Talk:Libya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Name of alternate government

The National Transitional Council refers to Libya as the Libyan Republic, which I think would be considered analogous to the Jamahiriya claimed by Gaddafi's regime. However, the media has yet to pick up on "Libyan Republic" as a name. I'd like to request we ignore that and use the official website of the National Transitional Council as a source supporting "Libyan Republic" for the name of the country as recognized by the National Transitional Council, which is at present its government (in the same way Gaddafi and his ministers are the government of the Jamahiriya; obviously, these governments have conflicting claims and thus conflicting names for the same state, hence the NPOV article title "Libya"). -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No matter if we use the Republic of Jamahiriya, the article title is still going to be at Libya (unless you are speaking of the infobox and lead paragraph). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So far this website [1] is the only source for the term "Libyan Republic" and we have no way of knowing if it's actually authentic. If the term "Libyan Republic" is indeed in use it'll crop up in another source soon enough. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The website is official according to WSJ and Libyan Youth Movement. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah and here's the name in an official statement now. [2] Seems legit. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see lies with leadership on the infobox: Gaddadfi heads the Jamahiriya and Al Jaleil the republic. I believe the two terms are synonymous. At the moment it looks as if the two posts are units of the same arrangement. The least the section requires mention that this is disputed (as with Palestinian National Authority). The issue is that Gaddafi is de facto leader while there remains within the Jamahiriya both a president and prime minister neither of whom are listed. As for Al Jeleil, his faction may now be recognised by France and Portugal as the legal authority (with other recognitions forthcoming) but unless I have missed something, he has yet to declare himself and his backers as the new government. Does he refer to himself as the president or does he use another title? Is the old Kingdom flag certain to be the national flag or does the new administration have something else in mind? Which ministers have taken which posts? If one way or another the rebels defeat Gaddafi and the new leader does not formally inaugurate himself on account of his governance having continuity from the time of war then on which date did he officially replace Gaddafi or Al Zwei? Evlekis (Евлекис) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A few points: 1) There was a declaration and it came on the 5th of March. 2) Jamahiriya is a neologism created by Gadaffi. It's not synonymous with Republic ("Jumhuriyah"). 3) I believe Jeleil's title is "Chair of the Council" 4) The council certainly uses the old Kingdom flag. I don't believe there's been any kind of legal adoption yet. 5) The leadership section of the infobox currently does say "Disputed", although you're right that this could probably be made clearer. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Orange. I did say "unless I missed something" and it is hard for me to follow all events so closely. In this case we do have a disputed state with two opposing heads. I don't think Jamahiriya is a neologism though, I am sure the word is a cognate with the Turkish Cumhuriyeti (pronounced - joom-hoo-ree-yeti) and I think Turkish borrowed it from Arabic. It doesn't matter anyhow, I believe we use Jamahiriya in English to distinguish Gaddafi's entity. If your information is entirely correct then I have no new proposals for the infobox. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can check out the page for Jamahiriya if you want more details but basically it was coined by Gaddafi when he wrote the Green Book. The reason it sounds so much like Cumhuriyeti is because he took Jumhuriya ("republic") and replaced the jumhur ("public") with jamahir ("the masses"). The literal English translation would be "state of the masses", but since there's no single word that really conveys that meaning we just use Jamahiriya. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I did read it, you're right. I speak neither Arabic nor Turkish so I couldn't be sure of the terminologies. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.162.89.137, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The opposition and disputes are an internal to Libya and modification of the main page about Libya should await the result of the dispute. Making interim changes only fuels unrest in the region. We can always continue to track the story in progress on another topic and link it to the main page as supplemental information.

Discussing or prompting the change in govt.s is unfair and encourages further unrest. The current govt. of Libya represented in the United Nations by an ambassador appointed by Gaddaffi should be respected.

Let wikipedia be responsible and not get carried away with the "breaking news" tactics.

99.162.89.137 (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Ax

Even if it did somehow cause dissent in Libya, that is not our concern, and I somehow doubt in a country where the internet has been virtually cut off that anyone can get to wp anyway. Besides, I think the people there have other things on their minds currently.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When you have a specific edit in mind, please put the edit requested template back up. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't an investigative news group (that would be Wikinews). We just report what other people are reporting, so if the big news organizations are reporting that things are happening in Libya, then that's what we record here. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been a matter we have all been discussing, and I believe the consensus of the editors is that: the conflict is relevant to Libyan history and affects the country's present status, and the conflict is relevant at an international level due to the split in recognition of Gaddafi's government versus the national council in Benghazi. I agree that we should not allow breaking news to clutter this main article, nor should we encroach overmuch on Wikinews' territory, but certainly the fact that two governments claim to represent Libya (and none boasts full diplomatic recognition as of this time) is relevant, as is the fact that (regardless of the outcome) the country was divided in allegiance and plunged into a state of near-civil war in early 2011. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Map issue

