Talk:Libya

Recognizing TNC as Official Govt

Is wiki now following the agenda of certain nations in the world? Gadaffi is still the dejeur and the defacto head of the government of Libya, even if for a few hours more. Removing his name, and replacing the official flag is extremely partisan in nature. Even if most of us dislike him and support the rebels, they are called rebels because this is a rebellion. Let's be neutral please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.51.177.141 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi Ousted

It appears that, as of today at least (August 23, 2011), the Libyan Republic has ousted Gaddafi from Tripoli. Several news stories confirm this (source 1, source 2, source 3). I think we are giving too much credit to Gaddafi, at this point at least. To declare that his government has decent control over any area of the country is an hyperbole at best. We should begin removing his "government" from the page and begin recognizing the NTC.--Drdak (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

International recognition is split at this time, as is control of Libya proper. We should wait to do so until it is clear that Gaddafi is no longer in control, meaning he's either dead, in custody, or in exile. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is probably premature to call the NTC the government but to continue to call Gaddafi's faction a government is begining to look a little strange. A lot of UN states for who relations with Libya is not especially critical will like as not take some time to get round to revising their recognition.Dejvid (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2011

"Where's Muammar?"

Given that he's got miles of tunnels, it could take several days to find him. Wikipedia stands the risk of losing its credibility and its stature if it continues to recognize two governments claiming the mantle of "Libyan government". "he's either dead, in custody, or in exile" could take quite some time. Granted, Tripoli is not secure; but aside from a score or so scattered snipers, the control of the city is in rebel hands. This is not a fluid situation as the time of the 1991 army coup in the USSR.Dogru144 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi continues to enjoy international recognition as the leader of Libya, and he remains at large and in control of parts of the country. This is still a country divided, at least for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody knows, what happened with the formal head of state, al-Zwai? --84.155.210.188 (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Republic

I think this Libyan Republic idea is a joke, not least because Western countries are trying to manipulate and bomb a sovereign nation. The rebels are no government. Period. Just because some European countries name the rebels a government means NOTHING. I have contempt for the people trying to do this, because there should be no dispute. PeterHarlington (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Libya ليبيا Lībiyā   Template:Ar icon
Capital and largest city	Tripoli1
Official languages	Arabic2
Spoken languages	Arabic, Berber3
Demonym(s)	Libyan
Government	Disputed
• Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	Muammar Gaddafi Baghdadi Mahmudi
• National Transitional Council	Mustafa Abdul Jalil Mahmoud Jibril
Independence
• Relinquished by Italy	10 February 1947
• From United Kingdom & France under United Nations Trusteeship	24 December 1951
Area
• Total	1,759,541 km2 (679,363 sq mi) (17th)
• Water (%)	Negligible surface water, reservoirs of water underground.
Population
• 2010 estimate	6,420,000 (105th)
• 2006 census	5,670,6881
• Density	3.6/km2 (9.3/sq mi) (218th)
GDP (PPP)	2010 estimate
• Total	$96.138 billion (68th)
• Per capita	$14,884 (56th)
GDP (nominal)	2010 estimate
• Total	$76.557 billion (64th)
• Per capita	$11,852 (48th)
HDI (2010)	0.755  (53rd)
Currency	Dinar (LYD)
Time zone	UTC+2 (EET)
Drives on	right
Calling code	218
ISO 3166 code	LY
Internet TLD	.ly
Though both governments disputing Libya agree Tripoli is its capital, the de facto administrative centre of the National Transitional Council is currently Benghazi. Libyan Arabic and other varieties are the spoken languages, while literary Arabic is the official written language. Nafusi and Tuareg are the Berber dialects with the greatest number of Libyan speakers.

Then let's go with this configuration (to the right), if you have no objections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your infobox suggestion. I am happy that 'Libyan Republic' is not featured any more, thank you for agreeing to that. However, I think the infobox in the form you suggested has too little information. The flag, official name etc. are now missing.

If you agree that we have closed the 'Libyan Republic' argument, can we continue to discuss the infobox issue below, under 'The Infobox'? I would like to get some input from other users on that if possible. albert humbert (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the Wikipedia user that first added the term "Libyan Republic" to Wikipedia. I have read the arguments presented by Kudzu, Orange and Albert H. I would like to offer a possible solution to the Libyan Republic debate - that is that we use the short form "Libya" (all can agree on this) followed by the qualifier "National Transitional Council" (to differentiate from the Libya of Gadaffi) as the country name on the NTC infobox i.e. "Libya (National Transitional Council)". This solution includes the short-form name of the state and clarifies which rival government it is refering to.

A similar solution can be found in country gazzettas produced during the 1960's when the government of China was in dispute - both countries were refered to as "China" with a qualifier added afterwards i.e. "China (Nationalist)" and "China (Communist)"

I have created a example of such an infobox on my user page and can transplant it here if there are no objections. Dn9ahx (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Support as long as the occasional usage of "Libyan Republic" is still noted in the text. I think this is a good compromise solution. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead paragraph and the name section. It is also mentiond on the NCT's article and I would intend to keep these references.

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)

Re Kudzu1 infobox proposal, I have some reservations. They are (in part) addressed in my comments directly above. albert humbert (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no undisputed official flag or coat of arms of Libya at this time. I firmly oppose any effort to violate WP:NPOV by putting either the green flag or the tricolor in such an infobox. Ditto coat of arms, and ditto official name. -Kudzu1 (talk)

01:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position and my intention is not to propose a solution whereby WP:NPOV would be violated. But there is no justification for removing the attributes of the sate of Libya which in this form has now exists for 40 years, it's a member of the UN etc. etc. etc. Saying that this state somehow does not exist is as wrong as saying 'Libyan Republic' exist.

