Talk:Libya

Date of capture of Tripoli during Arab invasion

In the same sentence, Tripoli was said to have been conquered by Abdullah ibn Saad in 647 and 643. It can't be both. If someone knows and has a source for the year, please add it. MayerG (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do it. I have a reliable source about it. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Alex2006 (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

"The leadership of the Local People's Congress represents the local congress at the People's Congress of the next level."

What could that possibly mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackofalltrades (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

this article should probably be changed in terms of the section for the Libyan government where it says disputed, i think it should be changed to the rebel National Transition Council currently based in Benghazi as the government for Libyan which this governing body refers to simply as the Libyan Republic, due to that fact that the U.S.A and approximately thirty other nations having recognized them publicly as being the both legitimate and the sole recognized government for Libya, and also because these same nations have declared the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya led by Gaddafi as being illegitimate and no longer the recognized government of Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.88.42 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Uniform Common names for the two governments

I propose we create a Wikipedia wide common name for articles for Gaddafi's Libya and the NTC's Libya. I propose the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya should be commonly called the Libyan Jamahiriya and the NTC Government to be commonly known as the Libyan Republic. --Gimelthedog (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No - Wikipedia can't use new conventions of its own; Jamahiriya is (essentially) the Arabic for 'Republic', and so the Libyan Jamahiriya would be the Libyan Republic - you need Gaddafi's other pretentious adjectives to distinguish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.103 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that Wikipedia shouldn't invent its own conventions, but Jamahiriya is a neologism that translates to "state of the masses". The Arabic word for Republic is Jumhuriya. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Libyan Republic' is inconsistent and confusing. Official name of the country hasn't changed - UN member is still Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. When various governments around the world recognise NTC as "the only legitimate government of Libya" the term 'Libyan Republic' is not used. Not sure if there are any documents which say that what it is in fact recognised is existence of 'Libyan Republic', but it is certainly not as such in the media. That there are two governments claiming to represent the people of Libya is a fact, yet introducing 'Libyan Republic' is not helpful. NTC claims it is a transitional body and that the goal is for the free elections to be held in order for a legitimate, democratic Libyan government to be formed. So I don't think they have taken on themselves to give the name of their future country. I understand that when they refer to Libya they use term 'Libyan Republic' rather than 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' but even their web most of the time uses simply 'Libya'. So I suggest 'Libyan Republic' is changed to 'National Transitional Council' where denoting the NTC as a Libyan government and that the term 'Libyan Republic' is not used so prominently and entries where it is used corrected if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit: "Scarps"

Under the Libyan Desert section there's a mention of "scarps": "Aside from the scarps, the general flatness is only interrupted by a series of plateaus and massifs near the centre of the Libyan Desert, around the convergence of the Egyptian-Sudanese-Libyan borders." I think it'd be helpful to link that term to the relevant wiki article. At least where I'm from it's not a commonly used term. I presume it's short for escarpment and could be linked to here. If it is in fact short for escarpment then it'd probably helpful to use the term escarpment for clarification. Noxxeexxon (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit: map

Just a heads up that the map should probably be updated now that south sudan is independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.222.57 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Republic

Is there a clear consensus as to the existence of 'Libyan Republic' as a state? I have a problem understanding how a group of people 90% of time refereed to as 'rebels' can be both legitimate leaders of Libya and insurgents? What, they rebelled against themselves? There is only one Libya (still) although it is not disputed that at the moment, as a result of a civil war, Libyan government lost control of a large part of the country and that an alternative government has emerged. A parallel with China is totally inadequate as there are two Chinas. However there are no two Libyas (except in a subjective, emotional sense). I closely follow the conflict in Libya and regularly read many different sources about the current events there and yet I had no idea 'Libyan Republic' existed before I saw it here. Rebels are given a country by Wikipedia, it would seem, without any of this being fulfilled: 1) de facto control of all or large enough part of the territory 2) support, democraticly or other legitimately expressed, by the majority of populace 3) being recognised by international community at large (and admitted to int. institutions etc.) I might be missing something here and I am grateful for explanation. Otherwise I feel certain amount of editing is needed wherever term 'Libyan Republic' is used. (post and edit by Albert humbert)

Even the NTC says they are not a government:

6. THE NATIONAL TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL AND THE EXECUTIVE BOARD Q. Is the NTC actually a government?

A. No. In accordance with the wishes of the Libyan people, the NTC is the transitional governing body in free Libya. The NTC has avoided internal chaos by creating structures that organize the various political/economic/social sectors. It is also the face and voice of the Libyan people outside Libya, by leading the diplomatic efforts necessary to put an end to the war, and to prepare the ground for a new role and image for Libya within the international community. Once Libya is freed, and the transitional period ends, the only legitimate government will be the one democratically elected by the Libyan people.[1] --albert_humbert 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think rather than saying "The National Transitional Council refers to the country as the Libyan Republic", we should be talking about "The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic" as the entity. The term "Libyan Republic" on its own is very scarcely used outside of Wikipedia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need some discussion on this subject. The infobox information, where 'Libyan Republic' is presented as an entity on its own, does not reflect the evidence. I'm minded to remove that box and suggest that all the information about the rebels and the NTC is provided in the sections about the NTC, the Libyan civil war or any other section as appropriate. The fact that some have refereed to Libya as 'Libyan Republic' rather than 'Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya' does not justify creation of a whole new state by Wikipedia. Accordingly, the old Libyan flag used by the NTC is simply that - an old Libyan flag used by the NTC. States/countries can't be created out of thin air.--albert_humbert 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs)

