-Gadhafi
India India[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
China China[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
Russia Russia[[The Guardian Live Blog] A reluctant abstain Pro-Gadhafi

Wipsenade (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For information, according to the BBC at 15:36 today: German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her country will not take part in military intervention, but adds: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality.". Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have no idea why Germany is being listed as being "pro-Gadhafi" C.d.rose (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this table something more suitable for a users sandbox? The key information is already in another article, using a well established formet: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Criticism to the no-fly zone and also the UN resolution enforcing it, contained person that are fervently for a no-fly zone and actively worked to have it implemented - i.e. Alain Juppé, Hillary Clinton, etc. This has been corrected by me. Also regarding Clinton the quote says: "The tough issues about how and whether there would be any intervention to assist those who are opposing Libya is very controversial within Libya and within the Arab community.", and then continues to say that "So we are working closely with our partners and allies to try to see what we can do and we are engaged in very active consideration of all the different options that are available." To take only half the quote is a mis-quotation and not acceptable! As quoted it seems Clinton is against a no-fly zone, however with the full quote it becomes clear she is working to impose one! Misquotations of this sort are unacceptable! noclador (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So add the part of the quote you find relevant?? Don't just remove statements made by the Secretary of State because you disagree with them. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX. And whether or not Hillary Clinton is in favor is entirely irrelevant - she made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community and that's the end of it.--Tehwhirled (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch your tone! now to the facts: I do not disagree with Clintons comment I disagree with a pattern in this section of partial quotations, which contradict the actual opinions and actions of officials! An example: Richard Lugar is in the section "An act of war" and he is quoted to make it seem like he is criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war! When in fact he says: "Obama Administration Must Also Get Congress to Declare War" so, he is not criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war, but wants a congress declaration of war against Libya! If you want to have him in the criticism section, then take this statement by him, in which he actually really does directly criticize the no-fly zone: "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya." but still- also here he is not saying: no-fly zone= act of war! so: please quote correctly - that is all I ask for! noclador (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one acting up like a kid in the edit comments and throwing around exclamation marks as if something is wrong. If you disagree with a viewpoint represented on Wikipedia, then add your own with verifiable sources. Don't just remove parts of the subject matter to slant it to your liking.--Tehwhirled (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Hillary Clinton - as you just said! "She made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community", but you put into the criticism of the no-fly zone section. Why that? if she only made a statement about the skepticism in the Arab community on March 3rd, and on March 12th the Arab League called for no-fly zone - doesn't that mean that the skepticism she mentioned has been overcome? noclador (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on some basic information about civil society or take a civics class. The Arab League is an organization of the current ruling autocrats of the Arab countries. They do not represent the Arab community, they represent governments.--Tehwhirled (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again: please stop behaving in a condescending manner and argue for what reason the Clinton quote needs to be in the criticism section, when it has been superseded by events in the last 2 weeks. noclador (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have verifiable sources indicating that the skepticism in the Arab community that the Secratary of State related to the senate committee has been superceeded, you are welcome to add them here or to the article. But merely citing the fact that the league of 22 Arab autocrats approve of the proposal does not justify the claim that the entire Arab community of several hundred million people does.--Tehwhirled (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view. Your negative attitude to the heads of state of the Arab League is not acceptable, as it makes it seem that you are not neutral in your editing. Please adhere to a neutral point of view in all your editing on wikipedia! noclador (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are disputing that most of the members of the Arab League are autocrats now? Do you have a verifiable source to back up that claim?--Tehwhirled (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not debating Arab autocrats here, but possible criticism of the no-fly zone in Libya. noclador (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't dispute the neutrality of the assessment that the members of the Arab League are autocrats.--Tehwhirled (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You cant have a list of individuals critical statements without a similar list individuals of favorable statements. It's one sided and POV. Further, many (if not most) of those who voiced these concerns have since changed their positions based on developments since they were made. It's highly POV to have this type of list. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, there appears to be undue weight given to criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany actually for military intervention

One of the first sentences in the article is "There were five abstentions, including Brazil, Russia, India, Germany and China who often oppose military intervention against a sovereign country." Actually, German politicians including chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Guido Westerwelle have made it clear that they are fully supporting military intervention in Libya and that they simply abstained from voting so that they do not have an obligation to participate with their own military in such an intervention. I wonder if this sentence could be changed so that it doesn't sound as if Germany would oppose this military intervention. One (German) source for this is the 3/18/2011 8 pm Tagesschau (www.tagesschau.de). --Regenspaziergang !? 08:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it, thanks --Regenspaziergang !? 04:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France