I'm all for even-handed approach but that means we present fact fairly and without giving preference, not that we engage in administering what we feel is justice. The rebels have still not prevailed and they have a long way to go before Libya is changed according to their goals and wishes.

At this point I would rather support the current infoboxes but the second one, of course, having the 'NTC' instead of 'Libyan Republic' as the entity name. That would be, in my view, less wrong than your proposal although certain question would still have to be answered.

Please also look at Yemen whose situation is comparable to Libya much more than Ivory Coast. The Yemen infobox does not reflect the fact that there is a serious insurgency with a goal to overthrow government in other words that the government is contested. Why double standards? albert humbert (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What questions would have to be answered to make status quo acceptable to you? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the comparison to Yemen isn't quite apt, as the opposition in Yemen has not claimed to be the sole legitimate governing authority in the country, much less received significant international recognition as such. As such, the government isn't disputed between two entities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebels claim they are the sole legitimate governing authority in the country. So what? It's just a claim and should be reported as such, as a claim. We shouldn't try and interpret it, we should just report it. That is why I suggest that the standard country infobox for Libya should include a clearly visible note/footnote/reference (whatever is needed) to indicate the rebels' claim, with links to 2011 Libyan civil war page AND the National Transitional Council page. Those two pages should then have all the information about the rebels' claims, who supports them etc. etc. The readers can than make up their own mind about the value and legitimacy of the rebels claim, it is not Wikipedia editors who should interpret it for them.

In the Ivory Coast example the result of the presidential election was disputed and since this couldn't be resolved peacefully the country sided into the civil war. On what grounds are the Libyan rebels basing their dispute since there were no elections? That Gaddafi is a bad man? Well great number of the rebel leaders worked for Gaddafi. What, he used to be good than? Do rebels have majority support of Libyans? We don't know. We don't even know if they have majority support in the territory they control as there were no any kind of free elections there and also there is evidence that if you publicly oppose rebels in Benghazi you might be killed.

If we are to preserve standardised presentation of information on Wikipedia, we should not invent new rules when it suits our own political agenda. The rebels are Libya's opposition. Opposition is not part of the standard state infobox. In democratic countries we have numerous examples when the opposition claims that the government has "lost legitimacy" and should cede power. By your logic, we should immediately go and add another infobox when that happens?

I think one of the problems with editing Wikipedia is that people often can't relinquish their beliefs (political, moral, religious etc.) and than edit (consciously or subconsciously) according to those beliefs. So we either have standardised country infoboxes or we go and discard the infobox template and tweak that box from case to case. I think wherever we have a civil war situation, we should refrain from promoting the rebels claims (no matter how valid and morally right they can be) and should, instead work on presenting the details about that conflict on a dedicated (civil war) page as best as we can. albert humbert (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If there one thing that I have noticed when it comes to international disputes like who controls what piece of land, there is never a template to do exactly anything because the element of the users is totally unknown. In the past (maybe 2006 or 2007) I dealt with the issue of the Laincourt Rocks fending off emails to move the article to the Korean name "Dokdo." In 2008, I been figuring out with other admins and users on what to do with Kosovo and we had the same exact problems; what infobox is used, what flag is shown, etc. Now I am dealing with the Senkaku Islands and figure out to keep it there or pick a NPOV name. There is no guidelines, other than NPOV, that can help in the terms of what is displayed here. If you take a look at the disputed countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Osettia), there is no set rule. For Kosovo and Taiwan, they are both treated as "region articles" and the countries that control them (or areas that dispute such claims) are made elsewhere. For Abkazhia and South Osettia, they are treated like regular country articles even though the 90% of the world believes they are still Georgian territory. For the Taiwan issue, I think it was history that let us be the guide to figure out what to do with the article. With the other three; it was purely user driven. Now with Libya, you have about 30 someodd that support the Bengazi Government while others still have their diplomatic relations with Tripoli. So if there is any infobox made for Libya, a lot of things will have to be stripped out. I would suggest nothing on leaders, nothing on state capitals (but mention largest cities) and a minor sticking point is maybe use a map of Libya that is differently colored (I don't care but people have made edit wars in the past to remove any hint of green from the Libyan map due to the Gaddafi-POV view.). If there is something about leaders, then what I can suggest is to put Gaddafi first because he is technically the head of state of Libya before all of this happened, but made sure an icon is noted of the Tripoli Government; the leader of the Bengazhi Government (I don't know what the real name of this government is, but that is where they are located so that is the name I will personally use) can be listed as second. I am not sure what other suggestions can be made, but a lot of the edit wars I seen were talked about and debated before in April when much of the battles were first going down. There is a lot of information that is rapidly changing about Libya that we need to add and I really want to unlock this page as soon as we figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't accept that as it would place undue emphasis on the claims of the Gaddafi government. The NTC, representing Libya, operates foreign embassies; it is a member of at least one international organization (the Libya Contact Group); it has been recognized by 32 countries as Libya's rightful government; it controls about as much of the country as Gaddafi does. There is no undisputed long-form name for Libya, no undisputed flag, no undisputed government. You're wanting this page to be made up like this country is still unequivocally the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the civil war - the fact that about half the country is controlled by a rebel government recognized by a significant portion of the international community - is just a footnote. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV and I don't think you're going to get popular support for that position. That would turn this page from an encyclopedic article into a propaganda leaflet for Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a possible solution and the only thing that pops up is maybe do what Kosovo and Taiwan is like. I would suggest for all parties to just look there and see what could be done. I do agree that both sides have to be presented equally. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya is in the midst of an active civil war and the "Libyan Republic" is embryonic at best. I don't think splitting the article into three makes particular sense at this time and would prefer to keep the status quo. I also feel like Albert Humbert and Kudzu1 have said their peace on this, and it would be helpful if they both took a bit of a break from this discussion so that other people could chime in. It's getting to be a bit of a wall of text in here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also if we are going to keep the phrase "Libyan Republic" in the rebel infobox we need a reliable, secondary source which supports the interpretation that the rebels claim that the current official name of Libya is "Libyan Republic". I really have to stress secondary here. We can't make interpretations of primary sources on our own. If we can't find a source then we are violating WP:OR and WP:V. We could revert to "National Transitional Council" or "Libya" or some other name, but whatever it is it has to be supported by sources. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry Orange Tuesday, I was just about to post this when I saw your comment. So I will go ahead and post it nevertheless but I don't mean any disrespect.)

