Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion?

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

rough restructure

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

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

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

libyans want air intervention, don't want ground intervention

In this edit [1], the WP:WEASEL wording and original research "though - in seeming contradiction" was added. If you look around for more sources, it should be easy to find the explanation: Libyans (and the Arab League) consider a no-fly zone to "not" be "military intervention". We need to cite a source before explaining this in the article, but we do not need a source to avoid weasel wording and original research. The contradiction is only a problem of not being careful enough in words.

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

notability discussion

A notability tag was added in this edit [2] and half an hour later a deletion proposal was made [3] by the same editor. Notability was not stated overtly as the reason for deletion, but i think that responses to the deletion proposal cover most of the notability question.

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

No longer just a proposal

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

No-Fly zone notability has just shrunk massively because the UNSC resolution is much more far reaching. No Fly Zone is a nice part of a future article on the International response to the 2011 conflict in Libya. The resolution calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone and this is just one small part of a far bigger whole now. MLA (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, you were unaware of the existing article International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising ??? The notability of this article has NOT just decreased. Do some research before you post. 118.208.53.181 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope the events unfolding right now help whoever this anonymous editor is to see what I was talking about. Sarkozy in his post-G8 speech explicitly described much more than a No Fly Zone as is the case with the UN resolution. The No Flying bit of the intervention is not itself specifically notable because it is not the most notable part of the international intervention led by France that is happening right now. The UNSC resolution clearly calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone but the No Fly is part of what is happening in the Zone. The anonymous editor might want to do some research before posting on issues they aren't familiar with. MLA (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Libyan no-fly zone could now become a sub-article of Libyan all-necessary-measures zone or something along those lines. Boud (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article could be changed to Libyan no-fly zone and intervention as UN Resolution 1973 authorises intervention in addition to a no-fly zone but does not permit an occupation. It's likely intervention will be implemented in the form of air strikes, special operations and such. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

links for the new UNSC resolution

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

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1971
  • wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1971

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

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1972
  • wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1972

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
  • wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Meanwhile:

• UN press release: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37800&Cr=libya&Cr1=

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

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

Apparently it's

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973
  • wikisource:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

not 1972.

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

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

Your statement suggests that my statement is false, so i need to clarify: the webmaster's words "is required" are false because there is a lot of non-Adobe software that can read pdf files, and the words "are free" are only misleading, not false. These are objective statements, they are not advocacy. Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Boud, I believe WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Lynbarn (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Let's cite from WP:SOAPBOX: "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.".

You are welcome to add a claim that the webmaster's statement is true. In fact, you sort-of did, but not quite.

How about you stop putting delete tags and deleting text and we end this discussion, since it's now NPOV'd?

Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe just one more quick point: i provided a URL to what should be a reliable source. i added a comment which may be useful to consider when judging the reliability. i am not saying that the source is necessarily unreliable for the sort of information we want from it, i'm just giving a warning. Boud (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The UN website IS a reliable source, it is just not instantly updated, unlike Wikipedia. Also, whilst, as I have agreed, it is incorrect in that Adobe Reader isn't required to read PDF files, as there are alternatives, it doesn't claim that Adobe Reader is free software, as in open source - that is your interpretation - but that it can be downloaded for free. It still seems to me that you are trying to make a point here, in relation to an article that the point isn't relevant to. If you have a disagreement with the wording on the UN website, then I suggest you take it up with the UN webmaster. If you have an issue with Adobe, their software or marketing strategy, then take it up with them directly. It is not a Wikipedia matter. For information, I don't use Adobe Reader myself, but one of several alternatives. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

France

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

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

an act of war

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

I may just be bold and do it anyway!

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

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

targets

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

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

er - that reference makes no mention of RAF attacks on Tripoli. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC says: 2131: Coalition forces have launched strikes against Mitiga air base outside the centre of Tripoli, Al-Jazeera reports. 20 targets were hit. Flatterworld (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That could have been (probably was) one of the cruise missile targets, fired from naval assets, possibly A RN sub, probably US Navy. The RAF isn't mentioned in the same context. I'm being a little pedantic, I know, but it is easy to draw conclusions from what is reported that do not actualy relate to the event. Lynbarn (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

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

USS Barry image

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

go to the image page itself, which links to a US navy page which says is is IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm impressed that the USN has the time to post photos on wikipedia so quickly during an engagement! Lynbarn (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt this one is stretching them much William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ship reference: "U.S. launches missile strikes against Libya". Msnbc.com. 19 March 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

USS Enterprise WONT be involved off of Libya

This page makes mention of the USS Enterprise being used eventually off of Libya. There seems to be no proof that that will be so. The USS Enterprise seems to be busy supporting Afghanistan operations along with the USS Carl Vinson. --AjaxAttack (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know. I removed the Enterprise repeatedly from the article, but other editors keep putting it back into the article. noclador (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i re-deleted it again..stop putting it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 vote of March 18

Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[[4]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[[5]]

Nation	United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote	Political Side
France[BBC News] [[6]]	Yes	Rebels
Bosnia-Hercegovina[BBC News] [[7]]	Yes	Rebels
Colombia[BBC News] [[8]]	Yes	Rebels
Gabon[BBC News] [[9]]	Yes	Rebels
Nigeria[BBC News] [[10]]	Yes	Rebels
Lebanon[BBC News] [[11]]	Yes	Rebels
Portugal[BBC News] [[12]]	Yes	Rebels
South Africa[BBC News] [[13]]	Yes	Rebels
United Kingdom[BBC News] [[14]]	Yes	Rebels
United States[BBC News] [[15]]	A reluctant yes	Undecided
Brazil[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
Germany[[The Guardian Live Blog]	A reluctant abstain	Rebels
India[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
China[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
Russia[[The Guardian Live Blog]	A reluctant abstain	Pro-Gadhafi

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

For information, according to the BBC at 15:36 today: German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her country will not take part in military intervention, but adds: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality.". Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no idea why Germany is being listed as being "pro-Gadhafi" C.d.rose (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this table something more suitable for a users sandbox? The key information is already in another article, using a well established formet: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The US was not a reluctant yes, the co-sponsered it with the UK, France, and Lebanon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