Well, according to some theories of statehood they essentially can. The other infobox is still useful since de facto the NTC does operate as a rival government with its own set of diplomatic relations. Maybe the name in there should be changed, but removing the entire thing would probably be a step too far given how extensive current rebel control is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to see examples and how they apply here. The UK government was very clear today that they are not recognising a country but a government. [2] Infobox in the current form confuses. Any information needed about the NTC and the civil war can easily be provided elsewhere on the page. Libya is in a state of war and nobody knows what will be the end result. However, I don't think we should impress our own conclusions upon readers. Lets see in which form would information provided be most accurate and useful.--albert_humbert 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find a way to delete the official website of the NTC where it proclaims itself the transitional governing body of a state it refers to as the Libyan Republic, I think deleting that infobox would be biased and would be deleting information because you just don't like it. The de facto government (and de jure "transitional governing body", which is basically what the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia is as well) in Benghazi uses the name "Libyan Republic"; over 30 states recognize that government and do not recognize Gaddafi's government as legitimate. That should be reflected on this page as co-equal with Gaddafi's "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" per WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against any information as long as it is correct information. The only place where a country named 'Libyan Republic' exist is Wikipedia and that is simply wrong. There may be two governing bodies in Libya at the moment, the government one and the rebel one. However, there is (still) only one Libyan country. The 'Libyan Republic' infobox is misleading and it should be removed, all the information contained in it can be placed on the NTC page (the flag etc.) while the Jamahiriya's infobox should clearly state that the government is disputed and an appropriate link should be provided. albert humbert (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose that change, as that is the deletion of referenced and verifiable information to bias the article toward the viewpoint of one partially unrecognized government. The NTC website calls the Libyan state the Libyan Republic quite clearly; in their view, and implicitly in the view of countries recognizing the council as the sole legitimate representative of Libya, the country is called the Libyan Republic and is rightfully led by an interim government with stated intent to facilitate a transition to democracy. The governments of France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Jordan, Qatar, and many other countries do not recognize Gaddafi's government or his position on the status and name of the Libyan state. As far as the NTC is concerned, per WP:RS, the jamahiriya is illegitimate and not part of their vision of the Libyan state. Imposing a Gaddafist neologism on the name of the Libyan state as claimed by the NTC would be both inaccurate and deeply biased. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your claim that somebody on Wikipedia just "made up" the name "Libyan Republic": February 17 official and Washington Post byline disagree with you, as does the NTC website. I have no idea what the source of your antipathy toward that term is other than that using the name of the government rather than the name it uses for the Libyan state is WP:COMMON, but the term is out there, it's in official usage, and the jamahiriya only exists under the laws of Tripoli and in the eyes of governments that still recognize Muammar Gaddafi's government as legitimate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the idea of statehood with the idea of governance. Read the official documents and official webpages: 99% of the time reference is to the NTC, not to the 'Libyan Republic'. It has been included in several Libya pages that 'The National Transitional Council refers to the state as the Libyan Republic'. I have no objection to that although I think word 'occasionally' should be added as most of the time they refer to Libya as simply 'Libya'. After all they can call Libya any name they want, but it is still (for now) one and only Libya. You are obviously very, very, very biased and I sympathise with your point of view but that has nothing to do with how to contribute to an encyclopedia. Also, you have rolled back my contribution on another page which is against Wikipedia behavioral guideline so I think that you are also very unreasonable. albert humbert (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the policy again. As for this page (you know, the one whose Talk page we are on right now?), the fact that the NTC has referred to the state as the "Libyan Republic" and never as a jamahiriya or any other form of government you seem to want to erroneously attribute the country's government as indisputably being, in any official organ or communique makes it verifiable information worthy of inclusion. Obviously the short-form common name is going to be used more often; that's why they call it a common name. What, exactly, do you think the NTC's position on the long-form official name of the Libyan state is? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have. Your behaviour is disruptive. albert humbert (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry that you feel that way. But it only seems to be "disrupting" your efforts to make controversial edits without consensus to remove information you don't feel is "worthy" of inclusion despite coming from credible, verifiable, and in many cases even governmental sources. Consensus is a pillar of editing policy on Wikipedia, and you simply don't have it to remove all mentions of "Libyan Republic" or anything that makes the NTC sound like a government, which it has been recognized as being by over two dozen UN member states including three members of the UN Security Council. I'm opposed to that. Orange Tuesday is opposed to it. Kintetsubuffalo, on the page to which you are referring, is opposed to it. You don't own these articles and you don't have the right to make unilateral changes that other editors are opposed to for legitimate reasons. I'm sure you're making these edits in good faith, but you can't just get upset and start accusing other editors of being "disruptive" when they say, "Hey, wait a minute, you can't just delete referenced material when other active editors are opposed to it." As for the page move, while I believe you should have sought consensus on the relevant Talk page before executing the move, and I think your handling of my complaint was inexplicably high-handed, I see your perspective as to wanting to bring the name of the article in line with much of the other material on Wikipedia referring to the entity in question. As for wanting to scrub all mention of the Libyan Republic from this article and others, I really do disagree in good faith for reasons I've stated above, and I don't find your arguments persuasive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other editors can talk for themselves, I'm sure.