If you take a look at the disputed countries (Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Osettia), there is no set rule. (Zscout370)

My point is that Libya is not a disputed country. The rebels don't dispute Libya's borders - it is the governing of Libya which is in dispute. Or, to be more precise, they dispute Gaddafi as the leader of the country, since the rebels indicated several times they are happy to work with some members of his government but not with Gaddafi and his family.

Kosovo, Abkahzia and South Ossetia wanted and (to a degree) succeed to brake away from the state they were part of. Kosovo was part of Serbia. Ask any Kosovar Albanian whether they feel as Serbian: not a single one of them feels Serbian or wants anything to do with the sate of Serbia, regardless who governs. Than ask Libya rebels whether they are Libyan. Libya rebels do not want to carve a part of Libya which they would than rule. No, they are essentially an opposition movement looking to overthrow the current national government, which is the Gaddafi's governement.

Let me offer few quotes from the Q&A section of the NTC's official website [10]. According to the NTC:

- Libyans are yet to choose their government

The National Transitional Council of Libya is building the necessary institutions and mechanisms as well as electoral and representative processes to ensure the transition to a democratic process is swift, stable and fair and that the Libyan people are able to choose their government without any coercion.

- they can start improving the country only after Gaddafi is removed from power

Therefore, the rebuilding and development of our country needs to be undertaken on a massive and intensive scale and this will only be possible with the demise of the Gaddafi regime.

- they can prevail only by the help of foreign military help (on the other hand Gaddafi's government does not need foreign help to govern)

Q. What do you need to win this war?

A. We need the fullest military support possible from NATO and we need it to be as quick and as precise as possible. However, this is not just a military battle. Gaddafi has instigated a humanitarian crisis. We need military equipment, food, medical supplies, and fuel.

- they themselves don't claim to be Libya's governement

Q. How do you define yourselves – fighters, revolutionaries, opposition?

A. We are the people of Libya. We seek to create a new Libya that ensures freedom, democracy and justice to all. We oppose Gaddafi, but we are more than opposition, we are also creators of a new future that promises hope and equal opportunities to all.

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.

So I conclude:

- the Gaddafi's governement - official governement

- the rebel's transitional governing body - the opposition

As Wikipedia country infoboxes feature details about the countries' governments, not about the opposition, Libya infobox has to list Gaddafi's government as Libya's government BUT, as I said several times, the infobox has to also include clear notes, references and links to the NTC, Libya's Civil War etc. Strictly speaking, Libya country infobox shouldn't even have to contain those notes. Normaly, the country infoboxes do not have notes about the opposition and the politics of the country are discussed in the appropriate article(s), not as notes in the infobox. At the moment there are civil wars in Yemen, Afghanistan and Syria which are very much comparable to the war in Libya. Yet all the infoboxes there list only the official government and there is no indication in the infoboxes that the respective governments are not disputed. What, 200 demonstrators who were just killed in Syria don't dispute Assad's rule in the SAME way Libyan opposition disputes Gaddafis? Of course they do, yet it is not reflected in the infoboxes.

Some people abhor Gaddafi and his rule of Libya and, on the other hand, vehemently support the rebel's cause and allow for this to influence their editing decisions. Some editors are opposed that Libya is represented by the green flag? Well tough, beacuse at the moment that is the flag of the state Libya. Opposition have their own version of Libyan flag? No problem, let's report that, as we did here: National Transitional Council The facts about both sides in the Libya conflict have to be presented equally - I agree. But that doesn't mean that we should give Libya rebels' cause more weight than they actually have. They are not a parallel to Gaddafi's government, thy are an opposition to it.

Great majority of countries that support the rebels' claim that they are the sole legitimate governing authority are either NATO countries, which is directly and actively involved in the war, or Arab countries that have sent arms to the rebels, thus are also (indirectly) involved in the war on one side. Remove those countries and support for the rebel's claim is minuscule. The Libya Contact Group is a body set up by those countries and saying the NTC's membership of that body somehow gives another layer of legitimacy is naive.

Gaddafi's claim that his government is Libya's government is based on the fact that it was the government of Libya for more than 40 years and as such recognised by virtually every single country in the world and that it controlled 100% of Libyan territory during all that time and is still holding capital Tripoli. (Libya rebels also claim the capital is Tripoli yet they have never controlled it in any shape or form.) Like it or not, Gaddafi's government is still recognised as such by almost all the countries in the world outside of the anti-Gaddafi block I refereed to earlier.

On the other hand, Libya's opposition's claim that they are the government of Libya is based on: "We say so!!!" (Correction: the NTC don't claim that they are the government of Libya, they explicitly say they are NOT the government of Libya. Rather they claim that they are the sole legitimate governing authority in the country - claim which they base on "We say so!!!" albert humbert (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)) They never took part in any elections, they were never acknowledged as the Libyan government by any verifiable number of people and their military success by which they control part of Libya is only possible by the help of NATO.