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

So add the part of the quote you find relevant?? Don't just remove statements made by the Secretary of State because you disagree with them. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX. And whether or not Hillary Clinton is in favor is entirely irrelevant - she made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community and that's the end of it.--Tehwhirled (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please watch your tone! now to the facts: I do not disagree with Clintons comment I disagree with a pattern in this section of partial quotations, which contradict the actual opinions and actions of officials! An example: Richard Lugar is in the section "An act of war" and he is quoted to make it seem like he is criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war! When in fact he says: "Obama Administration Must Also Get Congress to Declare War" so, he is not criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war, but wants a congress declaration of war against Libya! If you want to have him in the criticism section, then take this statement by him, in which he actually really does directly criticize the no-fly zone: "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya." but still- also here he is not saying: no-fly zone= act of war! so: please quote correctly - that is all I ask for! noclador (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one acting up like a kid in the edit comments and throwing around exclamation marks as if something is wrong. If you disagree with a viewpoint represented on Wikipedia, then add your own with verifiable sources. Don't just remove parts of the subject matter to slant it to your liking.--Tehwhirled (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Hillary Clinton - as you just said! "She made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community", but you put into the criticism of the no-fly zone section. Why that? if she only made a statement about the skepticism in the Arab community on March 3rd, and on March 12th the Arab League called for no-fly zone - doesn't that mean that the skepticism she mentioned has been overcome? noclador (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read up on some basic information about civil society or take a civics class. The Arab League is an organization of the current ruling autocrats of the Arab countries. They do not represent the Arab community, they represent governments.--Tehwhirled (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

again: please stop behaving in a condescending manner and argue for what reason the Clinton quote needs to be in the criticism section, when it has been superseded by events in the last 2 weeks. noclador (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have verifiable sources indicating that the skepticism in the Arab community that the Secratary of State related to the senate committee has been superceeded, you are welcome to add them here or to the article. But merely citing the fact that the league of 22 Arab autocrats approve of the proposal does not justify the claim that the entire Arab community of several hundred million people does.--Tehwhirled (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

We are disputing that most of the members of the Arab League are autocrats now? Do you have a verifiable source to back up that claim?--Tehwhirled (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not debating Arab autocrats here, but possible criticism of the no-fly zone in Libya. noclador (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then don't dispute the neutrality of the assessment that the members of the Arab League are autocrats.--Tehwhirled (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You cant have a list of individuals critical statements without a similar list individuals of favorable statements. It's one sided and POV. Further, many (if not most) of those who voiced these concerns have since changed their positions based on developments since they were made. It's highly POV to have this type of list. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, there appears to be undue weight given to criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oy vey, the level of personal attacks. While POV against Gaddafi cannot be helped, POV against our intervention can be as no every RS would take the view. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Germany actually for military intervention

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

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

this is not a no fly zone

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

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

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

Which official, from which country, decides on the "official" name? HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's happening under UN auspices, right? Maybe the UN will name it. It's not clear yet. WikiDao ☯ 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is highly misleading as it stands since UN resolution 1973 does seem to authorise attacks against e.g. tanks etc. Suggest 2011 military action against Libya or somesuch. Evercat (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to sugar coat

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

I've already listed David Cameron and Barack Obama in the commanders section of the article template as British and American forces have already begun engaging in combat against Libyan forces. An IP had tried to remove David Cameron and Barack Obama from the commanders section of the template. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That was done because only France took the risk to send planes into Libyan territory. At this moment, USA/UK sent tomahawk missiles and other measures. A no-fly requires airplanes to work. No planes, no no-fly zone. So far only Sarkozy is a no-fly commander, because only France launched airplanes. Other commanders can be named only after they start contributing planes to the no-fly. It is better to wait than to be inaccurate.

What utter rubbish. What do you think the British and American missiles were fired at? Sandcastles? A no fly zone is more than just jets whizzing overhead. David (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, read the actual Resolution: it's a lot more than just a no-fly zone. Flatterworld (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So what is it? Can you help come up with a better title? HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Propose to move this to 2011 Libyan police action, ASAP. This is going to end way fast, dare I say in a regime change. Flatterworld and Quite vivid blur are both right, the resolution is more than a no-fly zone, when it says "Any Means Necessary". US/UK tomahawk missiles attacks can go on forever, until Gaddafi is defeated completely. He will lose his will to fight and have to surrender. Counting the number of warplanes won't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.243.83 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually UNLIKELY to end fast, since it's clearly the Corporations gunning for a militarized footprint in North Africa. Has anyone noticed these guys pulling out of Iraq or Afghanistan? Whereas we can see them clearly in Ivory Coast and Somalia/Sudan, can we not? Remember when poor Bush went all over Africa looking for someone to host US boots? Nobody would touch it. That's what's going on here. My guess is that Qatar and Turkey are in the mix to try and keep a lid on things. Greece is in the mix because they're afraid of what would happen to them if they didn't "volunteer" their support. Kiosacoup (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Intervention in the Libyan Uprising until a common name is established. Police action is a POV and not used by any reliable source. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

brainwash? (was: effectiveness?)

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

This content was from before the UN resolution. If you understood the subject and weren't merely judging it from whatever happens to be in front of eyes on the TV at the moment, you would know that there was a great deal of skepticism from most members of UN up until the last day or so before the vote on the resolution. Thanks to people like you, this skepticism is now being forgotten in the article in favor of the brainwash being sent out of by the coalition behind the intervention. [16] --Tehwhirled (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Casulties

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

• I put it with a note stating that.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing it again, someone changed it back 206.45.183.184 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan State TV

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

Hardly a neutral source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Operation_Odyssey_Dawn#Casualties may help with not repeating the same arguments.--Terrillja _talk 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Think about all the claims from state T.V. and the fact that it is run by Gaddafi loyalists, do they sound formal and definitive? You be the judge as to whether they are true or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberencyclopedia (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

need a map

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

Infobox

Actually the Libyan no-fly zone is not a military operation. The military operations are Operations Mobile, Harmattan, Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy that enforce the Libyan no-fly zone demand. I think the article should discern these two issues. The lead should be changed accordingly and the infobox probably should me moved to corresponding section about enforcement. Thoughts? --Brandmeister t 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are the names given by four of the many countries involved in the overall operation that is the no-fly zone. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to finde it soon.Wipsenade (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the name of the general operation is Libyan No-Fly Zone. Brandmeister t 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It won't have a 'name', only 'names'. 'Libyan No-Fly Zone' sums up the event quite well. We don't need an overall name for the operation, as this article refers to a specific event, namely the no-fly zone. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Greece frigates name?