I provided extensive explanation and evidence for my edits and invited discussion. You, on the other hand, used rollback! And yet you accuse me of not searching for compromise? One erased reference is not justification for rolling back 5 edits and than, in the process, erasing my references that include the NTC official website. Twice! What do you have against that website? You are not happy it does not support your claims I guess, as there is no mention of 'Libyan Republic' government or prime minister.

I am not removing "all mentions of 'Libyan Republic'" - just correcting where appropriate. albert humbert (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please use the relevant Talk pages to discuss topics related to specific articles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to be patronising - I have used the relevant Talk pages. But for some reason you think that editors need your advance permission before making any edits and that a subject is 'controversial' only because you don't like someone else's views. I see your behaviour as simple and plain bullying, sorry.

We should be arguing about facts, sources and evidence but you seem to rather prefer endless quoting of Wikipedia policies which you than brake yourself. That is called double standards.

I maintain that information you provide on the subject is misleading and incorrect and your refusal to use the official NTC website [3] as a primary source on the NTC related information begs belief. albert humbert (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of bullying or anything of the sort. I don't own this content; I'm an infrequent editor on this particular page for more than minor updates; I'm just trying to improve Wikipedia and keep the content both verifiable and comprehensive. To your complaint about my definition of "controversial", Wikipedia policy is that proposed changes (or recent edits) that another editor has a legitimate and expressed disagreement with are controversial and require discussion and consensus in order to be adopted. As to your point about primary sources, it's interesting you bring that up, because I recently participated in a discussion at Talk:South Sudan#RfC: how Wikipedia cites the official name of the country that dealt with the usage of "primary" as opposed to "secondary" sources. The outcome happens to, upon review, support your contention that use of the common preference to use National Transitional Council (referring to the governing body) instead of Libyan Republic (its seldom-seen official long-form name for the Libyan state, most frequently referred to by all parties and sources by the short-form name of Libya) should be reflected in the names of articles on Wikipedia; however, it doesn't support your contention that any moniker or title used by a secondary source and not a primary source should be ignored, for reasons of verifiability. Primary sources are useful and relevant per Wikipedia policy, but they are not the alpha and omega of what is verifiable.

Apologies for the blurring of lines between the subject of Libya and another discussion on Talk:Mahmoud Jibril. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you carefully look at the timeline of Talk page entries I made and rollbacks/edits you made. I was the one who raised the 'Libyan Republic' and 'Mahmoud Jibril (not) a prime minister' questions first by starting discussions on the Talk pages. Per Wikipedia policy you quoted it is you who should have not made the changes before reaching consensus. Instead of discussing first, you simply rolled back! There is no way I could have known your position before I made the edits - however, you did know mine as it was clearly written on the Talk pages. So what you required of me is something you should have done first.

I totally accept the validity of secondary sources and believe that all the evidence available should be examined before a conclusion is reached. albert humbert (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if you feel I used the rollback function improperly. I would offer as my justification that WP:CONSENSUS does state that if an editor makes a reversion and explains his/her reason for doing so on the Talk page, that is a proper way to signal lack of consensus for the reverted edit(s). But rather than relitigating past editing operations, I agree we should bury the hatchet, look over the available sources and determine the correct course of action.

For my part, as pertaining to this specific article, I believe that if any page should mention the long-form name for Libya used by the NTC, it should be this one - as country articles are specifically set up to provide information on long-form names even if they're not common names. I also believe that as there are two competing governing bodies - both of which claim to control Libya, are different forms of government, have different names for the Libyan state, and boast their own bevies of international recognition - the format of using an infobox for the country and an infobox for each governing authority-claimant below, as per the Kosovo precedent, should be retained.

The issue of the amount of weight to assign to the name of the state ("Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" or "Libyan Republic", both of which are rarely used by non-primary sources and not even preferred in common usage by most primary sources, even though they have official status) versus the common name of the governments ("Gaddafi government"/"Gaddafi regime"/"General People's Committee" - though that last is less commonly seen, even if it's more directly analogous and specific - or "National Transitional Council") in subsections and headings within this article and others, however, should be more thoroughly discussed and addressed.

Hopefully this provides the basis for a more productive discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am totally not convinced by your argument. Where and by whom is this long-form name for Libya used? Sorry, but you seem to have preference for the solutions that (can) confuse. I don't see why is referring to the NTC as simply 'the NTC' inaccurate and why do you feel there is a need for the 'Libian Republic' to take the NTC's place? Maybe at one point at the beginning of the uprising there was an idea to call the movement the 'Libian Republic' but clearly the term now used is the NTC. Or more likely, the 'Libian Republic' is something the NTC strives to achive in the future once Gaddafi is defeated. But it doesn't exist at this point in time. Do google "Libian Republic" and carefully examine results please. albert humbert (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems pointless to keep citing the same sources (including web titles and in-text mentions on the NTC website) again and again if you're not going to address them. Please review the citations I've provided. Even you stated: I am not removing "all mentions of 'Libyan Republic'" - just correcting where appropriate. Instead of continuing to debate the easily verifiable fact that "Libyan Republic" is the long-form name for the Libyan state used by the NTC - and as far as I can tell was never a name for the movement itself - let's work out where its usage is appropriate, and where we should use the common reference to the name of the government and not the name of the state to refer to issues concerning it. I think it's reasonable to include both long-form country names (Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic) in the intro and use the long-form name as appropriate in the allotted space within the infoboxes for the two authorities claiming control of Libya. The name Benghazi uses for Libya is clearly not "the National Transitional Council". That's the name of the government. The long-form name by which it calls the Libyan state, when not using the common short-form name, is the Libyan Republic. Why do you consider this to be somehow in dispute? -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well sorry but one obsolete webpage where the term is only used as the HTML page title but nowhere else on that page (while updated web doesn't use such HTML page title but uses simply 'Libya') and one single random mention somewhere on the web next to many, many, many terms 'Libya' (NOT 'Libyan Republic') simply doesn't cut it.