Could a color other than green be used for Libya with it comes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libya_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg. I agree with the last edit that countries use this kind of map in the infobox than a relief map, but Green is the main color of the Gaddafi Government and, of course, the color of his revolution and of the flag. I am not sure what color you suggest, but I would avoid green, red and black for the sake of NPOV. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can make a blue version if it's really that much of a concern. Seems a little silly though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just tossing out ideas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever. If it is an issue then it's easy enough to fix. Look good? Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Its kind of Detroit Lions blue. It looks fine to me, does wp have a 'house style' for colours to be used in location maps? Sayerslle (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every country uses that shade of green. The one exception I know of is Somalia, which uses the same blue on its map. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The EU states use a bluish color, but it mostly stands for some kind of key. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why on Earth did we change the SOP color just because it offended one or two editors? It's a sad day for freedom of conscience when colors become CrimeThink. I'm not advocating it be restored just yet, for the same reason I'm not going to bother pushing for the restoration of flag and arms: within a week or two this insurgency will have been successfully put-down and then we can get down to the business of undoing all the changes. I would just ask people - before you go rushing to jump into the deep end of the pool to turn this entry into one for a pretend country - take a moment to read the news and know the success of the Libyan people and their Army in retaking the terrorist-held cities. I ask only you tread carefully in altering the entry so, in a week or two, when it's time to undo all the changes, it can be accomplished with minimum pain. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am just here to provide suggestions and perhaps some mediation on this issue. I still personally think we should have the Gaddafi symbols here, but with the developments in France, we need to either include both or none (almost like what was done with Kosovo). As for the map, I was not offended by having the green map, but if the main issue folks have here is NPOV, then suggestions would be made to try and balance it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god it's just a map. It doesn't matter what colour it is. Green, blue, purple, whatever. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; let's go ahead and change it back to Green. To have this one map not conform to de facto country color of Wikipedia is stylistically and aesthetically upsetting. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't care what colour it is. If there is a standard, perhaps they know at WP:WPC. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we have consensus that no one cares what color it is, let's just go ahead and revert it to green. Thanks. Felixhonecker (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did change the map back to green and the last edit I saw was this; "(diff | hist) . . Libya‎; 04:30 . . (+15) . . Thegunkid (talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 418932326 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) Green map violates Wikipedia:NPOV due to extensive use of that color by Gaddafi ) [rollback]" User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey I originally tried to apply the Kosovo model of using a physical map, before someone else switched it to the blue map citing NPOV, so I'm just going to throw up my arms now --Thegunkid (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-issueas far as I'm concerned, people are imagining bias in a map color that is used in many other nation's articles. It's just a color. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, but I am trying to work with the editors and trying to stop possible edit wars. If we did choose a color map, it would be a good idea to avoid the colors of either side. I think the map we have now is a good idea, but I seen edit wars before going from this kind of topography map and go with a one color map, and back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Look obviously this green colour is causing problems and it's way too much energy to endlessly revert it. How about this: Let's all acknowledge that the green colour was indeed chosen for perfectly innocuous reasons that have nothing to do with any Gaddafi-related POV. And then despite that, let's all just be willing to temporarily switch the colour of the map anyway just to stop people from THINKING there's some POV. You know? Just save ourselves some headache. I mean honestly does anyone really care if the map is light blue? I don't. I mean yeah it's non-standard but whatever. There are other countries where a non-standard map colour is used. I really feel like this would be so easy to fix. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:LAMEST. We're not changing the standard map color for some silly ideological reasons. Further edit warring on this will result in blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't edit war over this but I think you are too laying down the law here - 'will result in blocks' - etc ..are you the law? the fact is green is very very very heavily identified with one side at this time - gaddafi himself was recently offered a red cushion or something and he said 'since when do people offer me red ..' etc he has a green flag, his mercenaries and thugs and torturers wear green bandannas , ( torturers, yes, the BBC Arabic journalists taken prisoner have given witness of the fate of prisoners taken at Zawiya), his equivalent of maos little red book is his green book etc.. it was light blue the location map colouring, that was fine , until some 'the rules say, whatever blah blah ' rule constrained jobsworths, - what about IAR anyhow - anyway i'm sick of morally neutered bureaucrats -who think taking NPOV seriously deserves blocks or summat etc..if a colour looks like it supports the dictator 'stinking with madness and hysteria' - Christopher Hitchens words, why not use the light blue - what harm was it doing - who edit warred it back? Sayerslle (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. The block warning still stands. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I frankly do not care what colour the map is, though I do like consistency I must say. Sayerslle if you truly believe this is an NPOV problem, as I have said to you before, take it to a noticeboard. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please just use the model of the Kosovo and use the physical map at the top and the map causing all this trouble in the Jamahiriya infobox? --Thegunkid (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Three Libyan males

Do we really need a photo like that? Should we maybe insert a photo of three typical USA males too...just in case? I find it highly nonencyclopaedic at its best.--Dia^ (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we try and include photos of typical citizens from the country to showcase dress, customs, and perhaps an activity that is common there. But the image we have here, I agree, doesn't meet what I think we should have. The fact that Libya is mostly full of young people should be an important fact that should be kept and cited. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd hardly describe those three as "young" - they look pretty grizzled, early '30's each of them I'm sure. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

they certainly do not illustrate the "population under the age of 15" as the caption suggests. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Zscout370 What you are saying is interesting. Funnily enough there is no photo for "typical" USA citizens, nor for Canadians or British, nor even for Mexicans and Japanese. And I could go on and on with the list. I'm removing the photo. --Dia^ (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With topics like the US, Japanese and other big countries, they will have an article about demographics and you will see the images here. I remember when I put Belarus up for FA, I included traditional dresses from that country. I also agree that the photo should be removed. User:Zscout370

I've never noticed these photos outside of the articles for ethnic groups

^{(Return Fire)} 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer and I'm pleased that we agree on this particular image. Intrigued by your explanation I went to look at the demographic articles on the above mentioned countries. Demography of the United Kingdomhas such images, Demographics of the United States has none too, the same is valid for Japan and even for Syria. Images of traditional dresses would naturally be included in any article about the culture of the place.--Dia^ (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the flag

This country has no flag? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It has two, both recognized by different parties both internationally recognized by different countries. So neither are shown. 66.183.11.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

The flag is disputed at the moment. Two entities are claiming to be the government and they each prefer a different flag. We've removed all flags from the infobox temporarily to keep the infobox neutral. We could potentially clarify this situation by putting something like this in:

|other_symbol_type = [[Flag of Libya|Flags currently flown in Libya]]:

|other_symbol = [[File:Flag of Libya.svg|105px|border]] [[File:Flag of Libya (1951).svg|105px|border]]<br>''The flag of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (left) and the flag flown by the National Transitional Council (right)''

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that there would not be much of a consensus for that move. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It has a flag that is internationally recognized as its flag (including by the IMO for purpose of international navigation, as another commenter pointed out). However, some people have seen a flag being waved in Facebook pictures and news reports about things other than the flag itself so, as a consequence, all flags have been deleted.This weekend I may turn on the emergency-band scanner, find the nearest house fire to me and race down to it with the Flag of Mars and begin waving it around so as to be captured in the background of a news report on the fire waving the flag of Mars. I'll then tweet about it. After all this, I'll vociferously demand the country page for the United States delete the U.S. flag and replace it with the Flag of Mars, but will ultimately compromise if all flags are deleted from that entry. Anyway, I joke, though only half-seriously. Those of us defending the legal and recognized flag are just letting the internet activists have run of the entry for a bit. Now that the Libyan Army is engaged in mop-up operations against the insurgents we'll be able to revert the article soon enough so it's not worth making a fuss over. The entry can be inaccurate for a week. No biggie. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, let us WP:AGF. Such WP:SARCASM helps nothing, and certainly does not help build a better encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the claims of the local residents and the official declarations of the transitional gov't in Benghazi, there is at least one country (France) which has recognised the NTC as the legitimate gov't of Libya. Besides this, all the EU countries and the GCC countries have declared the Tripoli government to be illegitimate. Therefore there are at the moment two entities who can claim to be the rightful representative of Libya - with different flags. Thus either both should be shown, or none. The above comment by Felixhonecker is unprofessional and offensive. 82.113.121.87 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If for example some people in the USA carry another flag and for example North Korea does recognise this flag will we remove the American flag from the USA article? Also another question is that nearly half of the Republic of Cyprus uses North Cyprus Flag and so why dont we remove Republic of Cyprus flag from the article? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if the United States fell into civil war and had two entities claiming to be the legitimate government of the country, and that second government had de facto control over the entire Eastern Seaboard, flew an entirely different flag, and was recognized by North Korea, then yes. Yes we would have to change that infobox. But I suppose we can cross that bridge when we come to it. As for Northern Cyprus, that's not the same as the situation in Libya, since the TRNC is a breakaway state, not a competing government. A more analogous situation would be the one in China, where both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China claim to be the sole government of a single country. However, the Chinese Civil War has been over for a long time now, and the situation there has stabilized. If the current Libyan conflict did ultimately end the same way (i.e. in a stalemate with two de facto independent states at peace with each other but still competing for international recognition), then presumably we would split the article and each of those states would have their own infobox with their own flag. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A similar situation of competing governments also exist in Kosovo (between the Republic of Kosovo and the Assembly of the Community of Municipalities of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (under UN administration)). On the main kosovo page we have a general infobox and two infoboxes below - one for each entity claiming to be the official government. We could include similar infoboxes below the main infobox on this page - I have created examples at my talk page User talk:Dn9ahx. In the event of a long stalemate - we could have one page for the political situation in the GSPLAJ and one for the LR. The main Libya page would include non-political information. Again we do this for Kosovo having a general kosovo page and seperate pages for the RoK and APK&M. Dn9ahx (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added these two infoboxes to the page. Dn9ahx (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Three infoboxes makes for an awfully cluttered page with a lot of duplicated information. It'd be nice if we could all agree on a more elegant solution. At the very least could we shrink the second and third boxes? I don't think we really need "Demonym" in all three boxes, for example. Nor do we need to tell the reader that the capital of Libya is Tripoli three times. Something the size of User:Orange_Tuesday/Libya3 would be more appropriate. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your idea seems better than mine - do it!