Patrick Cockburn in his latest piece for The Independent why-the-west-is-committed-to-the-murderous-rebels-in-libya claims that:

The enthusiasm in some 30 foreign capitals to recognise the mysterious self-appointed group in Benghazi as the leaders of Libya is at this stage probably motivated primarily by expectations of commercial concessions and a carve-up of oilfields. (..) In one respect, the foreign media has been more culpable than governments in giving credibility to the TNC as an alternative to Gaddafi's regime. Official rebel statements and claims have been treated with respect, as if they were not geared to winning the propaganda war. (..) How could it be that for month after month Gaddafi's forces were still fighting when he was meant to have no support? (...) In contrast to their limited military capabilities, the rebels have proved extremely effective in cultivating the foreign media.

Wikipedia has to avoid by all means doing what the media Cockburn refereed to is doing! Nobody is disputing that the rebels represent the views and aspirations of many Libyans (although we don't know precisely of how many) which is what the opposition does in any other country, but Libyan government they are NOT (yet) and the infobox should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert humbert (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cockburn's opinion isn't material. The opposition isn't like a political party, it's a movement to fully actualize throughout Libya what they see as their legitimate position as the sole governing authority overseeing a political transition. That's basically what it says on their website. This isn't a political spat within the same legal framework that has existed for 42 years; Libya is disputed between two entities that both claim they are the sole legitimate authority in the country and they are rightfully in charge of its affairs. It's just false to say otherwise. And now I've said my piece and I'll turn it over to other editors for a little while. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What I know about the Tripoli situation is that the NTC stated that they want to move into Tripoli and use that city as their capital because of historical and cultural factors, but they are based in Bengazhi. What I am thinking is something like this; Tripoli will be listed as the capitol, but make a note saying that "under the control of the Gaddafi Government; the NTC Government is based in Bengazhi yet has stated that it will intended to have their government relocated to Tripoli." I am going to have a copy of this infobox in my userpage and make some changes to it so this page can be unlocked. But I would like to ask other than this infobox issue, what other issues are present in this article? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Also what I meant by looking at those pages was in the terms of an infobox layout. Some are set up like countries even though they are recognized by like....3 people or areas that have a ton of recognition are not treated at all due to POV issues of some users. Anyways, going to make up something. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I object that the NTC is listed as Libya's government in the infobox and I think I tried to elaborate why. The NTC is and can only be (for now) the rebel's government, although it would seem at the moment they can't even govern themselves Benghazi Clash Exposes Cracks in Rebel Ranks' BTW the second part of this sentence from the quoted article speaks volumes about why is the NATO suporting this fallacy about the rebels being a sole legitimate government of Libya:

The developments come at a time when many foreign governments, including the United States, are recognizing the rebels’ governing council as the legitimate government of Libya, with the possibility of turning over to the rebels millions of dollars in frozen Qaddafi government assets.

It's all about finding a way to transfer Libya's sovereign funds to the rebels, isn't it. Those billions of dollars have a rightful owner and can't just be given to some insurgents. But if the insurgents became the government, well than...

The rebels claim they are Libya's government? Let them show it, not just say it. I think we need some secondary sources calling the NTC Libya's government or Libya's parallel government or Libya's other government or something along those lines. For now we only have their wishful thinking. Group of people starts shooting and Libya as it existed for 42 years is suddenly no more by the will of Wikipedia? I really don't see how Libya differs from Afghanistan and other examples I gave.

If you would like to unlock the page I think you should revert the infobox to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libya&diff=406417618&oldid=406115538 as no one can dispute that those facts about Libya are correct. And than we can see how can that infobox can be adjusted to take into account the current events but we agree that we can change the infobox further only by consensus, step by step if needed. albert humbert (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I strenuously object. Wikipedia is based off verifiability, not your personal opinions about how fit the NTC is to lead or whether the diplomatic recognition conferred by over 30 countries and the European Union "counts". I can absolutely dispute that those facts about Libya are correct because my government doesn't recognize Muammar Gaddafi as the leader of Libya, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as its name, or the green flag as its official emblem. You can speculate all you want as to its motives for not doing so, but the proper place to do that is on a blog, not on Wikipedia. We have plenty of secondary sources, cited multiple times throughout multiple articles, and obviously if you insist on selectively ignoring the ones you think are biased in some way, we'll end up with a version of Wikipedia that could have come straight off of Al-Jamahiriya TV. And of all the editors who have contributed to this page in the past few months, you are the only one who seems to seriously think it should regard Gaddafi as the undisputed leader of Libya and the jamahiriya as its undisputed government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

When it came to the recognition of the NTC, my government sees it as a rival government in opposition to Gaddafi. But from other nations, it is different. The Japanese consider the NTC to be "リビアにおける正統な対話相手" (Legitimate discussion partner in Libya; translation used by the Japanese MOFA is "the legitimate interlocutor (one who takes part in dialogue or conversation) of the Libyan people"). So regardless of what we feel about the NTC, there are some governments who see the NTC as the sole government of Libya, some who stuck with Gaddafi or trying to talk with both sides. Having anything related to symbols or governments or any "official names" will be not neutral; the infobox needs to be something where information that isn't tied to one government or the other is presented. The issue with Tripoli is that even though Gaddafi controls it now, the NTC really wants to run their government there once Libya is unified. I also think that maybe the capitol information could be moved to the specific infoboxes of each competing government and just leave Tri@poli as the largest city (but the infobox on my userpage is giving me hell). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(I wish other editors would take part in the discussion. In the meantime, I feel I have to defend my position.)

The question is very simple: what makes a group of people the government of some country? I find it interesting how some Americans, normally the greatest believers in democracy, have no problem with a fact that in some foreign country it is the will of the US which decides who is and who is not the government, not the will of the people of that country.