Can anybody find out which 2 frigtes Greece sent to Libya? Hydra or Elli? Or both? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_Navy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.139.242 (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking up the ship's name.Wipsenade (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Name name name

It's clearly desirable for there to be one page providing information about the military action in Libya. It seems like this is going to be that page, but it shouldn't be named "no fly zone" if other actions are permitted by the UN resolution as well. The destruction of tanks, for example, kind of makes a mockery of the article as named. Evercat (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep articles separate AlaskaMike (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Note: For the record, the issue was closed previously on the merger project page, after consensus was reached. I did not close that discussion. It seemed to be very confusing to still be discussing it here when the matter had been decided on the relevant merger project page. AlaskaMike (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• We now have 4 separate stub pages detailing actions taken by various countries to enforce the Libyan no-fly zone - Operation Mobile, Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn and Opération Harmattan. This is overkill, we should simply have separate sections here on the Libyan NFZ page for each country's actions. If the Libyan NFZ page gets too long or the operations continue for a substantial time we can separate them out then. Mztourist (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, these are 4 separate operations at the moment. i.e. the French Ground Strikes around Benghazi on March 19th were done without the coalitions command structure. Also until a central command is set up each nation operates a national operation, based on the requirements of the strategic command (US African Command) and then in the theater of operations are conducted under the tactical command of US Naval Forces Europe. noclador (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merger, as argued on Talk:Operation Ellamy. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, Each can stand on their own at this time, as the stories are emerging and individual country's efforts are not yet being merged into a cohesive action. Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merger. David (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merger, even though there are many countries supporting it, 3 countries are doing most of the damage over there and those countries operations are separate articles. Eventhough this is like UN resolution that everyone supported 100% three countries are attacking Libya and those countries significance shouldn't be diminished. This is three big operation by three big countries and those three big operations are specifically divided with specific info for each. Deleting these three operations article make it seem like these 3 countries are doing very little in fact they are doing 99-100% of the damage over there. 174.16.120.220 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Just wanted to weigh in with a bit of new information - according to BBC News, I quote (emphasis mine): The UK Chief of Defence Staff's strategic communications officer, Maj Gen John Lorimer, has said the operation is under the control of the US Africa Command, "but the United Kingdom have officers and staff integrated and embedded at every level, from the highest levels right down to the lower levels so that we are absolutely co-ordinated with the US and our other allies." Thus, separate efforts Bzuk mentions have been merged into a cohesive action and they (no longer, at least, even though I doubt they ever did) constitute 4 separate operations, which is the argument Noclador used. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I've said this too many times now but I'll say it again: Any operation deserves its own independance! There any many reasons on Talk:Operation Ellamy on its own merger proposal. When I first created Operation Ellamy I was expecting something small... well, I guess I was wrong there! Jaguar (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merger One could easily end before the other. A military response is not the same thing as what lead up to it. They also did not begin at the same time. Operation Desert Storm came after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, for example. By that logic the Attack on Pearl Harbor should be merged into the World War II page. If the no fly zone is lifted before the end of military operations, it will lead to confusion. AlaskaMike (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly both topics require different articles. 71.229.180.150 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The "operation" articles are no longer stubs. The main Libyan no-fly zone article is long enough as it is right now [17] just a day or two after its implementation, and the individual "operation" articles are also long enough right now that any merger would just force extra editorial work in doing a WP:SPLIT in a couple of days' time. It also seems like the "criticism" section has been vastly reduced, so if the people who worked on that (or others) insist on its notability and rescue the most notable parts, then the length would certainly not be reduced. Boud (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro 1st sentence alert

Says:

The Libyan no-fly zone actually is brutal interference in Libyan local conflict.

is a nonfactual POV stmt. Scribble? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Was scribble by anon 94.193.126.127. Fixed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya civil war and war against Libya

That's what it is. --188.23.241.164 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources saying this please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Med Sea civilian airline traffic now?

The article should say how the current air war affects civilian airliner traffic over Italy and over the middle of the Med Sea, which are located opposite of Libya.

The cruel memory of Itavia Flight 870 disaster (apparently a botched NATO attempt on Gadhafi's life that mistakenly downed 80 people in an italian DC-9 airliner) is surely rather vivid in the italian public conscience. I think Berusconi will rather close airspace to airline traffic than risk another Itavia 870 happen.

Not to mention that Gadhafi's TV tyrade is now promising to turn the whole Mediterranean basin into a bowl full of blood or something nasty like that. Sounds like better avoid the region. 91.83.35.155 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, this should be covered, but with reliable sources stating how it has actually affected air travel. This isn't exactly a seldom-travelled area. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Doesn't the Gaddafi govenment have some criticism of the Libyan no-fly zone? I couldn't find it in the article. Ward20 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we already have a talk section titled Criticism. If you can find it on the web you can put it in the article, as long as it is souced properly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualty listing

should we really put casualties up? maybe im wrong but dont think casualty rates, especially those produced by the libyian government , should be considered fact..its just seems too early to do

And US Army or CNN rates are reliable and independent?

we should not use any source until its it independently confirmedZyon788 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