Hmm, it still seems kind of long. I suppose it works for now but we should think of a more concise way to present all this data. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Felixhonecker I am glad you have a crystal ball and it tells you what will happen. I also have a crystal ball and my crystal ball tells me the revolution will be a struggle but soon enough Qaddafi will die in a bunker as Hitler did. Or Qaddafi will be strung on a rope or shot by firing squad by the Libyan people for the war crimes he has committed.JoeC 3rd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

I feel that the hate for Gaddafi makes some of the wikipedians get away from objectivity and force the article and a state to be lack of a flag. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Mulaz. However, let's AGF for now. Since the Libyan people and their army are now in mop-up operations against the "rebels" we can best contribute by just starting to compile a list of things we'll need to put back in the entry in 2-3 days once the last city they hold - Benghazi - has been liberated. At that point it would probably be germane to sit down with all editors and have a critical post-mortem about how we can - collectively - prevent future country entries from turning into Wikinews next time it's a slow newsweek and CNN decides to overpromote the revolution of the day. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that everyone on this page needs to stop acting like every single insignificant edit comes down to a question of pro-Gaddafi bias vs. anti-Gaddafi bias. Seriously, I get that a lot of people here are emotionally invested in the future of this country but there is no need to assume that there's an ulterior motive at play every time someone adds a flag or removes a flag or changes the colour of a map or whatever.

Nothing that has happened on this article has been improper. The rebels gained control of half of the country, declared themselves to be a government, and secured a degree of international recognition. This was all confirmed by reliable news sources, so we added the rebels to the page in as neutral a manner as possible. If those same sources report that the situation has changed and the rebellion has been put down, then the rebels will be removed from the page in as neutral a manner as possible. It is as simple and as fair as that and there is no reason why any of this has to involve any drama at all. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Case of Abkhazia

Abkhazia has a de jure government and a de facto government. There is one entry for Abkhazia (the country and government that controls the majority of territory of that country) and one entry for Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia (the legal government that controls a minority of territory [in fact, no territory at all]). If we accept (which I am not willing to do but will for purposes of this argument) that Libya has two de jure governments, then let us give this country page to the de jure government that controls a majority of territory and population (that of Col. Qadaffi) and then make an entirely separate entry for the political entity that controls a minority of territory. It is beyond ridiculous to have a country entry with no flag and seal. Even Somalia has a flag! We shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a cheerleading platform for each cause celebre. Felixhonecker (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

What you write is simply factually wrong : the article Abkhazia contains two sections of roughly equal lengh whose titles are "Government of the Republic of Abkhazia" and "Government in exile: Government of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia", and there are two separate entries : the Government_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Abkhazia you hint, but also Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. French Tourist (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is deceptive in the extreme. Which flag is fronted on the entry Abkhazia? A compromise flag? No, it is the flag of the non-Georgian government of Abkhazia. Felixhonecker (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right about this one (as far as I checked who uses which flag, only checking on Wikipedia). This is not a reasonable state of things, feel free to remove the flag from the Abkhazia article, I think this would be a good thing to do. French Tourist (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

um, this is Talk:Libya. The case of Abkhazia isn't comparable because Abkhazia attempts to secede from Georgia, it doesn't try to topple the government of Georgia. In the Libyan conflict, both sides agree as a matter of fact that there is a single country of Libya, the question is just who should govern it. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Abkhazia and South Ossetia infoboxes are indeed very POV - I have tried to apply the Kosovo model to these pages in the past but these edits are usually undone without discussion. Again in these cases there are two competing entities claiming to be the govenrment of these regions, one which claims to be an independent state and one that claims to be an autonomous region. The Kosovo model should be used for these infoboxes. Dn9ahx (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo infoboxes have been the subject of long, repetitive, long, repetitive and long discussion over the past three years or so. I agree with your sentiment that the Kosovo case has seen more thorough discussion, and now should be used as a model for the other two.

But fortunately, this has no bearing on this article (Libya), because Libya isn't experiencing a war of secession, it is experiencing a classic civil war, with a republican force trying to oust an autocratic regime (in former centuries known as "monarchy", but since most monarchies have in fact turned democratic, what used to be a "monarch" (single ruler) is now described as "autocrat" or "dictator".) --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya currently is a republic. NPOV, please. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, although the protesters are referring to the state as the "Libyan Arab Republic", the Gaddafi regime explicitly refers to itself as the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (see The Green Book). Although the state is not a monarchy, it is quite clearly also not a republic. Rather, it is more of a dictatorship in the traditional sense of the word. The Celestial City (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a Jamahiriya may function as a dictatorship but officially it's supposed to be more like a direct democracy than anything. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) If Libya is (a) a state, and (b) isn't a monarchy, then it's a republic. Jamahiriya is a power-source descriptor (analogous to "federal republic", "socialist republic", "theocratic republic", etc.) (2) "dictatorship" is a weasel word. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words are words that present the appearance of support for a statement without actual attributing that support to a specific source. So "experts say", "it is widely thought", and "it has been proven" are all examples of weasel words. "Dictatorship" is not a weasel word. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize "The Celestial City" was an "expert." Felixhonecker (talk) 02:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Celestial City doesn't have anything to do with it. "Dictatorship" is not the type of word that can be a weasel word. Doesn't matter who says it. See WP:WEASEL. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't presume to lecture me on Weasel Words. "Dictatorship", in the absence of widespread use of that word that is accurately cited, is a "contentious label" as defined by WP:WEASEL. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. Contentious labels are WP:LABEL. Weasel words are defined in the "Unsupported attributions" section of that page. And unlike the examples given in WP:LABEL, the word "dictatorship" is not considered a contentious label and is widely used on Wikipedia. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Anyway, both WP:WEASEL and WP:LABEL are in a manual of style for articles. Even if "dictatorship" was a word to avoid, you wouldn't have to avoid using it on talk pages. Orange Tuesday (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect.Felixhonecker (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It hardly seems contentious to note Gadaffi as a dictator. [3] and therefore that Libya is a dictatorship. I don't think the MOS applies to talk pages. All that said, we are getting pretty far afield here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