I can absolutely dispute that those facts about Libya are correct because my government doesn't recognize Muammar Gaddafi as the leader of Libya, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as its name, or the green flag as its official emblem. Kudzu1 says. No problem. As soon as Wikipedia adopts rules which stipulate that the US government policies are to be treated as divine, indisputable truth I will give way. Until than I will treat any information by the US government with the same caution and examination I treat information by any other source. Groups of people do not become governments because the US says they are, we need to find adequate support for those claims before we can treat them as facts. Until than we can only report, not conclude. Example:

- the US government says the NTC is the government of Libya - a report
- the NTC is the government of Libya - a conclusion

Infobox is where we place our conclusions, isn't it? We conclude certain things and enter them as facts.

For the claim that the NTC is Libya's government to become a fact we need sufficient secondary sources saying the NTC is Libya's government, period. But when we read news reports they conspicuously avoid to name the NTC as Libya's government. They only report which countries consider them as Libya's government but article after article fails to say something along the lines: "The NTC, who act as Libya's government, did this or that..." Why? Because the NTC is not Libya's government. They are challenging Libya's government, but they are not the government yet. The most they can be is 'the shadow government', the 'government' of the opposition but not 'the government', regardless of what their military allies call them.

I can see in the Talk page archives that there were some intense discussion on practically the same subject Edit_war:_Libyan_government. It is evident that Kudzu1's position was in a minority than and since there was no visible consensus (if I'm not mistaken) I wonder on which basis did he change the infobox info? And once he changed it, where is explanation why he did it, which should have been given in some detail here since it is a very controversial subject? albert humbert (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your present complaint, I am strongly opposed to this page being made up to claim that the NTC is Libya's only legitimate government. That may be the position of over 30 national governments, but it would violate WP:NPOV to not present information that the government is disputed between two factions who both claim exclusive legitimacy. As to your past rooting around, if you were actually diligent about checking the edit logs, I think you would find that I wasn't the one who changed the infobox info, which happened over a week after that discussion. A new consensus developed after France recognized the NTC, and editors eventually settled on the current infobox configuration. But it seems more like you're interested in trying to discredit me than you are in the history of the article. I hope I'm mistaken in that conclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If the US had their way, as you mentioned Albert, Kosovo would be about the country and Abkazhia and S. Osettia would be region articles. And while it is true we do have a lot of people that don't believe in the Gaddafi government, if we have everything just about the NTC I would be against that too. But, leaving the article the way it was before said civil war in the terms of leaders and symbols would also not be NPOV since there are two governments competing for control of the country (and we have at least 30 that side with Bengazhi). I really want to come to a solution so I can unlock this article. It seems the infobox is the only main issue I see since we all agree about the non-use of the Jasmine Republic name.

As I pointed out from two different governments, each has their own feelings. The Japanese (I am ja-3, so that is why I used them and they are outside of NATO) didn't say anything about the NTC being recognized by them as the Libyan Government and they still will use "Libyan authorities based in Tripoli" and still refer to Gaddafi as the leader. I know the US (my country) is heavily biased against Gaddafi so anything they will say or do, except for their notice of recognition of the NTC, needs to be looked at with a grain of salt. I would say for the UK too. I would not call the NTC a shadow government because this implies they support the leadership of Gaddafi but differ on ideas for improving the country. I would not call them the Libyan Government either since they control about half of the country and Tripoli has more diplomatic recognition than Bengazhi does. I would use competing government because this is an active force that is trying to topple Gaddafi and their government by setting up their own bodies in another part of the country. This is similar to the PRC/ROC split in the 1950's that lasted until the 1970's when all of the recognition shifted from Taipei to Beijing. I would still try and focus on the infobox to be neutral and the three infobox solution is the best we can come up with (similar to what was done early on with Kosovo in 2008). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that great number of my comments, arguments and offered evidence were disregarded without being answered. The infobox, as it stands, clearly violates WP:NOR as (some of) the details in the infobox are not supported by sufficient secondary sources but, rather, are a result of original research by the editor(s) based on information provided by primary sources.

I strongly feel that with the current infobox Wikipedia has gone out of the encyclopaedic remit and has, instead, turned into a biased commentator of current events. Animosity of some editors towards Gaddafi and his government has been allowed to shape this article, which is simply wrong. There was a dispute on this subject already which wasn't resolved with a compromise and I note the same has happened again. albert humbert (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to answer them. I know you said only 30 countries recognize the NTC as the government of Libya as a whole; the world doesn't. We need to reflect that somehow; having it showing pre-civil war infobox exclusively won't sit well with NPOV and having it exclusively as NTC won't be NPOV either. Now, you mentioned the current infobox has a lot of Original Research; what key parts of it are original research and I can see what I can pull in the terms of sources. I personally don't care who is in charge of the country (still waiting for my Green Book) but I want to come up with a solution. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I want to put on record that I don't agree with the article lay out. The UN still recognises the "Great...Libyan Arab what have you" as the name of the country. A mere 15% of UN members recognise the TNC. Thats likely to rise...and in time they may become recognised at the UN...just like the Taipei Chinese Government was replaced by the Beijing Chinese Government so many moons ago.......but until then, we should have greater credibility and objectivity and be consistent. Treat Libya in the same way as all other states. NelsonSudan (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were an organ of the United Nations, I might agree with you. But it's not, so the UN doesn't trump all other sources. Its position is duly noted, as are the positions of the 33 states recognizing the NTC and the 162 states recognizing the Gaddafi government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting WP be an "organ of the UN"; its an amateur encyclopedia, the UN would not accept it as an organ....what I propose is objective standards.....and that the right objective standard is to accept the Government accreditted to the UN as the Government of Libua....The position of the 15% of the world's states can of course be mentioned in the article. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with that, and I don't think that proposal commands anywhere near consensus support. The government is actively disputed and there is no sole arbiter in this matter - not the UN or anyone else. This article should reflect that, and it does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370/LY here is where yall can try and come up with an infobox of what should be added or removed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is my attempt at a single infobox - it is based on the infobox used on the Libya article on the German Wikipedia. Dn9ahx (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with this is if we display both symbols, which ones will be listed first? People will just remove Gaddafi (or the NTC) symbols so it displays just one. I honestly believe if there is a solution for the main infobox, no symbols from either side must be included. However, I do like what changes you did with the leaders and would support that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not make the changes to the leaders, Kudzu did in the section above, I used his suggestion as a starting point. We could use placeholder images for the national symbols which link to the articles on those symbols allowing readers to see why no symbols have been used in the infobox.