French losses

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[18]][[19]][[20]].11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First source doesn't mention any plane shot down, second source says "Libya says", and the third says "France denies plane was shot down"- no mention everywhere of a Kub 2K12 too. noclador (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is France covering it up. I clafifyed my 1st post that it was a plane not a Kub K212.11:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Libya just lies. noclador (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth is the first casualty of war. Certainly we shouldn't believe it just because France says so, but at the moment there is little reliable evidence to suggest a French plane was shot down - and I'd it would be quite hard for the French to cover up. At the moment the accusation is article-worthy, a statement of fact not. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is not a french, is a MiG-23 "Flogger" with Libyan markings. I do not know if he from Libya gov or the rebels.187.112.138.144 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.break.com/index/fighter-jet-shot-down-over-libya-2027136 89.214.233.50 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The video shows the widely-reported event where a 'rebel' plane was shot down by the Benghazi forces themselves. --77.188.74.170 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian president

hahaha put then QEII as the british commander--78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why, she's not a commander...raseaC^{talk to me} 16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

what about irony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.63.162 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fellow was saying if you're going to put Heads of State as well as the requisite Heads of Government then you should put Queen Elizabeth II. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this fellow was trolling. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to assume WP:GOODFAITH, so I put a nice explanation (Don't think it counts as trolling, just a silly joke. The term trolling is so misused these days that the artform itself is not appreciated). :X Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

someone added Napolitano again. He is a ceremonial figure I wanted to say--78.2.63.162 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well now you say it, but now you must regain WP:GOODFAITH or else die a death worse than death! (jk I really don't care =p) But yeah, ceremonial leaders, and people who're just heads of state shouldn't be included. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Italian President is the formal commander-in-chief of the Italian military, but has no operational control. Similarly, the Queen theoretically commands the British and Canadian armed forces. This is also true of the Kings of Belgium, Norway and Spain and the Queen of Denmark. Therefore, unless we are prepared to list all these ceremonial leaders, the Italian President must go. 128.59.181.56 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Italian President's role is not merely cerimonial both in general Italian political life and also in these particular military issues. The article 87 of the Italian Constitution states "The President ... has the command of the Armed Forces, presides the Supreme Council of Defence constituted with respect to the prescriptions of the law, declares the state of war after a deliberation of the two Chambers." The position of President Giorgio Napolitano about the military intervention in Libya has been, according to many national newspapers, extremely relevant for deciding the Italian active participation to the coalition. Therefore, in my opinion, President Napolitano should figure among the commanders and leaders. Sligrone (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about this, put commanders-in-chief. That should work, regardless of actual position. Makes the most sense. (Thank God it's not Uncle Silvio =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just updated the page with the agreed change, hope it's fine.

In Italy the President Napolitano openly spoke in favour of the military intervention, whereas Prime Minister Berlusconi did not, I think Queen Elizabeth can't do the same. Rumors said that Minister La Russa is talking directly with the President. He is allowed to do this because both are members of the Consiglio Supremo della Difesa (Defence Supreme Council). This Council is similar to the Council of Ministers, but: there are only few Ministers and it is chaired by the President and not by the Prime Minister. The President can act by means of this Council directly towards the Ministers and the Armed Forces. In Italy each act of the President must be countersigned by a Minister, whereas each act of the Prime minister must be countersigned by the President. Actually the Prime Minister countersigned President's acts, but this countersignature may be only cerimonial (that is because the Presidnet acts can legally and directly be countersigned by normal Ministers - e.g. the Minister of Defence-, if Prime Minister refuses)--147.162.139.132 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

US leading

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72J00M20110320

"We are on the leading edge of coalition operations"--84.168.103.29 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'But [Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff] cautioned that "in the coming days we intend to transition it to a coalition command."' Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well but the first strikes were lead by the US. So I thing we should mention this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.103.29 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You could put something about US missile strikes clearing the way for other coalition partners to begin their operations I guess. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that said missiles were also fired by British submarines....raseaC^{talk to me} 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did mention two British missles, yeah, was wondering where they came from. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In a press statement about half an hour ago, the US said they would pass over more controls to Europe over controlling the no-fly zone over timel. Jolly Ω Janner 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose you have that in text somewhere, do you? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Pentagon expects to hand over control of allied military operations in Libya "in a matter of days", either to a UK-France coalition or to Nato, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says.". Jolly Ω Janner 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jolly good! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Could a free graphic be created using this information?

BBC: Airstrikes on Libya: mapped. Any map gurus around? I think a free graphic could be useful for the article and the copyrighted ones will likely be updated with the intense international attention. Actually, our map needn't be informationally based on other maps at all as we'll have the location of bases, strikes, etc. from text sources, but it started me thinking. Gotyear (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend User:Wipsenade, who is around here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I could have a go at this. The hardest part so far seems to be finding a blank map to start with, as European maps usually cut off most of Libya if not all of it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How about this? How about you take a large (like over 3000x1500 or w/e) blank map of the world and then crop it in Paint to the area you want to use? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. File:A large blank world map with oceans marked in blue.svg was very helpful. Jolly Ω Janner 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, the map looks great. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

This article is written in British English and it should be kept consistently so unless a consensus leads to a change (and I don't see why that should happen). However, it should be noted for future edits that Robert Gates is not the "US Secretary of Defence" and the United States defense agency is not called the "US Department of Defence." The US has a defence department, you might say, but its name is the "Department of Defense," spelled the way they spell it. Likewise, Robert Gates could attend to a meeting of defence secretaries of NATO countries, yet he would be addressed as "Mr. Secretary of Defense." In other words, when "secretary of defence" or "department of defence" are used as a common noun, they should be subject to whatever style is being used for the article as a whole, but when they are used as a proper noun (i.e., when they refer specifically to Robert Gates, not to any defense secretaries in general, or when they refer specifically to the department he controls, not to any defense agency in general) they must retain original spelling. That's why the New York Times still refers to Gordon Brown's party as the Labour Party and not the Labor Party.--AndresTM (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For more details, see Wikipedia:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. Boud (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With such a heavily edited article, one way to prevent the change in speling might be to put hidden comments by words, which constantly get targeted for spelling changes. Jolly Ω Janner 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done this with UK date format in lede and infobox. Ericoides (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to comment on the spelling in this article, then I saw that others already had right here. The spelling kind of perturbs me; seeing labor as labour, organization as organisation, color as colour, defense as defence. I find myself being slightly annoyed at that, thus it takes away from the sentence I just read. Someone should just change the words to the American spelling since we are in the US and pulling up the article in the US, not Britain. Even if I were reading an article about, say, the construction of Big Ben in Britain, or an article about the West End, I should stil be reading it in American english, not British english, as I am not in Britain.