UN Resolution 1973

This now needs its own section no that the allies' no-fly zone is live and military operations to follow.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.226.170 (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war: Libyan government

I'd like to request consensus that the government of Libya is presently disputed between Gaddafi's regime and the opposition government in Benghazi. This seems entirely reasonable considering that most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps have expressed their loyalties lie with the opposition, most of Libya proper is under the control of the opposition, and yet Gaddafi is still considered to be in control of the capital at Tripoli. Gaddafi is no longer Libya's undisputed ruler, nor is the opposition wholly unorganized as of 26 February 2011. This edit war is pointless and unproductive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and as soon as reliable sources declare him to be toppled, been killed, arrested or having fled the country, we will be able to update the article and close the period in Libyan history. But not before. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that matters as to saying Gaddafi is no longer head of government. But it's clear there are now two governments in Libya with some modicum of control and claim to legitimacy, and they are actively disputing control of the capital city. Once Gaddafi is gone, he'll be removed from the infobox altogether. As of right now, the government of Libya is disputed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that the government is disputed. Which is exactly my point, since we don't know what side is going to prevail in the dispute, and we don't have any reliable sources stating that Gaddafi is not in power anymore, adding a closing date to his "reign" is most definitely premature. We are not here to anticipate events, just reflect them after they have occured. --McSly (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that point; examining the facts, putting an end date does seem premature. I'm strictly referring to the infobox when I say I think it should be changed and I'd like to get consensus before I change it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we would need some international recognition before such changes are made. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The Tripoli-based government of Libya de facto et de jure is recognized by 192 different nations. The rumored insurgent government of Jalil is recognized by 0 nations. Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports or Wikipedia discussions. Read the entry state if you need a primer on this. As for "most of Libya proper" - the fact that vast expanses of desert MAY be under insurgent control means nothing when the city and environs where 50% of the population lives is still under government stability. As for "most of Libya's overseas diplomatic corps" ... the moment any ambassador renounces the Tripoli-government they no longer comprise part of Libya's diplomatic corps. As pointed about by another editor above, accreditation papers are accepted by a head of state from a head of state and are not legally transferrable at the will of the ambassador. Ergo, the former Libyan ambassador to the UN has lapsed accredidtation at this moment in time and is no longer ambassador. So you're talking about "Libya's FORMER diplomatic corps" which is meaningless in the same way it would be meaningless if Jimmy Carter declared himself King of Ohio. Berber1 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your pro-Gaddafi bias is showing. Credible reports indicate the opposition controls all of Cyrenaica and most of the cities and towns in the west surrounding Tripoli and Surt. Furthermore, the UN continues to recognize the Libyan mission as representative of the country, as does the United States, and the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. has recognized the opposition government. There's certainly a question as to international recognition (though it should be noted several countries, including Peru, have terminated relations with Libya, and many more have called for Gaddafi to step down or be removed), but I think there's little question as to de facto control that doesn't verge into "Baghdad Bob" levels of logical fallacy. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Flooding the talk page will not change that. Stop injecting false statements. If the UN continues to give full accredidation to the Libyan ambassador then point to a verfiaible reference. Because "Kudzu1" said it does not make it true. Termination of diplomatic relations does not equal termination of diplomatic recognition. As for "Baghdad Bob levels of logical fallacy" - reported for WP:CIVIL violations. Berber1 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're going to base that on. I have yet to see one credible media report, or a statement from someone who isn't part of the Gaddafi regime or one of Gaddafi's few remaining allies, contradicting the images on other pages - to which this article links repeatedly - of maps with Gaddafi's de facto control shrunk down to Tripoli and a few other towns in the west. If you'd like to provide one, and it becomes apparent there is no consensus as to the opposition controlling anything but some patches of desert, then that opens up a much broader discussion that will impact far more articles on this website. As to the matter of the UN ambassador, I linked to an article when mentioning Libya's expulsion from the Human Rights Council, and the Libyan Interim Government article and others include links to articles describing the ambassador to the U.S. as active and not former. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have neither time nor desire to dig through your past comments in other threads to find this link. If you can't provide it here I am inclined to believe it is of dubious quality. The city of Tripoli houses 1/3 of the nation's population and the immediate environs another amount equal to 50%. I understand and appreciate you are a supporter of the Florida-based Libyan Youth Movement and their CIA-trained leader 70 year-old Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Sahad, however, please do not let your POV cloud edits to this entry. Whether or not we are supporters of the US Defense Department's oil acquisition operations in Libya, many of us want to see Qadaffi removed from power. That doesn't mean we need to inject personal dreams and aspirations into an encylcopedia entry, nor insult people with whom we disagree or start chest-thumping, finger-pointing and yelling "Pro-Qadaffi!!! Get 'im boys!." Please choose to behave in a mature and restrained manner moving forward. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Kudzu1, assume good faith, that is very important. Because someone disagrees with you, they are not necessarily pro Gadaffi, hell, I cannot wait until he is out of power, but, I still say we stay with the de jure government, as I noted, if a plethora of nations suddenly recognize this new group, then we can revisit this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The assumption was more based on the language he used rather than his position in the debate, but your point is well taken and I apologize. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology and will not continue in the filing of the WP:CIVIL complaint against you. Berber1 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Governments obtain legal status through recognition by other governments, not by CNN reports". Sorry to disagree - any source of sufficient quality can be used. The important thing is that enough recognized authors (scholar, renowned journalist,...) consider the interim government as a government to justify allusions to this government in the article. The POV of diplomatic relations is an important one, but it is not the only one. French Tourist (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I could care less if you disagree or not, that doesn't change the fact that governments do not obtain legal recognition by "recognized authors." This is a fact that is not open to debate. This is a legal question, not a pop culture question. Governments obtain legality through one method and one method only. There is no government - not even 1 - that has recognized the existence of any government de jure in Libya other than that which is sitting in Tripoli. We've been over this a thousand times. Edit the entry for cat or something if you have time to kill.Berber1 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox has no entry about "legally recognized governments" or "government de jure" but about "government". (Incidentally, the topic of "recognition of governments" is not a trivial one, since today loads of states have a policy not to recognize governments but States, see [5]). About the "entry for cat", please remain polite - this is not an acceptable remark. French Tourist (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That is implicit in the conventions and standards used in the editing of every other country infobox. If you have an issue with that it would be better you take it up with the WP country working group, not here. And, I regret that I did errantly write "government" where I meant "state." My apologies for the confusion you may have experienced as a result. Berber1 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be more specific, I think this diff [6] (removing from the infobox the indication of a muddled situation as concerns "government") was perhaps judicious when it happened a few hours ago, but we might think of reverting it again, in no hurry. We should begin first by looking for reliable sources hinting that the determination of the government of Lybia is not obvious, integrate this information in the article if we can find it, and as a final step change the content of the infobox. French Tourist (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I have browsed through some sources on the web, typically The Guardian. As far as I try to distillate the information they contain in a useful shape for our infobox problem, it seems that the following informations are now ascertained :