I would even say remove the placeholders too because that will tell them to add something. You can always use both flag images in the article text regarding the civil war. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support Dn9ahx's initial version. I'm fine with any single infobox as long as the symbols are displayed somehow. I think the concerns about edit warring the orders of the symbols are a bit overblown. Something always has to come "first" if you're listing two things, and most people won't care about the order (the two sub-infoboxes on the current page have gone for months now without much in the way of edit warring). If it really comes down to it, disruptive edits can be reverted and people who insist on edit warring can be blocked. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I just been on Wikipedia for too long and being cynical. Well, I do like the version from Dn9ahx and wouldn't mind being tried out on the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a good improvement. If we have to pick which symbol is on top, if that's important, I suggest we just use what's below, with Gadaffi's on top, even if that's just because it's older. It's what the current article has anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we have sufficient evidence of secondary sources naming the NTC as Libya's government or Libya's other government or something along those lines please? At the moment we only have primary sources information. The current and proposed Libya infobox is a result of Wikipedia editor(s) using those primary sources and interpreting them, in violation of WP:NOR! I made numerous points that haven't been answered - this is not how disputes should be solved on Wikipedia. albert humbert (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We have tons of newspapers etc. reporting that suchandsuch country recognises the NTC as Libya's government. What kind of source do you want? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the rebels' military and political allies say that the rebels are the government is a primary source. What "tons of newspapers etc." are reporting is simply to confirm the existence of those primary sources. So all we can say on this page is "these countries recognise the rebels as the government". But to say here that the rebels ARE the government we need to have secondary sources saying so. I made this point numerous times on this talk page but is blatantly disregarded! albert humbert (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am thinking is having something like "Since the start of the 2011 Libyan civil war, X countries have recognized the NTC as the sole legitimate government of Libya and Y countries recognized the NTC as a representative of the Libyan people." I know the Japanese and the Canadians fall into the second category so that should be important to note, but we need to have a clear declaration from the foreign ministry themselves. I also think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_National_Transitional_Council (well sources IMHO) would also work. The wording could also say "As a result of the 2011 Libyan civil war, various nations of the world changed their diplomatic recognition from Gaddafi to the NTC or recognized the NTC as a negotiating partner." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You just stole the idea from my mind, jkjk. Seems good, and I was thinking of also adding them as flags in the CivilWar-related articles. Do you think we might use one template, so the continues editing stays in one place (if it's possible to stick a template with an infobox)?

Yep, we should only use official announcements from the foreign ministry of each country. I was thinking of adding the countries denouncing Gaddafi's government on one side, and announcing NTC as the official government on the other. Some countries denounced but hasn't announced. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm good like that ^^ Anyways, I would not mention anything about denouncing of the regime but focus on the actual diplomatic recognition when it comes to this article (and use that one article as a link, along with other sources). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya ليبيا Lībiyā   Template:Ar icon
Flag Coat of arms
Anthem: National anthem of Libya
Capital and largest city	Tripoli1
Official languages	Arabic3
Spoken languages	Arabic, Berber4
Demonym(s)	Libyan
Government	Disputed between:
• Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	Muammar Gaddafi Baghdadi Mahmudi
• National Transitional Council	Mustafa Abdul Jalil Mahmoud Jibril
Independence
• Relinquished by Italy	10 February 1947
• From United Kingdom & France under United Nations Trusteeship	24 December 1951
Area
• Total	1,759,541 km2 (679,363 sq mi) (17th)
• Water (%)	Negligible surface water, reservoirs of water underground.
Population
• 2010 estimate	6,420,000 (105th)
• 2006 census	5,670,6881
• Density	3.6/km2 (9.3/sq mi) (218th)
GDP (PPP)	2010 estimate
• Total	$96.138 billion (68th)
• Per capita	$14,884 (56th)
GDP (nominal)	2010 estimate
• Total	$76.557 billion (64th)
• Per capita	$11,852 (48th)
HDI (2010)	0.755  (53rd)
Currency	Dinar (LYD)
Time zone	UTC+2 (EET)
Drives on	right
Calling code	218
ISO 3166 code	LY
Internet TLD	.ly
Includes 350,000 foreigners (Libyan 2006 census, accessed September 15, 2006;) Though both governments disputing Libya agree Tripoli is its capital, the de facto administrative centre of the National Transitional Council is currently Benghazi. Libyan Arabic and other varieties are the spoken languages, while literary Arabic is the official written language. Nafusi and Tuareg are the Berber dialects with the greatest number of Libyan speakers.