Who is "we"? (as in "...we are in the US...") You do realise, I hope, that this is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Occam's Razor, about 90% of the time it will be an American who does that, so assume they're a Yank unless they say otherwise (or based on context of course). 'Cause good luck getting us Yanks to do otherwise. =p I really see no issue with it being in the Queen's English. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

SEAD

We need to be clear who are the participants for SEAD. The correct list is US, UK, France, Italy, and Canada, according to Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, when questioned in TV. Any one who can cite other sources? Is this correct?

Never mind, the five are correct, problem solved, see article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.7.25 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only France, the UK and the USA participated in the SEAD phase. Italy, Canada and Denmark have only started enforcing the no fly zone.

"Canada has enforced the no-fly zone, and was about to bomb a Libyan airfield before the attack was waved off due to "collateral damage" (probably implying civilians). I don't think we can say it has enforced the SEAD until it actually does, but on the other hand it had the full intention of doing so .206.248.165.18 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab League vs. African Union

Does anyone know the diplomatic reasons given why permission from the Arab League, but not the African Union was needed? I understand some of the reasons [21] why the AU's opposition [22] is ignored, but has the coalition actually said it? If they have, I think it's important to include in the article since it's a question readers would ask while reading this. -- Jeandré, 2011-03-21t11:14z

Hint - The current Chairperson of the African Union, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, is the President of Equatorial Guinea for the past 32 years.

The AU is not opposing the current action. The AU statement referenced is from several weeks ago, IIUC, before the situation deteriorated and the Arab League supported intervention. The only opposition since is from an AU panel of just three countries, which South Africa has said is not representative. Note that all three AU members on the UNSC - South Africa, Nigeria, and Gabon, voted FOR the UNSC resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the AU it should be noted, that Resolution 1973 foresees a "High Level Ad-hoc Committee" of the AU to play a significant role. My expectation is the UNSC will allow this committee travelling to Libya "once the international coalition is done with disabling Col. Gaddafi’s air defences." According to Michael Mullen the mission of implementing a no-fly zone is "practically done". — Regards from Germany! --85.178.216.69 (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Can someone make an ogg conversion of this recording and maybe incorporate it into the article? http://audioboo.fm/boos/307814-usaf-ec-130j-steel-74-transmitting-on-6877-0-khz-libya-20-march-2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.153.237 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi as a target?

This should be included. The Brits are divided over the issue http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/21/libya-gaddafi-air-strikes-liveOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

All official sources have said no. The source you provided is from a blog, so I think we should stick to the story that he isn't a target for now. Jolly Ω Janner 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Parlamentary approval

Has any politician or anti-war activist complained that the military operation has not been authorized by parliaments of the participating countries? In particular, by the US Congress under the War Powers Resolution. 194.186.62.37 (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The UK Parliament will get to talk about it Monday 21st March but this is after the UK struckOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has the authority to declare a state of war without the consent of Parliament. See Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom#Powers_and_constraints.Quite vivid blur (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

US: On Sunday, Jeff Sessions (Republican) was asked about that (Meet the Press or This Week) and he said no, but he thought the President should have done more informing of those beyond the leadership of Congress. iow, there's no official authorization needed nor expected. Flatterworld (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I beleive Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has said that Obama is in violation of the war powers act. I suppose Rep. Kucinich could go to court, but the SCOTUS has been reluctant to get involved in squabbles over the War Powers Act (which some think may not even be constitutional) IIUC, and given that Kucinich seems to be alone so far, I think he might be reluctant to take that step.Ricardianman (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

if you move around sections in the article

make sure afterwards that the citations and references are still in order! Moving around section and thus messing up the references is not acceptable. If you wish to rearrange the article - MAKE SURE there are afterwards not big red warnings all over the article for broken references! thanksnoclador (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Would it be acceptable to put the countries in alphabetical order in each section? As the number grows, it's difficult to find them. The sequence in which they acted seems fairly irrelevant to the box, and it's in the article anyway. (I'm assuming that's the current sequence.)Flatterworld (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, noclador (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on Libyan navy

There are numerous reports that the Busetta naval base near Tripoli was bombed but no indication of who did it. The eyewitness reports seem to indicate bombs rather than cruise missiles. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

India's Position

So why on earth is India's position on this listed in the "Mixed" section? Indian and non-Indian media are all saying that India is basically against the air strikes, and they're in the mixed section?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8393950/Libya-attacks-criticised-by-Arab-League-China-Russia-and-India.html http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Russia+China+India+Turkey+condemn+Libya+strikes/4474784/story.html http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories/2011032151180100.htm http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hRlDpPNOeggu1Rkz8-vUd32INbLw?docId=CNG.26f4275431f3c791c245845a136980cf.1301

Ridiculous!99.255.196.49 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is ridicuolus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And someone just moved Russia's position into the mixed position. Good grief.99.255.196.49 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Country participation

There are media reports of Danish, Norwegian and Spanish aircraft taking part in combat operations over Libya but no indidcation of which of the four operations this falls under. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The US operation, also the Italian participation is under US command. noclador (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To do

• A new section title "Media coverage"
• A section on the protests against the intervention. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already a "criticism" section, protests would seem to belong there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Evo Morales

