Talk:Armed Forces of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Africa / Libya (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Comments[edit]

What a mess. This is a statistical page, not a wikipedia article. Recomment major revisions and rewrites.

The page lists PRC (China) as a major supplier of Libya's armed forces. But if you look at Libya's actual military hardware, they're Russian, European, and some are from Brazil? -- Adeptitus (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaddafi's militias[edit]

What about the militias under the control of Gaddafi's sons? Cybergoth (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's son saif said, the decisions for military are made in the peoples assembly of defense. But I am not sure it the name was "Assembly" but any how a democratic selected group of people. The whole political system has no government or ministries or parties and no defens minister. It is a direct democracy created by Gaddafi - especially for such few inhabitants, bribery tradition in such countries and somewaht underdevelopped formerly. But of course the assembly can decide to have a speaker or anybody responsible for whatever will be required. I persomnally do not know who is responsible. Of course the may need to make it not public short before an attack of NATO. Killing the leaders has been always the tactics of NATO - the "democratic opposition" bought for above 30 millions of US$ killed 3 Yugoslav ministers and finally Milosevic has been poisoned since in his trial it more and more turned out that he was innocent. --Edgar8 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya Civil War??[edit]

(on the battles of Military of Libya)

How can this be called Civil War, when neither side wants the government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.239.87.226 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Note on brigades[edit]

In Benghazi as of 20 February 2011, the Al-Fadhil Brigade has apparently been seized while the Al-Sibyl Brigade is reportedly firing on protesters.

"As anti-regime forces gained access to the interior of the base, they saw evidence of the troops' divided loyalties. Elements of three units had been stationed there to quell the uprising: The Fadheel brigade, out of Sitre; the Khamis brigade, from Tripoli; and the Tariq brigade, which was based in the southern town of Sabha. *source: "http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/03/20113175840189620.html

"Tarhouna: Military (the 7th and 9th brigade) have joined the people and denounced the regime. Kindly note, this is the same military facility which lead the Gaddafi revolution to overthrow King Idris in 1969."

Suppliers?[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the Soviet Union is not supplying them anymore, nor is Yugoslavia, or any of the countries that are bombing them. I think that this article needs to be re-written from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.77.63 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - No consensus There doesn't appear to be a consensus for the move. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)



Relisted Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC) The war is all but over - anti-Gaddafi forces control 99 percent of the country. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has ceased to exist, and its armed forces have been replaced by the National Liberation Army. Gaddafi's army has all but ceased to exist. Therefore, I propose that these pages be moved to reflect that. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 19:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - What I expect to happen during the transitional period is that the armed elements nominally under the aegis of the NTC will be reorganized and reincorporated into a regular military. At that time, I suggest we continue to maintain the current National Liberation Army (Libya) article as historical, and simply update the other two articles to reflect Libya's new reality. I don't think there's enough Gaddafi-specific content to warrant a new page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


– Libyan Air Force and armed forces article were moved without any prior discussion. Libyan army article was moved without any consensus (1 pro, 1 against), not backed by sources (none provided on discussion page) by the will of one user (not the nominator and not administrator). Sources for current (post-war) name are United Nations webpage New York Times VOA or TIME. As for ground forces, name goes back to pre-NTC Libya [1] [2] [3] [4] and post war era [5] [6] [7]. Interestingly enough Libyan Navy article remained as it was. Bottom line, those three articles were moved against wikipedia policy (either without any discussion, although this was everything but technical move, or with discussion where consensus wasnt reached) ie against WP:RMCI, the "new" names are sourced EllsworthSK (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per the arguments I presented here: Talk:Libyan_Army_(1951–2011)#Proposed_move. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Move back to 2010 locations -- Libya is a nation, whose government has been repalaced in a revolution. The disbandment of the armed forces is likely to prove to be a temporary event, and they will be reconstituted in due course. The defeat and death of Ghadaffi and the disbandment of the forces under his command should eventually be the occasion for starting a new section in the continuing article. This is the English WP. "Jamahiriya" is not an English word. The title containing it is suitable to be a redirect, but the article should not be there. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
You're saying it yourself: there has been a disbandment of the armed forces. Their position is now being taken over by new, rebel-led armed forces. The two should not be described as if they're one and the same. "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is the commonly used name for the Gaddafi-era state, so the thing about jamahiriya not being an English word is a non-argument. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
So? Check out Iraqi army wiki page and you will see the same thing. Or Afghan National Army article where proper army did not exist for more than a decade. Spanish army has little to do with 15th century Spanish army as well, yet we don´t change it. It is reorganization and restruction. What you are reffering to is "current form" which should rightly be dated to 2011. And commonly used? Yes. But before that it was Libyan Arab Republic and Libyan Kingdom/United Kingdom of Libya as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Mergers are outside the scope of RM, please try WP:PM or perhaps creating a WP:RFC. Jenks24 (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)



– Yes, it is opened once again. So, beside the arguments made above (move without consensus especially) we are dealing with simple WP:CFORK as we have several articles now dealing with same organization. Also, as we can see on example of Military of Iraq, Afghan National Army, Military of Rwanda and dozen other military organization of state which went through civil war and the ruling regime was consequently overthrown who is in charge does not matter. There is no need for two articles dealing with military of this-or-that state, the fact that armed forces were officially defeated can be very well mentioned in the history section (as in case of Iraq and Afghanistan). EllsworthSK (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Procedural Close Mergers are not handled by WP:RM
    1. AFLAJ and LNA are two existing articles, so cannot be "moved" under this process. Either you need to formulate a different proposal, as to where LNA then ends up, or you need to set up a proposed merger ( see WP:PM )
    2. LAF 51-11 and LAF are two existing articles, so cannot be "moved" under this process. Etierh you need to formulate a different proposal, as to where LAF then ends up, or you need to set up a proposed merger (see WP:PM)
    76.65.131.160 (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this some sort of joke, EllsworthSK? Let me remind you that you are the one who created the content forks.
So it's quite disingenious of you to now propose an article move, based on the claim that what are demonstrably the original articles are content forks. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.