• the Tripoli government has de facto no authority on large tracts of the country ;
• there exists a self-proclaimed "provisional government", supported by some Libyan diplomats but we have very few informations on its authority over the rebellious areas.

In the present state of knowledge (things could change in twelve or twenty-four hours, of course), I think that hinting at this self-proclaimed governement in the infobox would not be reasonable. On the other hand, since the Kaddafi government is obviously in a difficult position, I would suggest to follow the solution presently used in the Ivory Coast article : that is replacing any names of rulers in the infobox bye the mention "(disputed)". Any objections ? French Tourist (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian's liveblog for today contains a relevant item on this: "3.01pm: Some clarification from anti-Gaddafi forces in Benghazi, where the revolt began, on that interim government. They say the National Libyan Council they have formed is not an interim government but the "face of the revolution". At a news conference, they said an interim government announced by the former justice minister was his own "personal view"." [7] I would be hesitant to give too much credence this new government before we really know what's going on with it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this article. If there is only one authority in the country claiming to be a government, the situation is more related to Somalia than Ivory Coast. My suggestion might be a bit premature (or unappropriate, I don't claim I know what will happen next week). Let's wait a few more hours or days ? French Tourist (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

or weeks Berber1 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

YES I OBJECT. I object for the reasons Orange Tuesday outlined above. Can you people maybe take a walk or rent a movie or something? Wikipedia is not a race. Had we made the change French Tourist wanted - for the reasons Tuesday outlined - we would have made this article inaccurate. Just take a valium ... when there are clear indicators from a large swath of reputable sources then, in a contemplative, slow and deliberative way over a period of days, we can consider changes to this entry. Put a yellow ribbon on your Facebook page or something if you want to engage in meaningless cyber-gestures that have no impact. Sorry - but you people really need to back off and not get so caught up in the hysteria of the moment. Berber1 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just take a valium is not acceptable either. Please stop talking this way. French Tourist (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret you feel aggrieved. Berber1 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation is unclear at the moment - it was reported on 27 feb that a Libyan interim government had been formed by former justice minister Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al Jeleil and that he was planning elections in three months time. On 27 Feb it was announced that a National Libyan Council has been formed and that it was not a provisional government. A spokesperson for the new body stated that "Mr Abud Al Jeleil's plans for a Libyan interim government were his "personal view"" Dn9ahx (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While Berber1's choice of words above leave something to be desired his/her sentiment is dead on. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. We do not need to get this right right now. We don't need to be continually combing through the papers/other sources, waiting to spring on the moment when we can confidently say "Now, right now, the sources switched ever so slightly into saying the old government is illegitimate and the rebels will form a new one." Our job is never to try to capture the state of "truth" right now, especially in a situation like this one that is changing moment by moment. When the situation becomes totally clear, then we can make changes. At some point it will almost inevitably become correct for us to remove the flag, leaving it blank until a full government is formed, then eventually we'll be able to add in a new flag. But Wikipedia should always be lagging far behind both "new media" and the traditional media. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We should settle this issue as we did for the two Chinas, We should make Libya talk about the region and put links to the two governments. We can change the Gaddafi government to Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and then a page called Libyan Republic. This shouldn't be a page for the region, and both government infoboxes --Gimelthedog (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support splitting the page like that if the conflict in Libya settles into a stalemate like the conflict in China. I feel like we'd be jumping the gun to do it now though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox footnoate about capital of Libya

I have removed a footnote in the infobox relating to the capital city. The footnote stated that Benghazi was the de-facto capital. Reasons for doing so: 1 - No source given. 2 - The Gaddafi regime is still recognised by most countries (as much to do with diplomatic convention and the wish to avoid creating precedents elsewhere, rather than an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the Gadafi regime). 3 - The current attacks on Libya seem to have sidelined the Libyan rebellion; the so-called coalition is led by the US and European countries with oil interests in Libya, and also includes Arabian peninsula monarchies that are suppressing opposition to their own regimes e.g. the racist and homophobic Al-Saud regime. If anyone wants to restore the footnote with a proper source, I will not object. However, all the fighting that matters is in the skies over Libya, and Wikipedia ought to restrict itself to reporting verifiable news events rather than making news or attempting to lead events. Rugxulo (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That footnote didn't say "de facto capital of Libya", it said "de facto administrative centre of the Libyan Republic". That's just another way of saying "headquarters of the Libyan opposition". Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good. As for the rest of the concerns listed, please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient history section - non-English source problem

Bertarelli, L.V. (1929) (in Italian). Guida d'Italia, Vol. XVII. Milano: Consociazione Turistica Italiana <-- used as a reference. I cannot find this book at the local universities, nor can I read Italian. Aside from the use of a non-English source in the English wiki article, the following is cited from it: "On the other side, Cyrenaica hosted the first Christian communities by the time of Claudius, [19] but was heavily devastated during the Bar Kokhba revolt, and from then started its decadence." Well, first off, the first Christian communities were not here, but in Judea and Asia Minor - I think this is a translation issue, and should say that "Cyrenaica's first Christian communities were established by the time of the (emperor) Claudius." Additionally, it was during the earlier Kitos War that the city's Jews and Greeks/Romans had their conflict - I can't find any reference that there was still fighting by the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in my various 60 books on Roman history. Does anyone have this book, and since it is in Italian should it not be used for the English wiki article, and does it even qualify as a reliable source? The information should be corrected anyway, and perhaps different sources used to cover it. And finally - no flags were harmed in the making of this commentary. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hallo HammerFilmFan,