I think the fact that Evo Morales was awarded the 2006 Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights needs to stay in the article, as Morales demanded that U.S. President Barack Obama be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for authorizing the attack against Libya, while he himself has no problems to keep a prize for Human Rights he got from a man that currently is violating all and every human right there is. noclador (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as the fact that he got the prize is sourced, there's no real reason to take it out. You could say it's irrelevant, but it is of interest and has some relevancy to their relationship at least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

flags in the box

According to news reports the US is currently leading the allied intervention so why is their flag all the way at the bottom along with their commanders. Being that this is a US led operation their flag should be listed first, along with the commanders, like it is in the Iraq War, Afghanistan War, War on Terrorism and a million other associated articles. I don't know why Canada is listed first in this article and the 2011 Libyan Civil War article, the French have had much more involvement than them.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

After briefly looking over all of the coalition operation articles, such as Operation Odyssey Dawn, it seems the US is providing the majority of warships and aircraft so thats another reason why their flag should be on top. A general standard for flags in the military box, which is used on a large number of wiki military/naval articles, is that the strongest force involved is listed first. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and so far alphabetical has had a lead. Although I see your point, there are a range of reasons why other ways of doing it are impractical. By leadership: The US have clearly stated that they soon will hand over the leadership. What to do then? Have US for a period, and then switch order every time the leadership changes? And what when it is over? Should we then start counting who had the leadership for most days? By strength: This, too, will change over time, and even if taking any single point of time it is not easy to judge throughout (certainly not when WP:RS are required, and WP:NOR should absolutely be avoided). Are Frrance or the UK most involved now? Who should be first in that order? This is even more problematic when reaching lower levels of involvement. We'd have to deal with impossible questions like how many F-16 fighters one country has suplied are needed to equal the use of an airbase by another country. Or a frigate? Consequently, alphabetic is the most practical. If other articles related to this situation (what is happening in Libya) have done it differently, and they are not about the operations by a specific country (e.g. Canadian Operation MOBILE), it is likely the result of people adding or changing order randomly, perhaps purely for nationalist reasons (initially France seemed to be moved to the top by some users). Alphabetic thus also matches NPOV best. RN1970 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, the three UNSC permanent members on top, followed by alphabetical. Both your POV is solved by this. Please don't change again. Removed long list of political leaders too, kept the names of soldiers similar to Iraqi no-fly zone battlebox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. None of the problems I mentioned above were commented on: WP:Consensus. If just by UNSC permanent members, you need to provide arguments why US is first, then UK, and then France. Why do you judge that UK is above France? And what when the US steps down in a few days, as they have said repeatedly they will? I did not invent the alphabet and did not name the countries. If you can find a solution that is more NPOV than alphabetic, I would be interested in knowing about it. RN1970 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I SAID NOT TO CHANGE IT. Who uses alphabetical in all the battleboxes? Not wikipedia. The order was PERFECT. This is the reason the other NATO allies are not joining yet, because it started smelling like a French led mission so early. You are jeopardizing the mission, because all the Euro and Arab partners are reading this page, where it looked like the US was not on top. Did you see the change I made in the commanders box too? Change it all back now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the fundamentals of wikipedia. You can't command people to not change your edits. I strongly urge you to follow WP:Consensus and reflect on the questions asked previously. The claim that I am jeopardizing the mission by reverting your edit is completely laughable (even if someone made edits that could pose a risk, wikipedia thankfully is not a primary news sources for actual decision makers in Europe and Arabia). Who should be listed among Commanders and leaders has been discussed at some level, but I do agree that it had grown too large. However, I have no strong opinions about the Commanders and leaders section and will not participate further in that discussion. RN1970 (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you have your wiki rules to follow. (but also know that Italy was threatening to withdraw their bases unless NATO take command soon. The NATO Supreme Allied Commander has always been American since 1951.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.16.84 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Military losses section

Somebody has added this section. I've tidied it a little, and added refs to the F-15 loss, but the Libyan losses quoted aren't backed up bythe given ref, and in any case this is only a small part of the likely casualties incurred.

I'm not sure, what with all the normal propaganda and "fog of war", that this section will really help - with all the claims and counter claims, etc., it may be better left out for now? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think: leave out would be better. noclador (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah for now I think leaving it out makes sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

new order of article

Following a logical order (and wiki usage) I suggest the article be arranged in the following order:

• Proposal for the no-fly zone
  • Chronological development of the no-fly zone
• Enforcement
  • Operation names
  • Forces committed
  • Bases committed
  • Action by international forces
  • Countries in preparation
• Military losses
  • Coalition
  • Libya
• Reaction
  • Support
  • Mixed
  • Criticism

I suggest this change because the current structure has losses before actions, which is the wrong way around and also to have critiques before the enforcement section is wrong, as the article is about the military intervention in Libya and not the critique. in short: article subject needs to be the first thing in the article. If there are no other suggestions I will in a few hours rearrange the article as suggested. noclador (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

that seems like a good move to me, although see the comments above re "Military Losses" - we could leave the whole section out - for now at least. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, noclador (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

{{flagicon}}

For flag icons, please use

• {{flagicon|Libya|1951}} for the rebels
• {{flagicon|Libya|1977}} for the Gaddafi regime

We should stop using simple {{flagicon|Libya}}, as we need to anticipate the possibility that the flag of Libya could be anything, or either of the two, in 2012 or 2013. So if you want to ensure that the flag icon displayed stays the same even if the current flag of Libya should change, specify which flag you want explicitly. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Forces of nations under US Command

Please help me. The Operation Odessy Dawn page states that non British, French and Canadian forces fall under US Command. I believe they are not!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

we are already discussing that one topic up of this--78.2.15.204 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Norway

The six Norwegian F-16s are now based at Souda Bay in Crete.[23] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Map'd. Jolly Ω Janner 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Country Categories in Infobox

I feel that the four different categories of coalition countries (those providing aircraft for SEAD, those providing aircraft for CAP, those providing ships to enforce the arms embargo, and those providing bases) is too complex. There is significant overlap, and I can't find any examples of doing this from infoboxes in similar articles. Why not make one list? If necessary, we could mention any important qualifications in parentheses, like Greece (provides airbases only). Thoughts? 128.59.182.166 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name Specific Discussions

Agregated name-specific discussions - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename

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

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

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

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

I'd vote for Operation Odyssey Dawn, or at least a redirect thingy. Same way we have with Operation Just Cause. Just my two cents on the deal. Have a great Wiki kinda day folks! Sector001 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Just give it its true name: International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising. Wikipedia is not only a set of extracts form renowned medias, its creators can analyse the reality too.83.17.84.82 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

I agree that the three operations should be bundled into this one article and the article should be renamed International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising (flows better) until this thing as a whole has its own common name. We can't favour the US op in this as this go-around, we're not even the main guys. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As each of the antions have thier own code name, and this is only what the USA calls thier participation the page should be renamed (as it appears to be about the whole operation not just the US part.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what we call this article now: Frankly, this whole article will eventually be merged into a section in an article named something like "Libyan Civil War (2011)". This international military intervention is really just one of the components in that war: You have to keep the big picture in sight and not try and focus too narrowly on just one aspect of what's going on. Right now, I suppose it's acceptable to have it as it's own article only because it's front-page news, but from a historical perspective, it would not right to try and completely separate the revolt on the ground from the international coalition-style response in the air. The two are very closely tied together. 69.11.99.202 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, they'll be kept separate as per WP:SIZE. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Odyssey Dawn

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

Ok im writing this as Obama is giving his radio address, it seems the US will contribute to the 'front end' ie SEAD operations but 'coalition partners' will take over the actual enforcement of the NFZ; as such id suggest Odyssey Dawn is the name given to the SEAD phaseZaq12wsx (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't insert that catchy rosy flowery sunny name like it is like a picnic in a sunny day like Operation Wild Rose, Operation New Beginning, Operation New Birth, Operation God is Coming, Operation Glorious Mountain. Keep those simple and childish names out basically. 174.16.120.220 (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The operation name should not be the title unless it becomes the common name like Operation Desert Storm. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to Operation Odyssey Dawn??

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

"Operation Odyssey Dawn" refers only to US involvement. Ellamy is UK involvement, and names for other countries' involvement are yet to be announced. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The current name is wrong, but whatever we choose it must mention Libya. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Lynbarn (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No that either refers to the US contribution or the SEAD phase; its like asking whether we should rename it ellamy!Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation in support of UNSC Resolution 1973 is what we want, but it seems there's no official name for the coalition effort. Flatterworld (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Oh, no. Not "coalition" again. That seems to have been dragged out in every conflict involving the USA since Vietnam. It seems to mean "The USA plus whoever else is on its side". In Iraq it facetiously became "The coalition of the lying" because of the absent WMDs. It's not at all formally defined. We have to do better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We should wait a while, secondary sources might converge on a common name – hopefully less cumbersome than the two proposed above – but agree that "no-fly zone" is not what it is. WikiDao ☯ 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Intervention in the Libyan Uprising until a common name is established imo. Coalition is the common name being used afaik. WikiDao's got the right idea. We need to keep our own biases out of the editing, but the editing can reflect the baises of the RS's as there is nothing that can really be done about it in some cases, like with Libya. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to Coalition intervention in Libya

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

The result of the move request was: The seven-day period has been overridden and the name has been changed from Libyan no-fly zone to Coalition intervention in Libya to 2011 Military intervention in Libya to 2011 military intervention in Libya within about 24 hours or so of the proposal. This procedural step is intended as a clarification of de facto closure rather than closure itself. Keeping this particular request formally open would lead to a lot of confusion. A new WP:Requested moves procedure can be started below if someone thinks that there is a reasonable chance that the proposed name (whatever that might be) will receive consensus. COI: i have been involved in this discussion, but since this is clarification of a de facto closure rather than the closure itself, i believe that this justifies overriding the COI closure paragraph. See Non-admin closure for more procedural discussion. Boud (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

No. Anything but "Coalition", please. "Coalition of the willing" was used by Dubya in Iraq, and quickly became "Coalition of the lying" among those publicly wondering where the WMDs were. It seems that, with limited thought, people want to use "coalition" to describe any collection of America and some friends (different every time) who attack somebody else. Not saying this one's not justified, but let's be a little more creative. Please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Allied any better?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UN would work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UN seems to me to be OK since "allied" forces are currently operating under a mandate very similar to United Nations Security Council Resolution 84, which opened the way to escalating the Korean War. Peasantwarrior (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this is about the no-fly zone, and the operations are in support of maintaining the no fly zone, or operations adjunct to that which are outlined in the UN resolution that declared the zone. Besides, the Arab League declared a no-fly zone as well. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: that could be argued about the 110+ missiles fired from ships and planes today. However, the first attacks by France at least 1 tank (and possibly 4), I cannot see as being solely about a no-fly zone since the tanks were not in any way an immediate thread to air forces. How is that part of a no-fly zone?--192.5.109.34 (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Your requested name still does not make sense, WP:COMMONNAME says it's the Libyan no-fly zone. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • What you say would have been true if it had been Friday. However, as of Saturday, most sources are no longer calling it a no-fly zone. Almost all sources now refer to "attacks," "assault," or "airstrikes" in Libya. --192.5.109.34 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Most sources i see still call it a no fly zone! which sources do you refer to?Zaq12wsx (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support No-Fly Zone can be a section of the article but should not be the entire article.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