I see it like this: one should go to that web (to the new pages, not obsolete one accessible only via outdated link, mind you!), read all the pages and count the numbers and places where each of the terms is used. You will see that 'Libyan Republic' is anomaly rather than official long-form name used by the NTC.

Than one should search the web and search for other sources mentioning 'Libyan Republic'. If that is really the official name of the county they sure keep it as a secret.

You seem to see things that don't exist... albert humbert (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The short-form name of the country is "Libya", the terms GSPLAJ and Libyan Republic have been used by the competing entities as long-form names for the country. I have edited the lead paragraph to reflect this. GSPLAJ and LR are not seperate countries but alternative names used by each entity for the country commonly known as "Libya". Recently, the NCT has dropped references to the term Libyan Republic on its redesigned website and now simply uses ther term "Libya" as the name of the sates. The NTC infobox could be updated to reflect this. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Republic is still used in at least one page on the English-language website. And it's WP:OR to conclude that they've "dropped" the name when I can't find any verifiable statement to that effect. And there is definitely more than "one single random mention somewhere on the web" of "Libyan Republic". I'm not arguing it's the common name or I'd be arguing for a page move; I'm saying there is clearly enough evidence that we can have apples-to-apples mentions of the competing long-form names, including in the infoboxes. And we should. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, a Google search for "Libyan Republic" omitting Wikipedia returns 31,200 results. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A Google news search, on the other hand, returns all of two results, one of which is part of the phrase "NTC of the Libyan Republic". In English Language media it's exceedingly rare to see the term used on its own. I think there's justification for including the term on the page with citations (the current lead section as of this post seems fine), but we'd do well to de-emphasize the term in the rest of the article and focus on the NTC itself. "National Transitional Council", as the most common official term, should be the name in the rebel infobox. Or if not that exactly then some variation on that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OT on this. Seems reasonable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest keeping Libyan Republic in the infobox, the template of which has a feature for long-form name for a reason - there aren't exactly tons of Google News hits for Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya either - and deemphasizing it throughout the rest of the article and Libyan content except where needed for apples-to-apples contrast with the jamahiriya as opposed to the Gaddafi government. In general, we should focus more on contrasting governments rather than contrasting names for the same country, as it's clear both long-form names refer to the same state of Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to consult Google News for "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". That term can be found in a huge number of secondary and tertiary sources. The TNC government on the other hand has no encyclopedia entries, no country profiles, and no CIA World Factbook page, so we have to be a bit more careful about what names we use for it. "Libyan Republic" is a very infrequently used term while "Transitional National Council" is a very common one, and since both are used in official contexts to refer to the rebel government I feel like we should go with the one which has the widest usage.

I also worry that the current infobox is flirting with WP:SYNTH a bit. We've gone to the NTC's website and seen them use the term "Libyan Republic", and based on this we've concluded that they regard "Libyan Republic" as the official name of the state. Is this necessarily a correct interpretation? Maybe, I'm not sure. But we don't really have any secondary sources to back it up. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but I'm worried about creating an apples-to-oranges scenario. The GSPLAJ is Gaddafi's name for Libya; it's a state, not a government, though jamahiriya is a form of government and can be used to refer to the government, similar to the way the shorthand "council" can be used to refer to the NTC, which is a government, not a state; as far as we can tell from the information available, they prefer to just use "Libya", never use "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" in a non-historical context, and have occasionally used "Libyan Republic".

If we decide the infoboxes' long-form name should be the government and not the state, then "Libyan Republic" should change to "National Transitional Council" and "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" should change to "General People's Committee", which is the analog of the NTC; the intro already mentions the long-form names used by each side, so the information is clearly presented. But I don't like the idea of one infobox being titled with one government's name for the Libyan state and the other infobox being titled with the name of the other government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudzu1, you offer no credible evidence. None whatsoever. Loads of rhetoric but no sufficient evidence. Exactly the same as your insisting Mahmoud Jibril is the NTC's Prime Minister when he is clearly not [[4]] - he is the Chairman of the Executive Board! It is not up to me to prove 'Libyan Republic' is not officialy used as a long-form name for Libya by the rebels - it is up to you to prove it is used. Can you do that?

But even if that term was used, would this be sufficient to claim there is a whole new parallel Libya? I think not. There are no 2 Libyas (except emotionally) - there is a single country with one 'main' and one 'rebel' government. The rebel government has its name and that name is widely used, or shall I say it is the ONLY name used when denoting the rebel's political body. And all the recognitions you carefully keep track of are recognitions of the NTC, none of the 'Libyan Republic'.