I am the delinquent. :-) I have the book, which is a gold mine of information about Libya, not only historical, but ethnic, geographic, etc.. About the first issue, you are right, it is a problem of my (Italo-)English, I corrected it. About the second issue, you are right again! I put the wrong link. The Italian sources, (not just Bertarelli), always write about the Great Jewish Revolt, and place it under Traianus. I looked under it, and I landed under what by us is called the Jewish War. There I took the wrong link, but today I wanted to check, because in my "unterbewusstein" I knew that Bar Kokhba's revolt took place under Hadrian (Yourcenar docet :-)) By the way, my source says that order was reestablished in Cyrenaica by Marcius Turbo, but I did not reported it, because I did not want to inflate the article too much. About the reliability of the source, "Bertarelli" did not write a single line in this book (at that time he was already dead), but his name appears as author since he was the initiator of the monumental "Guida d'Italia". This book is the last volume of the series, and covers Libya, Eritrea, Somalia and the Aegean Islands. The contributors are sixty, and represent the best which Italy could offer at that time about the subject. The author of the history part is Prof. Micacchi, an archeologist, director of the archeological museum of Tripoli at that time, and very reliable: at the end of the book there is a bibliographic note 12 page long (about 400 book and publications, of course all written before 1929). Anyway, I worked on the ancient history section because it was almost completely unsourced, contained such "pearls" as "By 64 BC, Julius Caesar's legions had established their occupation", and treated often Cyrenaica and Tripolitania as a whole, forgetting that in that period they followed completely different historical paths. I found most of the problems in the Roman period: what is written after in the article coincides 99 % with what I can read (another proof of reliability?). A last example about the reliability of this book: last week I read the pages where it is explained how to reach Kufra (at that time still independent) from Benghazi (not by car, but by camel :-)). I checked it with Google maps, and the itinerary coincides up to the last palm tree :-) Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for responding. I wish I had an English version of this book/series. I'm a little uncomfortable with it being used in the English wiki, but if editors can quickly reference and respond to questions here, I guess it will be satisfactory. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Thanks! The book is very easy to find, and also cheap, but unfortunately exists only in Italian. By the way, yesterday I read the "Libyan" part of my Rostovtzeff (2nd edition, of course), which for Africa uses almost only Italian authors :-), and I will update the sources accordingly. At least this book is in English... Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 oil-producing countries?

The article's introduction currently says: "Libya is one of the world's 10 richest oil-producing countries." However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Production lists it at #17 in petroleum production. On the other hand, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Estimated_reserves_by_country lists it as #10 in proven oil reserves. The meaning of the term "richest" is ambiguous anyway. Does that refer to GDP per capita? I am editing this statement to "Libya has the 10th-largest proven oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production." 146.163.166.75 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

city rankings

The news has been reporting Misrata is the 3rd-largest city. But we don't have its population. Meanwhile, the article on Al Bayda claims it's third. In our uprising maps, it's smaller than several other cities. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.205.240.166, 29 March 2011

Spelling error: The rulers were "Bey(s)" not "Dey(s)" in power. Please make the correction.

69.205.240.166 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a spelling error. Bey and Dey are different titles, and between 1611 and 1711 the ruler of Tripoli was a dey. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• Closed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Current sections are too biased

There is one section under the "2011 Revolution" that reads:

On Saturday 19 March 2011, the first Allied act to secure the no-fly zone began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.[80] Allied military action to enforce the ceasefire commenced the same day when a French aircraft opened fire and destroyed an enemy vehicle on the ground. French jets also destroyed five enemy tanks belonging to the Gaddafi regime.[81] The United States and United Kingdom launched attacks on over 20 "integrated air defense systems" using more than 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles during operations Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy.[82]

I feel that the word "enemy" is unnecessary and biased. For example, where it reads: "French jets also destroyed five enemy tanks belonging to the Gaddafi regime"... you could easily express it the same way by saying "French jets also destroyed five tanks belonging to the Gaddafi regime", with no connotations as to which side is "good or bad" as the word "enemy" implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeekLTK (talk • contribs) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya under gadaffi section

Im just looking at some of the older versions of this article. Its funny how two weeks ago... life under Gadaffi wasnt so bad. The americans liked him because he was only moderately socialist and he denounced terrorism against the western powers. Now here we are two weeks later and Gadaffi's been oppressing people for decades.

Yourliver (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. The American people have not "liked" Gadaffi at any time - especially during the Reagan era. The U.S. government tolerated him after he started to behave himself (only as far as overt terrorism goes) - sort of 'the devil you know' - but they would always have preferred a peaceful democracy there. However, despite international perceptions from time to time, the USA, nor NATO, is the world's policeman - that would be impossible politically and economically. More importantly, what has this to do with improving the article? Wiki is not a forum, nor is it to be used to right great wrongs.  ?HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I believe that Yourliver was commenting on the state of previous versions of this article, and how they differ from the current one, rather than any sort of truth or real life issue. An interesting observation if true, and something that should be looked at once all this fuss ends. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in no way, shape or form a fan of Gaddaffi or his rule in Libya, and desperately hope that victory for the 'rebels' in the East bring a peaceful, democratic country, but I couldn't help feeling that this section doesn't read entirely 100% NPOV. Wikipedia's value lies in its objectivity and I wonder if someone more knowledgable about the subject than me would check on the language used? Some adjectives and the manner events are described seem, to me, to be less than impartial. Also, no offence to HammerFilmFan, but are you really claiming to speak for the entire American people?90.218.38.66 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic are equally treated in this article, it should be written as a civilization.

If Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Libyan Republic are equally treated in this article, it should be written as a civilization, in corresponding to China and Korea. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 20:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is definately not a NPOV if China and Korea are "civilization"s, while Libya is "a country with two governments". ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We may ultimately need to split this article, but right now things in Libya are up in the air. I'd say give it time and once things settle we can decide what the best way to present this information is. Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Why don't you say "give it time and once things settle we can decide what the best way to present this information is" in the article China and Korea? ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we know what the situation with China and Korea is, it has been settled for over 60 years. Libya, it changes by the day. Plus, there is no "Libyan civilization." Culture yes, civilization no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the situation with China and Korea has been settled for over 60 years, but till now they're still in a civil-war state (even-though ceased-fire). So no difference to Libya.