According to various TV news channels, France has started implementing the no-fly zone with reconnaissance flights... does anyone have a name for the military operation for France? As we have Operation Ellamy for UK, an article for France and Canada would be in order, since apparently France, UK and Canada will be the first to implement the no-fly interdiction. Though Canadian government disputes that they will be ready in time to be first in with France and UK. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opération Harmattan. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a no fly zone

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said in a press confrence and we have being hearing about this for a while in the media that they will not only forbid planes flying but that they will also bomb tanks and troops that is attacking the people. A so called 'no drive zone'. This goes beyond a no fly zone but this is a (tactical) bombing campaign. Perhabs change the title of the article to The bombing of Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we wait until the official name of the operation is known and will move the article then there, like Operation Deny Flight, Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch. noclador (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it IS a no-fly zone, but there is more to it as well. I agree we should wait until an operational name is announced. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which official, from which country, decides on the "official" name? HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's happening under UN auspices, right? Maybe the UN will name it. It's not clear yet. WikiDao ☯ 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

an act of war

In the section an act of war, There have been various edits related to mis-quotes and partial quotes lending a particular slant to what is apparently being said. Might I suggest that, as the US is but one partner in the operation, multiple quotes from a string of US politicians is of little relevance and adds nothing to the main thrust of the article, and that the section should therefore be replaced with a brief sentance along the lines of "several US politicians have expressed concerns that any intervention in Libya may be considered an act of war.

I may just be bold and do it anyway!

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain at least the Lugar quote as well as the refs to the others. There has been no effort to misquote but there may have been one to forget the criticism of this intervention.--Tehwhirled (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Odyssey Dawn

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

Ok im writing this as Obama is giving his radio address, it seems the US will contribute to the 'front end' ie SEAD operations but 'coalition partners' will take over the actual enforcement of the NFZ; as such id suggest Odyssey Dawn is the name given to the SEAD phaseZaq12wsx (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't insert that catchy rosy flowery sunny name like it is like a picnic in a sunny day like Operation Wild Rose, Operation New Beginning, Operation New Birth, Operation God is Coming, Operation Glorious Mountain. Keep those simple and childish names out basically. 174.16.120.220 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to sugar coat

If US bombs Libya, opponents are Barack Obama and Muammar Qaddafi, if UK bombs Libya, opponents are David Cameron and Muammar Qaddafi, if Sarcozy bombs Liby, it is Sarcozy and Qaddafi. Put all three leaders in there because they are all bombing and attacking inside Libya. At this point it is not just Nicholas Sarcozy, because US missiles were fired and British fighter jets will soon fire. All three leaders vs. Muammar Qaddafi because they have direct engagement how limited and short that attack might be. 174.16.120.220 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already listed David Cameron and Barack Obama in the commanders section of the article template as British and American forces have already begun engaging in combat against Libyan forces. An IP had tried to remove David Cameron and Barack Obama from the commanders section of the template. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was done because only France took the risk to send planes into Libyan territory. At this moment, USA/UK sent tomahawk missiles and other measures. A no-fly requires airplanes to work. No planes, no no-fly zone. So far only Sarkozy is a no-fly commander, because only France launched airplanes. Other commanders can be named only after they start contributing planes to the no-fly. It is better to wait than to be inaccurate.
What utter rubbish. What do you think the British and American missiles were fired at? Sandcastles? A no fly zone is more than just jets whizzing overhead. David (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read the actual Resolution: it's a lot more than just a no-fly zone. Flatterworld (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it? Can you help come up with a better title? HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Propose to move this to 2011 Libyan police action, ASAP. This is going to end way fast, dare I say in a regime change. Flatterworld and Quite vivid blur are both right, the resolution is more than a no-fly zone, when it says "Any Means Necessary". US/UK tomahawk missiles attacks can go on forever, until Gaddafi is defeated completely. He will lose his will to fight and have to surrender. Counting the number of warplanes won't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.243.83 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Operation Odyssey Dawn??

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

"Operation Odyssey Dawn" refers only to US involvement. Ellamy is UK involvement, and names for other countries' involvement are yet to be announced. Quærenstalk/contributions 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The current name is wrong, but whatever we choose it must mention Libya. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Lynbarn (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No that either refers to the US contribution or the SEAD phase; its like asking whether we should rename it ellamy!Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Operation in support of UNSC Resolution 1973 is what we want, but it seems there's no official name for the coalition effort. Flatterworld (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh, no. Not "coalition" again. That seems to have been dragged out in every conflict involving the USA since Vietnam. It seems to mean "The USA plus whoever else is on its side". In Iraq it facetiously became "The coalition of the lying" because of the absent WMDs. It's not at all formally defined. We have to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait a while, secondary sources might converge on a common name – hopefully less cumbersome than the two proposed above – but agree that "no-fly zone" is not what it is. WikiDao ☯ 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