Here is the latest comment by the NTC chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil on the future of Lybia. He says:

the council has already presented the international community a map in which Libya will be a "democratic Islamic country" based on the principles of presidential election, rotating presidency and respect of human rights. [5]

Do you see 'Libyan Republic' mentioned anywhere in that article, as I don't? And it is the same in 99% of the NTC / Libyan civil war related sources.

The only thing that has some support is that maybe, at one point in the beginning, the Rebels intended to use the long-form name 'Libyan Republic' but it was not put into practice. The way I see it now, there is absolutely no grounds to even mention the term as overloading articles with irrelevant pieces of info is contra-productive the the purpose.

If you feel the article on the NTC should mention that the Rebels have on occasion, yet rarely, used the term 'Libyan Republic', fine, but peppering all the Libya related article with it is not justified.

I'm changing the infobox information to NTC and I suggest it is discussed if that infobox should even be there - since the NTC has its own page. Please don't just revert without first offering credible evidence to support your position as you are in minority here. I fear consensus with you is impossible but I am willing to discuss further. In the meantime we have a duty to offer Wikipedia readers quality content. Do not edit war again please.

I further suggest there is only one box but in the 'government' section a note is placed to indicate that the government is disputed and adequate link offered. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, not to hammer biased, political view as you have done on the subject of Libya. Your impartiality is painfully conspicuous, I'm sorry to say. albert humbert (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You have no consensus to make that edit - it's still under discussion here - and I will revert it if you do. I've offered compromises, I've tried to see your side, but you are hellbent on purging Wikipedia of any mention of the term "Libyan Republic" despite its usage on the NTC webpage and other secondary sources. What is my bias? All I want to do is not give undue weight to one side or the other. You are arguing for the exclusion of information you don't care for, and I see that as problematic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Find me one other country article on Wikipedia in which the long-form name in the infobox is the name of the government and not the country, and I will accept your proposal. Until then, please don't edit despite obvious lack of consensus. It's really quite rude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As to your proposal for merging all infoboxes, I would only support that if Gaddafi government-related content from this page was split off into a new Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya article, with an otheruses tag at the top of the article saying this article is about the country, etc., for the political entities claiming to control Libya, see etc., the way the Kosovo article has been arranged (after a considerable period of time in which it was formatted very much the way this page is). I see this reorganization as acceptable if not preferable (the Kosovar situation is better established than the Libyan civil war) and it would remove the wrangling over having a Libyan Republic infobox because the otheruses tag would just redirect to National Transitional Council as a political entity. As it is, titling a country infobox "National Transitional Council of Libya" makes the false suggestion that the NTC is a country, which is obviously not true. Libya, and whatever name either of its government-claimants call it, is a state. The NTC is not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is edit warring!! I asked for the evidence and discussion yet you offer a webpage which is titled 'Libya National Flag' with sections: ABOUT LIBYA, Libya Facts, Libya National Flag, Libyan National Anthem as the evidence that the NTC uses 'Libyan Republic' for 'Libya'. You can't be serious?

Your position here and on another Libya related page I have mentioned [6] shows that your only goal is obstruction and disruption for which I have no time. I have asked you politely not to revert but to FIRST offer your evidence for discussion yet you went ahead and simply used 'undo' button AGAIN? Clearly you think consensus is when others submit to you which is simply wrong. You seem to think that you own Libya pages and that editors need your permission to edit. This is simply ridiculous. Wasting everyone's time and energy like this...

The rebels use the term Libya all the time or, if you will, 99.99% of the time while the international community, when referring to the NTC and rebels in general, uses the term Libya 99.999999% of the time. Any information to the contrary is simply wrong and inaccurate.

I have extensively elaborated my views, I kindly ask you do the same and refrain from reverting. Thanks. albert humbert (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken. You have no consensus to make the edit, therefore you are edit warring by continuing to impose your edit even though it is not agreed to by the editors. Please read the text of the page I provided; it is clearly stated that the NTC officially adopted the flag "as the emblem of the Libyan Republic". I'll respond once you address that text. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've explained my position re the infoboxes and will edit accordingly. The second infobox is not needed.

albert humbert  (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand you've explained them. But you have no consensus for that edit, and I'd advise you not to make it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Having the only infobox that mentions a government on this page be titled Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a clear case of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE even with footnoting. That may not be your intent, but unless you can prove that the NTC uses that name for Libya, it's misleading, inaccurate, and skews the page toward the older regime. The previous consensus reached was to make the Libya infobox about the physical country only and place two smaller country infoboxes below for the claims of each government, but obviously consensus can change; prior to that, the infobox listed two heads of government (Mahmudi and Jibril) and two heads of state (Gaddafi and Abdul Jalil), listing the type of government as disputed and using "Libya" as the long-form name in the template (as the NTC and Gaddafi government call the state by two different names but agree on the common name Libya). That could be a compromise solution, if all parties agree to that. The place where I strongly disagree is having an infobox about the Gaddafi government and its perception of the state and either leaving off the NTC or relegating it to footnotes or mentions elsewhere on the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are so obviously taking sides in this civil war that it hurts! It is your right to do so, of course, but it shouldn't influence your editing. My ONLY intent is to present the information as it is supported by the balance of evidence - you are looking to shape Libya articles to suit your own political views. I don't care if the Martians come to rule Libya as of tomorrow but you plainly support the rebel cause and you are bent on misusing Wikipedia for that goal.