You must have defined "civilization" as a much developed culture. But by its definition, where there are citizens, there're “civil” things, incl. civilization. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of China, you have two distinct landmasses (Mainland Proper and Taiwan). The Communists and Kuomintang are clearly defined in landmasses so that is not like Libya, where the battle lines and borders are changing on a daily basis. Korea, while it is technically one landmass, has been defined by the 53rd Parallel for many years. While skirmishes have happened in the past year, there has been no significant movement of troops from either side to take over the other. The problem with Libya is that in this same landmass, you have unclear lines of battle, and based on the actions the French have taken, now have two competing governments. A lot of information is changing constantly, so it will be impossible to split articles up now. Once we figure out what is going on, then we can make our move. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so: Dachen Islands may one day become the mainland side and one day become the kuomingtang side, as well as Matsu, Prata, etc. Also, the sea near Northern Limit Line is one day controled by North Korea and the other day get back by South Koreans. This is quite similar to the current Libyan situation. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The islands were given to the PRC in 1955 and there is no active claim to get them. No matter what kind of sea battles take place between the Koreas, we both know there is a North and a South Korea and has been for over 60 years. The splitting of Libya like this has only occurred for 1 month. If this split does become the norm, then we can turn Libya into China and Korea. Until then, the way the article is will work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we all calm down here? This is a real-life evolving situation, and facts are unclear. We've already got a gross WP:RECENT problem here, which is expected. We don't want to go around making things all the more complicated. It's not like theres a deadline, so perhaps hold back on the massive overhauls. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The comparison to China and Korea is valid, but another one you might make is to the Congo Crisis. Now obviously Wikipedia wasn't around in 1961, but if it had been, and we had acted too hastily back then, we might have ended up splitting the page into Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) for Mobutu's regime and Republic of the Congo (Stanleyville) for Gizenga's regime, only to merge it back like a year later. Would this have been a valid way to organize the DRC page for that year? Maybe, but I can't imagine that the resulting pages would have been well-written, clear, or helpful for the reader.

We can comfortably split Korea and China because the divisions there are decades old. The relative age and coolness of the conflicts has basically made them a permanent fixture of the international scene. The conflict in Libya started a month ago, and for all we know it will be over in a month. It is too soon to make major changes to the structure to this page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What Orange Tuesday said. This is a completely unreasonable suggestion. Also, there may be a "Chinese civilization", but there is no "Libyan civilization" any more than there is a "Sichuan civilization". The larger "civilization" of which Libya forms a part is the "Arab" or "Islamic civilization". There isn't even a historical region called "Libya" (as there is one called "China". "Libya" is just an ancient name for "Africa" revived by the Italian colonists for their Italian Libya in the early 20th century. The historical regions are actually called Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, and the two are incidentially very similar to the de-facto division between Gaddafi's Libya and liberated Libya at this point. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, there is Sichuan civilization (巴蜀文明), include ancient Qiangic peoples, Qiangic-influenced Sichuanese people and language, culture, and Kham Tibetan culture, etc. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 08:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay but regardless identifying "Libya" as "the Libyan civilization" is just not something that is done in English. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah change it to say Michigan and Wisconsin or Ontario and Manitoba... Either way OT is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not "wrong", you are just playing semantic games with the word "civilization". Sure, so there is a "Sichuan civilization". I am sure there is also a "Nafusi civilization". Perhaps there is even a "Michigan civilization", who can tell. This isn't about telling people whether they are "civilized". It just shows that your idea of grouping "Libya" under the heading of "civilization" is completely misguided. Perhaps it would help if you just read, and then respected, WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a Michigan culture, but I would not even call it a civilization (since it uses American currency, English language (though home to many immigrants from Iraq in some parts). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was being facetious, trying to illustrate how Mr. 虞海 was on the wrong track with his "civilization" thing. I rest my case now :) --dab (𒁳) 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

YAMT

Yet another map thread. A new map has been added, which claims to show Gadaffi controlled, LNC controlled and contested areas. It is a fine map and took a lot of work, but, heck, this may change day to day or hour by hour. Until the situation is stable, I say remove it, but I want to see what others think first. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a frequently updated and more detailed map of the uprising at 2011 Libyan uprising: File:Libyan Uprising.svg. Perhaps instead of putting the district-by-district map in the infoboxes we could put the city-by-city map somewhere in the body of the article? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

truth or myth?

can someone please verify each of these, and give a WP:RS if possible.

Few facts about the life of the population in Libya (under Gaddafi)

1. interest-free loans,
2. in the study student receives an average wage for the occupation
3. if you do not find a job after graduation, the state pais equivalent for the work in the profession,
4. upon entry into marriage, the state pays an apartment or house,
5. purchase of vehicles done at the factory price,
6. does not owe anyone a cent,
7. free health care and education at home and abroad (the state pays)
8. 25% of the population is highly educated,
9. 40 loaves of bread costs only $ 0.15.

Thanks. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds just ducky. The people of Benghazi must just really like freedom. Theres a fable about this - Lafontaine 'The wolf and the dog' book 1, number 5 92.4.54.195 (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

At least 9) is true, and documented in the last issue of Limes (in Italian). In general, Gaddafi's Libya is (was) a Rentier state, like Saudi Arabia. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

everybody agrees that Gaddafi was a master at the stick-and-carrot method. You are listing the things that go under "carrot". Everyone who didn't take the carrot got the stick. This belongs in the Libya under Gaddafi article. --dab (𒁳) 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Having recently spoken to a friend of ours, who was brought up in South Africa and who traveled with her partner through a large part of Africa for a total of 2,5 years using their own 4x4 staying for several weeks to months in each country, I am obliged to say that many of the Western perceptions of Libya seem fundamentally incorrect. She told us that when they stayed in Libya they were struck by the Libyan way of life. Having been in neighboring countries, they were expecting Libyan women to be repressed, underrepresented in working life and not having equal rights or freedoms. The opposite proved to be true: they encountered during their 3 month-stay in Libya a great many well-educated women in respectable jobs (doctors, lawyers, teachers) earning equal pay to male counterparts. They did not encounter the poverties which were widespread in the region, and were told by many that this was a result of the redistribution of the country's oil-wealth amongst the Libyans. They were surprised at the standard of living in the country and were welcomed into many decent homes, where they stayed in comfortable surroundings. ===== Looking at the UNDP's listings for Human Development Indices [[8]], Libya ranks number 53: ahead of Mexico (56) Russia (65), Brazil (73) and only twice further down the list from the UK (26). UNDP's facts sheet confirms that health care is at a high level, and that Libya's HDI is far above the world average. ===== Having an interest in many cultures I have always spoken to immigrants and I always wondered why I never met any Libyans considering that the country has been pictured as this repressive backwater by western media. That answer came when Iraqi and Iranian ex-oil production employees told me that Libyans they worked with in those countries always returned home after a while 'for the better wages and lower cost of living in Libya'. ===== A lot of the Libyan rebels' spokesmen can be found on the CIA list of wanted Al Qaida terrorists. And it seems strange that one of the first moves of the Libyan rebels was to establish a central bank and oil company [[9]] indicating some sophisticated backing for this 'People's revolt'. ===== Libya under Qhadafi restricted all international trade to be done in Libyan Dinar, rather than US Dollar. This created an exceptionally stable currency (1 Libyan Dinar equals 0.85 USD) again indicating that Libyan society is doing very well. ===== A group of Russian doctors in an open letter to Medvedev and Putin has also recently confirmed some points you are questioning here: they are citing free health care of very high standards, Libyans receiving free education and being sponsored by the govt to study abroad, married couples receiving interest free loans of 60,000 Libyan Dinar, cars being cheap through subsidies and gas and bread costing very little [[10]]. I am new to this, but reading your discussion after seeing the Libya page had been changed since the rebellion enticed me to leave a few links and thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.15.27 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All is true. I lived there for 2 years. One more thing I would add: free electricity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.35.242 (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Citation URL

The URL for footnote #78 (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Libya#cite_note-77) in the "2011 uprising and coalition intervention" section is no longer correct. I believe the correct citation is now:

Markup: <ref>[http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808 UN.ORG News Centre]. Retrieved 30 March 2011.</ref>

Thanks, Mrthehud (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The intro needs to be sorted out...