Libya ليبيا Lībiyā   Template:Ar icon
Flag Coat of arms
Anthem: National anthem of Libya
Capital and largest city	Tripoli1
Official languages	Arabic3
Spoken languages	Arabic, Berber4
Demonym(s)	Libyan
Government	Disputed between:
• Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	Muammar Gaddafi Baghdadi Mahmudi
• National Transitional Council	Mustafa Abdul Jalil Mahmoud Jibril
Independence
• Relinquished by Italy	10 February 1947
• From United Kingdom & France under United Nations Trusteeship	24 December 1951
Area
• Total	1,759,541 km2 (679,363 sq mi) (17th)
• Water (%)	Negligible surface water, reservoirs of water underground.
Population
• 2010 estimate	6,420,000 (105th)
• 2006 census	5,670,6881
• Density	3.6/km2 (9.3/sq mi) (218th)
GDP (PPP)	2010 estimate
• Total	$96.138 billion (68th)
• Per capita	$14,884 (56th)
GDP (nominal)	2010 estimate
• Total	$76.557 billion (64th)
• Per capita	$11,852 (48th)
HDI (2010)	0.755  (53rd)
Currency	Dinar (LYD)
Time zone	UTC+2 (EET)
Drives on	right
Calling code	218
ISO 3166 code	LY
Internet TLD	.ly
Includes 350,000 foreigners (Libyan 2006 census, accessed September 15, 2006;) Though both governments disputing Libya agree Tripoli is its capital, the de facto administrative centre of the National Transitional Council is currently Benghazi. Libyan Arabic and other varieties are the spoken languages, while literary Arabic is the official written language. Nafusi and Tuareg are the Berber dialects with the greatest number of Libyan speakers.

It don't Matter anymore

The rebels have taken Tripoli, Gadaffi is now a fugitive, and the Transitional Council is now the undisputed government. The "Jambalya" crap is now historyEricl (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's the exact phrase I was gonna add above "it doesn't matter anymore," since things started to run fast after Zawiya. I just deleted the template sandbox I was working on. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 18:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It does matter! Is this an encyclopedia article or a student blog trying to keep up with current affairs? I am sorry to use such a strong word but editing on this article is a disgrace and it has clearly shown that Wikipedia can't deal with civil war situations. The readers have been failed in a big way here. albert humbert (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a civil war. It baffles me how Wikipedia is the only place on the internet that refers to it as such. FizzBrine (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad your side lost. The NTC is the government of Libya - PERIOD 208.127.128.16 (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They're the de facto government of Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrakeBake (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Republic 2

Tunis is the capital of the Jasmine Republic they use a seprate system that is independent from the internet this helps keep commmiucations free from the regime(s) control it should be porely represented here to acess such commmunications dirctly you can buy a XO-1b Or compatable system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancalred (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that verifies your assertion? Otherwise, it cannot be added to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am refferning to The xo-1.5 not a exoplanet the infomation is only available on the mesh network not the internet you need spiecal eqipment to acesss it (until firefox 6 comes out) Rancalred (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Firefox Sync

firefox 6 has come out this page is superseeded by the xo version this shall be accomplised by uploding the page from the tech city archives Rancalred (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, no it won't. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi = Sharia???

In section "Libya under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi 1969–present", it is written: "He [Muammar al-Gaddafi] announced the suspension of all existing laws and the implementation of Sharia." At least a quotation is absolutely needed and maybe much more information about this sentence: this is absolutely not clear, not proven in the article and probably completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Este0077 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

NTC name for the country

According to this document the direct equivalent of the term Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is Libya. There is no mention of a Libyan Republic in this document; it appears it has fallen into disuse, more or less, though the NTC website's flag section still refers to the tricolor as "the emblem of the Libyan Republic". The document also strongly suggests that the position of chairman is actually the office of president, though it does not explicitly name Mustafa Abdul Jalil as president. There is no mention of a prime-ministerial position, nor an Executive Board. Brian Whitaker has verified the authenticity of the document and offers more thoughts on it here but I wanted to bring these particular points to attention for the purposes of this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC) has whats his face gone hope so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.130.52 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And yet you persisted with defending 'Libyan Republic' and wasted our time and energy which could have been used elsewhere. Well done. albert humbert (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your sarcasm. I represented the available facts at the time; the body of evidence has changed. I have no personal affection for the term, despite your repeated claims that I was editing to push a particular point of view. You've conducted yourself poorly in your discussions here and elsewhere on Wikipedia, and unfortunately, you continue to do so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Libyan Republic from the NTC infobox since the evidence for the NTC using it is very very tenuous at this point. The info is still in the body of the article, though. I feel like this is a reasonable solution. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Usage appears to now be historical, with an asterisk for its usage in reference to the tricolor flag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never enough evidence to support 'Libyan Republic' being in the infobox and the fact that it was allowed to stand for so long shows how poor the quality of editing on this page has been since the civil war in Libya started. albert humbert (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Single Infobox

Now that Gaddafi is out of power, what do people think about a single infobox with just the NTC symbols and info? Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see that happen, but I think we need one more decisive event from libya, involving some form of (voluntary or involuntary) transfer of power. I want to note that Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has been changed from a redirect to a bare stub with a "former nation" infobox. There is obviously a very strong desire on the part of editors supportive of the rebels/new transitional government to make this change happen. As long as news channel consensus supports these changes, I dont see a problem.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this will be the obvious result of the end of the civil war, but let's hold off till sources say the Rebels control all of Libya. There is after all still some fighting in the capital. IP is right, there is a rush to support the rebels. I notice the Green Square article has already been moved to Martyrs' Square, Tripoli, a great example of recentism if I've ever seen one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