I gave up on editing Mahmoud Jibril page because of your obstinance (sorry that I have to use this word) and I am minded to do the same here.

I am not disputing that the NTC has used the term 'Libyan Republic' on few occasions, but Gaddafi's Libya is also a Republic, is it not [7]? So what, the rebels throw out the word 'Arab' from the Gaddafi's name and presto, the new country is born? If it only was that easy there would be no war, no innocent civilians killed, no billions spent.

Libya is one country with one standing government and one rebel/opposition interim governing body (the NTC). Those are the facts. But you want to impose your own POV. If the rebels prevail and come to rule the country, I have no doubt that they will change the name and much more. Until than let's not prejudice the outcome.

As for the infobox, the National Transitional Council page already has it so why repeat the same info again and again? An explanation on a single infobox and a link to it is sufficient. Overloading Wikipedia with references to the rebels beyond need to inform is not in the best interest of the readers. So I will proceed to annul your reversal which you made without discussing here first and are looking forward to see other editors' opinions also. If you wish to edit that single government infobox further so that it reflects the facts, I support that wholeheartedly. But please refrain from simply going around and using the undo button. Tx albert humbert (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of you don't have consensus to make that change don't you understand? I know you think you're right. I also think I'm right. The NTC has its own name for the Libyan state - I'm sorry that it's apparently not different enough from Gaddafi's name for you based on your incorrect interpretation of what a jamahiriya is - and it's been recognized as the governing authority of Libya by over 30 countries including three permanent UN Security Council members. And you need to stop editing and start discussing instead of repeating the same thing over and over again and saying, "I'm going to edit it, and you're wrong to revert it." -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again the way I see things. The article at present (currently under page protection) contains a large infobox for the country that expresses facts which are not in dispute. Both entities agree Tripoli is the capital; Arabic is the official language of both; Berber dialects are also spoken; the country is this size in area and population; the country is called Libya; etc. For the issues that are in dispute, two smaller infoboxes denote the claims of each faction. If one is to accept the legitimacy of Gaddafi's government, as the United Nations and 162 UN member states officially do (though the UN Secretariat-General and a number of these UN member states have officially or de facto recognized the NTC as a negotiating partner in Libya), then the first infobox is correct and the country's long-form name is the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, it is led by Muammar Gaddafi and Baghdadi Mahmudi, its flag is a green banner, etc. If one is to accept the legitimacy of the NTC, as 32 UN member states officially do (as does the Libya Contact Group, the European Union, and NATO), then the second infobox is correct and the country's long-form name is the Libyan Republic (its level of usage being addressed prominently and in some detail in the text, and I'd be happy to support a change if I see reliable sources stating the name has been officially abandoned; I concede it's less prominent on the newer NTC website than on the older one, but it's decidedly synthesis to conclude from that the name is not used at all in any capacity), it is led by Mustafa Abdul Jalil and Mahmoud Jibril, its flag is the 1951 tricolor, its de facto capital is Benghazi, etc.

Deleting either infobox places undue weight on the claim of the faction whose infobox stays. Footnotes are by nature less prominent than a separate infobox. And while I'm assuming good faith and I don't want to accuse you of bias (though you haven't given me the same courtesy, as I've noted, despite my entreaties), whether intentionally or inadvertently, your unilateral move to delete the Libyan Republic infobox and move that information into the footnotes of the GSPLAJ infobox places undue weight on the claim of the government in Tripoli and violates WP:NPOV.

I do believe you want to improve the content of this page, so I think complying with Wikipedia guidelines and maintaining neutrality in the tone and presentation of this article is something you do support. I'm not going to presume or accuse you of otherwise. I'd appreciate if you gave me the same regard. As you may have noted, in the thread directly below this one, I responded to an editor who wanted to make a pro-NTC edit to this page by stressing NPOV as well. I don't consider myself an ideologically minded editor regardless of my politics; I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation to the contrary; and I don't think it's conducive to resolving this difference of opinion. That's all I'll say on that subject.

As to the infobox dispute proper, I've offered a few suggestions for compromise.

1. That this article be rendered an extension of that first infobox on the page now. This is a solution found to a dispute on Talk:Kosovo, and editors there concluded it was better to use two separate pages for the political entities and direct to both from a page focusing simply on the undisputed facts of the region of Kosovo. That isn't an entirely parallel situation, as one political entity (the Republic of Kosovo) claims Kosovo is an independent and sovereign nation (and receiving, as the NTC does, partial international recognition), while the other entity (the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija) is a subdivision of Serbia and claims Kosovo is part of Serbia's sovereign territory (also receiving partial international recognition for its claim). However, as you have repeatedly noted, we do already have a page for National Transitional Council and content for the NTC and Libyan Republic on this page is largely replicated there already. We would need to create a page for Gaddafi's Libya, perhaps building off History of Libya under Gaddafi or a similar page, and make substantial changes to this page in order to (again) maintain NPOV and avoid WP:UNDUE. Having the search term "Libya" redirect to the GSPLAJ, or having the article for the GSPLAJ be at this page location but the NTC's article at another page, would be a prime example of such a violation.