targets

i think it would be a really good idea to list what is hit, by what and when. i just read that RAF struck tripoli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) RAF struck Tripoli - citation? Quærenstalk/contributions 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

er - that reference makes no mention of RAF attacks on Tripoli. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC says: 2131: Coalition forces have launched strikes against Mitiga air base outside the centre of Tripoli, Al-Jazeera reports. 20 targets were hit. Flatterworld (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could have been (probably was) one of the cruise missile targets, fired from naval assets, possibly A RN sub, probably US Navy. The RAF isn't mentioned in the same context. I'm being a little pedantic, I know, but it is easy to draw conclusions from what is reported that do not actualy relate to the event. Lynbarn (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

The 'Actions' sections should be formatted as a timeline to keep it from being confusing. Flatterworld (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS Barry image

How do we know it was one of the ships that launched the missiles?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

go to the image page itself, which links to a US navy page which says is is IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed that the USN has the time to post photos on wikipedia so quickly during an engagement! Lynbarn (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this one is stretching them much William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ship reference: "U.S. launches missile strikes against Libya". Msnbc.com. 19 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strenght

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

effectiveness?

Is speculation, by individuals politically posturing, days and weeks prior to the UN resolution, and prior to any specific knowledge of the operation, based on only public domain (read: incomplete) information really appropriate to have in this article? it appears that some are desperately trying to include some form of dissension on this campaign, regardless if it is relevant or appropriate. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casulties

Are we now really taking Libyan state TV as credible source for casulties list? --89.173.16.218 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan State TV

Can the Libyan State TVs reports of Civilian casualties be seen as coming from a reliable source?? All the reports of Libyan State TV have been so far lies ("Al Qaeda gave the youths drugs!"), propaganda ("Al Qaeda has broken the ceasefire!") or plain ridiculous ("We could never shoot our own people.") - therefore my question: Is it ok to put the Libyan State TV numbers about casualties into the article? Or should we wait for a neutral source?? i.e. ICRC or UN? noclador (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a neutral source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Talk:Operation_Odyssey_Dawn#Casualties may help with not repeating the same arguments.--Terrillja talk 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what we think. We report both rebel and western claims of massacrs and tanks destroyed. We need to report government claims as well so to stay neutral. We already noted that the numbers are a government claim, that is enough. Let people make their own conclusions, that's not our job. Our job is to writte claims of both sides. Libyan rebels have also made claims that have not been confirmed as true. For instance, they said the plane shot down this morning was Gaddafi's and later it turned out it was one of their own. The rebel's also claimed that there have been thousands of civilian deaths in massacers, however no independent group has confirmed this still. In fact, now it seems no more than 1,000 people have died, and more than half of those have been combatants. Nevertheless we report rebel claims. So we also report government claims. People are already aware the numbers could be just propaganda, however nevertheless our duty and job is to report the official government claim on the number of dead, like we report the official French government claim on the four tanks destroyed. And that is what it is, an official government claim. EkoGraf (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found neutral wording. Noteing with an asterix that the numbers have not been independently confirmed. EkoGraf (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya civil war and war against Libya

That's what it is . --88.117.72.80 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Coalition intervention in Libya

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

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

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

No. Anything but "Coalition", please. "Coalition of the willing" was used by Dubya in Iraq, and quickly became "Coalition of the lying" among those publicly wondering where the WMDs were. It seems that, with limited thought, people want to use "coalition" to describe any collection of America and some friends (different every time) who attack somebody else. Not saying this one's not justified, but let's be a little more creative. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Allied any better?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UN would work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UN seems to me to be OK since "allied" forces are currently operating under a mandate very similar to United Nations Security Council Resolution 84, which opened the way to escalating the Korean War. Peasantwarrior (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is about the no-fly zone, and the operations are in support of maintaining the no fly zone, or operations adjunct to that which are outlined in the UN resolution that declared the zone. Besides, the Arab League declared a no-fly zone as well. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: that could be argued about the 110+ missiles fired from ships and planes today. However, the first attacks by France at least 1 tank (and possibly 4), I cannot see as being solely about a no-fly zone since the tanks were not in any way an immediate thread to air forces. How is that part of a no-fly zone?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful of what you report by the guy that orchestrated the "Umbrella Scene" concerning "victims"

Total respect to any victims but if they don't exist at all then respect is hollow. --Athinker (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

need a map

showing appox. location of this in world map. -Abhishikt 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&oldid=419768185"