At this stage, what I can support now is the flipping of sections regarding politics, so that the NTC goes first. I have no intention to push POV here, but this is because of the recognition by major states: remember that Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, and the US only recognises the NTC. --Marianian^(talk) 20:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please figure out how to use the Template:Infobox country parameter "symbol_type" correctly, so that the NTC logo will not wrongly be called a "coat of arms"? Compare USA, where the symbol (also not a coat of arms) is designated "Great Seal." "NTC logo" is the best label I can think of; I tried to implement this, but I got a blank white space instead of an alternate label. This also applies to the National Transitional Council page. Wareh (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried something. Any comments? — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 22:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's great. On the wider discussion, FWIW, I think the current arrangement (two infoboxes, with the NTC one below) is a good compromise until things are better resolved. Merging the two into a single infobox would seem to invite misunderstanding. Wareh (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So we are jumping into conclusions based on biased media reports that change every hour, are we? Editing of this article does disservice to Wikipedia! Misrata rebels, who spearheaded the push to Tripoli, don't accept the NTC as their governing body. So what now? They are still Libya's government? Why? Because Obama says so? Yet, report after report Gaddafi's forces are termed "Government forces" while rebel forces are termed "rebel forces". My repeated requests for the secondary sources have been left unanswered. It is almost as some editors work in NATO's propaganda department! albert humbert (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there something in particular that makes you think I jumped to a conclusion...? — Abjiklam (talk • stalk) 01:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Albert Humbert, you need to cool it. If you can't manage to be civil then you should take a break from editing for a while. Orange Tuesday (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree trans. govt should be listed first. After all, Wikipedia is not censored, lol. That is, in addition to all the provinces, per rebel leaders 80% of the capital is controlled by forices in opposition to G .--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the current arrangement now until we figure out what is going on with the battles in Tripoli and if/when Gaddafi gives up power. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Makes sense to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In the United Nations the country is still officialy the Jamahirya, the Gaddafi Libya, until that changes the green one goes first. EkoGraf (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede states that that is the name Libya goes by at the UN still. Nonetheless, ongoing statements coming from the UN in actual fact reference the transitional government of the country as its de facto rulers (eg, in just one of many current examples, the most recent headline indicates that Security Council member China just petitioned this international body to, quote, lead post-war reconstruction in Libya, urging a smooth political transition, end of quote; another article reads, "Mr. Khatib and Ian Martin, the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on post-conflict planning in Libya, are in Doha, Qatar, today for discussions with the National Transitional Council’s leadership on the form assistance the UN can lend to the transitional authorities and the people of Libya"). We go by the preponderance of reliable sources.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is all this impetus to announce the events before they even happen coming from? I think some editors need to be reminded that this is an encyclopedia article, not open ed piece. For the NTC to be(come) the sole governing authority of Libya we need few more things to happen. For starters, they need to start governing the capital:

Osama Bilil, one of the doctors, told the BBC: "These bodies have been here in the hospital for five days. Nobody has taken care of them - to bring them to the mortuary, to identify them, to bury them." "We need help. It is very urgent. There is no government here. We need professional help, from the International Red Cross, because there has been a massacre in Abu Salim," he added. BBC albert humbert (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi's son = nonsense

He has at least three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.16 (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

NTC anthem

Much as I would like to see the infobox of the NTC filled out, I can't find any evidence that the NTC has adopted Libya, Libya, Libya as their anthem. It is true that the song was sung by some rebels during some of the riots, but that does not make it their anthem. -- leuce (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The NTC website does call "Libya, Libya, Libya" as the anthem of Libya. But their website is down as of no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, guys! -- leuce (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Map with international recognition of the NTC

The legend has to be changed. Currently that is the legend: -Libya -Countries that have recognised the National Transitional Council as Libya's sole legitimate representative -Countries that have permanent informal relations with Benghazi but have not granted official recognition -Countries that have relations with Tripoli only

I think the word "Tripoli" has to be changed into "the Jamahiriya", and the word "Benghazi" into "NTC" or "the National Transitional Council" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.192.26.177 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support this change. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, pretty logical. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I think that the two lower infoboxes for each government should be changed into a single infobox mentioning solely the NTC. Gaddafi's government has ceased to exist, his military has been reduced to pockets of resistance, and the rebels more or less rule the country.--RM (Be my friend) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then who is in control of Sirte, Bin Jawad, Sabha, and Abu Salim? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait for a week on this. People don't know where Gaddafi is now plus if he has been killed or flees, another leader may take control of his government. In addition, in a week's time Gaddafi's forces may surrender or collapse, resolving the problem presently here entirely. Nevertheless, it is very likely that the National Transitional Council will be recognized as the legitimate government of Libya by the United Nations and Gaddafi's Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya will be removed from the UN. After all, Gaddafi's regime has already been kicked out of the UN Human Rights organizations and it is apparent that his regime is now a pariah state.--R-41 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a civil war

The February 17th revolution has been referred to as a conflict, uprising, but not a civil war. It started as a peaceful protest, and these protesters were met by government forces' heavy artillery and anti-Aircraft guns. The people were forced to rise up against these government troops and fight for their freedom. All this time it has been a struggle between the government army and their hired foreign mercenaries, against Libyan civilians, mostly young men, who were forced to fight, since protesting didn't work.

Wikipedia is the only place where I have seen this situation referred to as a civil war. Why are the editors here so blind to the truth and stubborn on insisting this is a civil war? "A revolution is when a mass of people rise up against tyranny by a suppressive government, a civil war is when a country is split on a political and cultural divide". In the case of Libya, it wasn't a group of people fighting another group of people who had different cultural/political opinions, it was the people themselves who rose up against the dictatorship government. This is the very definition of a revolution: "an overthrow and thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed".

I urge all the editors to do a little more research and realise the correct way of referring to the last 6 months as a revolution/uprising. If you want to call it a conflict that's just fine, but insisting on the term 'civil war' instead of revolution is blind ignorance. FizzBrine (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google News search reveals plenty of articles referring to the situation in Libya as a civil war. If you want to discuss the terminology we're using then the best place to do it is probably Talk:2011 Libyan civil war Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It meets the definition of both 'civil war' and 'revolution,' although the latter is of dubious neutrality provided we don't knoe\w if it's going to last. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)