2. Restore the old single-infobox layout, relegating both long-form names to the main text of the article and following the model of Côte d'Ivoire during the recent civil war. Again, the situations aren't quite parallel, as while Ouattara and Gbagbo established separate administrations, they both claimed to govern the same political entity with the same legal precepts, rather than establishing separate political entities with different legal perceptions of the country. But this model, which used one country infobox that listed undisputed facts and did not give undue weight to either side's claim (listing the section for leaders, for example, as disputed; in our case, we would need to also list the type of government as disputed, include a footnote for one of the disputing political entities being based in Benghazi but not disputing Tripoli is the official capital, and shed the long-form name in favor of the common name. As I've previously mentioned, this was the layout prior to page editors deciding a few months ago to move to the current infobox presentation.

If neither of these appeal to you, or you'd like to offer an amendment to one or the other, I'm entirely open to hearing your suggestions. But what I really do want to have is a constructive back-and-forth. I've presented sources upon request, so stop claiming I don't have sources. I'm trying to engage with you in discussion, so stop claiming I'm trying to edit without discussion or that I just want to annoy you. I've reiterated my support for including information and balancing POVs, so stop claiming I'm challenging your proposals out of political prejudice. I feel like we've been teetering too close to the brink of getting personal, and I'd really like to avoid all that and just try to flesh out a legitimate, open-discussion, thought-out, give-and-take (if necessary) compromise. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are biased in your editing and you practically state yourself that you are defending (and by association furthering) the rebel cause. You want me to prove that something does not exist? That is, in fact, an argument used by the religious fanatics, not by science and evidence based arguments.

So let's step back a little and examine the evidence piece by piece, shall we?

You offered this source [8] where Imman Bugaighis, the rebel's spokesperson, when talking about their goals and Libya's future, says:

“We would like Libya to become a civilised country, with freedom of expression and respect for human rights and minorities. We will call it the Libyan Republic and no longer talk about an Islamic Republic,” Bugaighis said (2 Apr 2011)

"We WILL call it". Future_tense#English. We will call it in the future, once Gaddafi is removed - surely that is what she says?

However, this position about the FUTURE of Libya as seen by the rebels seems to have been abandoned. Since you have conveniently ignored my reference given above which supports this, it I offer it here once again.

So here is the latest comment by the NTC chief Mustafa Abdel Jalil on the future of Lybia. He says:

the council has already presented the international community a map in which Libya will be a "democratic Islamic country" based on the principles of presidential election, rotating presidency and respect of human rights. [9] (29 July 2011)

I note that you adamantly demand every piece of information you offer be stringently debated yet you blatantly disregard evidence and information presented by others if it doesn't suit you.

Final note in this reply: you continuously maintain that more then 30 countries recognise the rebels as the sole legitimate governing body of Libya and you place a great weight on that 'fact' when supporting you arguments. Yet you ignore the fact that most of those countries are involved in the Libya civil war on the side of rebels and have stated publicly that they are fighting (militarily and politically) to overthrow the Gaddafi's government.

People can draw their own conclusions from that but the NPOV would be to examine the position of the countries that are not actively fighting (militarily and politically) to overthrow the Gaddafi's government as they might be a little bit biased, don't you think? I don't mean to be patronising, but there is a world beyond the NATO and the EU, quite a large world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hence not placing undue emphasis on the claims of one side or the other. Regardless of your suspicions about those countries' intentions, that is their official stance; the NTC is acting as a governing authority with official institutions; and it's Wikipedia policy that must be reflected in this article for the sake of neutrality.

And if you're unhappy with one of the citations but not the other citation, that's fine, but to say I haven't provided support for my argument just isn't correct and I wish you'd drop that line of attack. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There is 'some evidence' and there is 'overwhelming evidence'. So I'm sorry, but you have not provided sufficient support for your argument - that is my position. Plans for the future are plans for the future. 'Libyan Republic' exist as much as 'Libyan Islamic Republic' - as an idea for the future once (and if) the rebels prevail. Incidentally I am certain they will as there is no way Gaddafi can beat NATO, but let's wait for that to happen first before we say it here.

As for the fact that certain countries like the NTC more that they like Gaddafi - I am all for reporting it. Warring parties always denounce and strive to discredit their enemy, that is not new or controversial. All I'm saying, if you want to weigh legitimacy the NTC has as the result of those recognitions, remove from the equation countries that are actively involved in fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi.

But regardless of how those recognitions are valued, they were all recognitions of the NTC not of the 'Libyan Republic'. You simply can't have it both ways: you claim that the legitimacy of the Libyan Republic is derived form those recognitions, yet 'Libyan Republic' is NOT even mentioned in those recognitions as they are all the recognition of the rebels' transitional governing body, the NTC.

'Libyan Republic' is nothing more than a footnote and Wikipedia articles should reflect this. albert humbert (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Republic ?

I propose a name change to "Jasmine Republic" As that is the rebel name as is known --Rancalred (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the name used by the NTC for the Libyan state is the Libyan Republic, and per WP:NPOV, this article should have a neutral name (neither "Libyan Republic" nor "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya") and a common name, and that is Libya - the name by which most English-speakers know the country regardless of its government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I Fell that we should reginogize the anti-gaadfii movement as the jasmine republic because it would be more approite than "Libyan Republic" English does not name suppuoted by western-biased staments made by the coalitaon

--Rancalred (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Infobox

Should there be a single infobox or two separate infoboxes (as it is now)? I think a whole, separate infobox for the NTC is not needed. The National Transitional Council have their own page with a comprehensive infobox so what is the purpose of repeating it here?