So why exactly is the Libyan Republic listed before the Jamahiriya? I would have thought that Gadaffi's govt would be listed first due to it controlling more territory (including the capital). While international recognition plays no part, Gadaffi's govt is internationally recognised, compared to seven states that recognise the rebels. Also, the user who reverted me seems to be pro-opposition (since they have the 1951 flag on their user page), meaning he or she cannot be considered to be a NPOV. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's nice to put a smile on my face before I head to sleep, and a he would be nice :p. First of all, don't make-up your own policies and keep your personal assumptions out of here. What a lovely government you're talking about, where the International Criminal Court has a warrant against its president. I guess the International Community hates the rebels by giving them Billions of Dollars from Gaddafi's money! Military power never means control; the protests and death in Tripoli really is a prove of your bias comments. I've visited Libya a couple times and really worried about it. I actually changed my flag when I saw the funny switch.

Let's get to the point. You have no reason to switch them, so leave it alone. I told you to go-to the talkpage, not start an WP:EDITWARRING. That's not called contribution. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for not assuming goood faith, though you still havent given a real reason for switching them. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no reason given for the change, it was that way for quite a while. That said, who the hell cares which one goes first, let's just pick something and keep it there. This is rather WP:LAME. Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely irrelevant which one goes first. The status quo, whichever order it currently reflects, is fine. If you're not going to edit this article constructively, please do not edit it at all. Thanks. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

True. I was just laughing at Vuvuzela2010's edit, without giving a reason for the switch. I've reverted his edit two times, because he wasn't making any contribution and took the matter personally. It's a silly discussion, so please stop it here ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay but see you just continued that pointless edit war by reverting. That wasn't a constructive edit either. Everyone needs to drop this. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is not considered to be important, then I will agree with that decision. Though I don't see why you think I took it personally, if it was because I mentioned the flag on your userpage, it was because I assumed that it could have been a vandal edit (I've seen some happen on the page for Macedonia), though be fair, the fact that you have reverted edits by myself and another user 3 times could be seen as biased. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how people are still edit-warring, I may as well ask, out of curiosity, shouldnt this page be consistent with other (presumably important) pages, such as the List of sovereign states, the Gallery of sovereign-state flags, the List of national coats of arms, and theMember states of the United Nations? These pages all display the Flag/Arms of the Gadaffi government, and not that of the National Transitional Council. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a temporarily, fast-growing, matter between the two powers. The two objectors of the Libyan Republic, China and Russia, have now sent diplomats to Libya and announced their support. Most countries individually recognized the Libyan Republic, while the Jamahiriya's membership in the UN and Arab League is revoked. Their new ambassador (instead of the resigned one) was also denied to enter UN locations.

Anyways, there is no reason to temporarily update the outdated articles you linked, as things are continuously changing. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing

Um, let's see: Did anything happen during WWII in Libya? Like, gigantic tank and air battles, in which tens of thousands died on both sides? Doesn't seem to be mentioned here. All I see is a photo from the siege of Tobruk. Ever heard of Rommel, or Montgomery? Sca (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be a minor point

Someone put "English" as a spoken language into the infobox, but not Berber. Yes, true, press-conferences are given in English these days, but I don't think there are enough people to make it a "spoken language" of Libya (otherwise, you could add English by default to any place on the planet). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I honestly disagree with your comparison. The main purpose of such mentioning is based on the historical occupation of Africa. Libya and Egypt were controlled by Britain so they currently teach English and foriegners have no problem communicating with the people if they speak English; in opposite of Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, where French is the only foreign language they speak. Also, signs have Arabic&English side-by-side in Libya, while it's Arabic&French in Tunisia. I actually added it when I saw the same thing in Saudi Arabia article, as Libyans speak way better English than Saudis (I've been to both).

Also, English is way more spoken than Barber, as Barber is limited to only certain areas (definitely none of the major cities).

Are we able to add it as a second language, as I didn't see it as an option in infobox? Readers will be able to determine if they're able to communicate in such a country. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Libya was an Italian colony, never British. Secondly, the fact that people learn it is irrelevant. You might as well add English to Germany, the Netherlands, or Sweden. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Long story anyways, but the British sold it to the Italians after defeating the Ottoman Empire (and no-one speaks Italian now). So, shall I add it as the secondary language? As I said, readers would want to know what languages they speak before going there. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I say no. This is not a travel-blog (see my point about Scandinavia and the Benelux). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of capture of Tripoli during Arab invasion

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

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

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

Minor edit: "Scarps"

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

Minor edit: map

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

New layout of article

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)

Uniform Common names for the two governments

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

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

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

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

Typo fix request

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

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

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

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

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

Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

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

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

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

Fact: Other countries do not determine whom a government is. The USA's word and that of other anglo-white countries means nothing. If Libya got together a collection of 50+ tiny isalnds and small nations, how would you feel if they declared the US government illegitimate. Also, is someone going to change the article on the Bush period of government between 2000-2008 because of the evidence over electoral fraud?PeterHarlington (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine Republic ?

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

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

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

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

Rebels are not a government until the government is destroyed. Sorry. PeterHarlington (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point but why do we put the ntc on if it is not a legitmete government as you say instead we should say "libya is at war with the Jasmine Republic and the National Transitional Council and create a seprate article for that . Rancalred (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single reliable source using "Jasmine Republic" as the official name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The news uses "Jasmine Revolution" but not Jasmine Republic. The only results I get for "Jasmine Republic" when I looked up the term on Google, in relation to Libya, has been this very site. The NTC uses Libya in their statements and wants a single, unitary state called Libya. There is no source that uses Jasmine Republic and we cannot use that name. Every source I seen or heard is "Libya" no matter if it is for the Tripoli or Bengazhi Governments. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Baon, 2 August 2011

Independence and the Kingdom of Libya 1951–1969

"Thus, not creating a secular state - Article 5 proclaims Islam the religion of the State - the Libyan Constitution did formally set out rights such as…"

From the context 'Thus' ought to be 'Though.'

Baon (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:51, 3 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.[11] --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. [12] 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 [13] 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 [[14]] - 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. [15]

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 [16] 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 [17]? 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 [18] 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. [19] (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   (in Arabic)
Capital and largest city	Tripoli1 32°52′N 13°11′E
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 high (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. Please add them back.

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.