I don't agree with a view that the readers need to be patronised by indiscriminately dotting the Libya page with repeated information. And I don't think it is up to Wikipedia to try to interpret the day to day balance of power in the Libya Civil War - doing so surely violates WP:NOR policy. We should just present the facts as they are.

And the fact is that there is a state of Libya in a form that existed for 40 years. That country has all the statehood attributes and it is as such recognised around the world and is a member of the international community.

However, as a result of Libya Civil War, the leadership of that country is contested and an alternative, opposition governing body has emerged. This body, the National Transitional Council, should dully be acknowledged and it should be ensured that the readers of the Libya page are clearly informed about them.

So the article should contain numerous references about the NTC, as it does, while the standard infobox should also note that the current government is contested and the adequate link etc. needs to be provided. Readers who would like to know more about the opposition governing body will surely follow the link(s) to the NTC page.

The country infobox as a standard contains information about the particular country's government, not about the government AND the opposition, in whichever form that opposition might be, does it not? Wikipedia relies very much on such uniformities on various issues of formatting and presenting information. So when and why can this practice be abandoned? Is there a clear consensus on this?

As far as the Kosovo analogy is concerned, I would like to point out that at the heart of the Kosovo issue is the question of sovereignty while the Libya is all about the governance. Kosovar Albanians didn't fight to overthrow Serbian government and they never sought to rule Serbia. It was a separatist war - which Libya war definitely is not.

If I may be bold, politically speaking, the Libya civil war would be better compared to a process of change of government by means other than a process of democratic elections (which in Libya does not exist). The NTC is simply an opposition coalition which, unable to seize power by peaceful means, resorted to doing so by other means. Very many of the NTC's leaders were at one point part of the Gaddafi's regime but have now joined the opposition. In the same way as in a democracy politicians might switch their party allegiance, form factions, brake up political parties and such. And if (and when) the rebels become the rulers of Libya, that fact should be clearly reflected in the country of Libya's infobox. albert humbert (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your premise has merit; you are, correct me if I'm wrong, favoring my second proposal above (restoring the former single-infobox format and leaving government-specific data like official long-form names, flags, and symbols for the body of the article). But I have to dispute your argument about "if (and when) the rebels become the rulers of Libya", because they already claim to be the only legitimate representative of Libya and they are recognized as its sole legitimate government by over 30 countries. This article does have to recognize that even if it means some facts will be shared between this page and the NTC page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In order to see how a similar article fared during a recent civil war, I just finished reviewing how the Ivory Coast article handled that country's recent civil war in its info-box. There, any fact that was disputed such as who the president was, was simply listed as disputed, without any attempt to play favorites. In the Ivory Coast article, it was only after the former president Gbagbo was finally arrested that this disputed tag was replaced with the new president's name, and Ouattara was finally listed as the President. I would suggest that it is not Wikipedia's role to favor any particular side in an undecided and stalemated civil war. Should Qadafi's side, or the NTC side be favored in any way, that would amount to a sort of favoritism. I say, just as the Ivory Coast article did, leave it clear which items are disputed, and which aren't, and don't favor either side in any way until the results of the actual conflict are final. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the recent edit war that recently took place regarding the article's info-box, and Zscout370's resultant intervention. Glad that the info-box was left as it was, and that Zscout370 ended the edit-war as he did. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The infoboxes as they are now do not offer the information that anything is disputed!

In the current form it looks as if there are two parallel sates (the other being 'Libyan Republic', a state invented by Wikipedia editor(s)), when there is only one state. However the government is contested and that should be reflected. We have to view this trough the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about the Libyan conflict.

As for giving more weight to one or the other side in a civil war, I fully agree that Wikipedia should not favour either side. However, sometimes giving undue credit to one side - although it might look as even-handedness - might actually be favouring that side.

And are we saying that governments lose (some/all) legitimacy as soon as the first rebel gun is fired? Because I just wonder, in any civil war or conflict, at which point do we say the government is disputed? I just looked at Afganistan page and, by looking at infobox, one would think the country is in a state of blissful peace!

So there is obviously no Wikipedia uniformity in this regard and either some sort of rule should be established that applies to ALL civil wars (in which case we also have to establish a rule which defines at which point an armed protest becomes a war), or we have to examine each case on its own merits. albert humbert (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ivory Coast example is useful, but the circumstances here are much different. Not saying the same approach can't be used here - just saying the circumstances are different. In Ivory Coast the presidency was contested after the elections when both candidates claimed victory.

In Libya there were no elections and the Gaddafi's government is not disputed in the same way as the presidential office in Ivory Coast coast was. Saying that any government loses legitimacy as soon as the opposing party (which happens to use violence and arms to achieve their political goals) says so would not be in the best interest of Wikipedia. albert humbert (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo fix request

Since this page is edit protected from general Wiki editors, I found a typo and I was wondering if someone could please fix it?
Please replace, Ottoman admiral [[Sinan Pasha (Ottoman admiral)|Sinan Pasha)]] finally took control of Libya in 1551,
with, Ottoman admiral [[Sinan Pasha (Ottoman admiral)|Sinan Pasha]] finally took control of Libya in 1551.

So that: Ottoman admiral Sinan Pasha) finally took control of Libya in 1551,
will be fixed to look like this, Ottoman admiral Sinan Pasha finally took control of Libya in 1551.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)