yes. like NATO intervention in Bosnia--78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed new name is not a widely used name, so doesn't qualify as a common name. It's rather ambiguous as a descriptive name; Qadafi still seems to have influence in organising a coalition called African Union, but that's not the coalition that this article is mainly about. The proposed title also can be seen as not NPOV enough for a descriptive name, as pointed out by 192.5.109.34: it has a strong political connotation with the present officially 50,000 or so non-combatant foreign fighters occupying Iraq. See the "Title etc." section below for an attempt to find a better name that has a chance of being accepted in a requested-move. Boud (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose As per aboveZaq12wsx (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to consesus decisions on Wikipedia? Why has this article been moved when so few comments have so far been made, most of which (see above) are opposed to it, and it has hardly been discussed. I suggest whoever made the change should revert it until due dilligence has been pursued. Thank you. Lynbarn (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree its appalling that this article was moved 'Coalition Intervention in Libya' is a nonsensical name that i can't see used anywhere else; Libyan No Fly Zone was far more descriptive, i won't move the article to avoid edit wars but this does need to be looked atZaq12wsx (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• page move done by Ronnotel at 19:42, 20 March 2011 despite non-consensus and non-closure of the requested move discussion, see this edit: [24] or [25] for the move summary. Boud (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone move it back, at least until its been discussed more? despite wanting to avoid an edit war (as i said above) i would do it but im unsure howZaq12wsx (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing a move is technically tricky AFAIK, since you need to be careful about talk pages, history page, etc. Boud (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, i think as per the Title etc discussion below we'll wait and see what the 'coalition' call themselves once the handover is complete and rename it from there. Its just annoying and frankly bad manners when editors take it upon themselves to make such changes without even listening to the concerns of other wiki contributors!Zaq12wsx (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support What is happening is more then merely a no fly zone, article title should not restrict it to that. You don't attack tanks and other ground assets for a no-fly zone. (I realize the move has happened, but it should not be undone) Monty₈₄₅ 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i put a note at the Admins' noticeboard/Incidents, and after that i noticed that User:Ronnotel is an admin! So s/he should reverse the move him/herself. Admins do not have any special rights to override consensus. Boud (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins need to respect consensus, but they also need to apply common sense, and remember its not a vote. While what the article should eventually be named is a good question, it really should not go back to being no fly zone. Monty₈₄₅ 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Please note that this was not the only place this topic was being discussed and I attempted to determine consensus across all input. Also, consensus is not a vote. I based my decision to move on the persuasiveness of the arguments, the rapidly changing nature of the topic, and the incongruity of the article name with recent events. I should also mention that the article is now linked from the main page, which made the matter somewhat more time-sensitive. That said, if someone feels strongly enough that Libyan no-fly zone better describes the current situation than the current title I'm open to revert. Ronnotel (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The move might have been discussed in other places, but people discussing here, in the obvious place, were not alerted to those other discussions. You haven't even tried to tell us now where those other discussions are. Since you felt urgency to override the normal process, please either revert to the previous name, or else change to the closest thing to a consensus, which is option (e) in the "Titles etc" section below: 2011 military intervention in Libya. i started adding a comment there suggesting that (e) was probably best, but i couldn't save it because of the move. Many people editing recent events related pages may feel that the names are "time-sensitive" - does that many that everybody should move the page because s/he feels it is urgent and there's no need to wait for consensus? Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There was an utter mess in page moves for the main "2010-2011 Arab world protests" article a month or so back - let's not get into the same mess with this article. Boud (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(BTW: HJ Micthell over at the admin noticeboard page kindly pointed out that "Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page back to where it came from, provided that that the only line in the history of the redirect is the move, which, in this case, it is." In this case, Ronnotel has turned up to talk abou this, so IMHO it would be best that s/he either revert the move, or else change to the closest thing we have to consensus below. Following that, a new move proposal could be made with less "urgency".) Boud (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Title etc

I'd just like to sum up the discussion above into something more less confusing. I'd seem there does (?) exist a general consensus for name change, but not on what the new title should be. As I see it, these would be the possible names:

• (a) Libyan no-fly zone (Current name - probably the most recognizable, but does not fully represent the nature of this undertaking.)
• (b) Coalition intervention in Libya (Does not make it clear who constitutes the coalition. As such, it does not provide any more information or recognizability than, say, 2011 military intervention in Libya.)
• (c) Allied intervention in Libya (The same comments about Coalition intervention in Libya apply.)
• (d) UN (possible variation: United Nations) intervention in Libya (While more information, again not the most precise name - UN doesn't have any of their own forces ("blue helmets") or missions currently in Libya, it merely gave permission for this intervention.)

Also, I'd like to propose another name which I've mentioned before:

• (e) 2011 military intervention in Libya (I'm not saying this is the best possible name, but it does address the grievances with who the "coalition" or "allies" are, while providing a fully correct and recognizable title. One could argue Gaddafi's own military movements are another 2011 military intervention and that as such the name does not uniquely describe the topic. However, the word intervention, per Intervention (international law), implies a foreign interference, so Gaddafi's own military movements do not constitute an intervention.)

In the first run, I also forgot two proposals, so I'm adding them now:

• (f) International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising (Generally the same as (e), which means I think it provides a correct and recognizable title. However, it seems to me to be a bit too long and, as I've argued in the previous paragraph, intervention is by itself international, so "international intervention" seems to be a pleonasm.)
• (g) Operation Odyssey Dawn (While probably recognizable, this title is not precise in my view - this is merely the US arm of the operation and there seems to be no inherent reason so far as to why prefer Odyssey Dawn rather than MOBILE or the other two names.)

I'm sorry once again. Through careful reading I managed to find another couple of proposals.

• (h) Operation in support of UNSC Resolution 1973 (While fully correct, I don't think it's really recognizable - at the very least, word Libya should probably be used somewhere.)
• (i) Coalition military operation against Libyan government forces (Again, using "coalition" doesn't really say much and can only be confusing. The title is correct, but it does seem to me to be a bit long.)
• (j) 2011 Libyan police action (I think this title is very confusing, due to double meaning of the word "police". Also, it could be confused with Gaddafi's own actions, which is not the point of this article.)
• (k) 2011 military action against Libya (Essentially the same as (e) and (f) and it seems to me to be quite reasonable, although perhaps a bit undefined, with regard to rebel movements also being a form of military action against the government.)
• (l) Libyan no-fly zone and intervention (A compromise solution using our current title. While technically correct, the addition of just "and intervention" at the end seems to me to be somewhat unnatural.)

Anyway, hope the thing is a bit less confusing now. :) Personally, I'm in favor of (e), then (f), (k) and (d). Sorry about editing. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

wait for the unification of the coaltiton command to occur in Naples Italy, they will certainly make a new code-name. --78.2.63.162 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

E seems good. If they do give it a single name, that would be nice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i also agree that (e) is the best so far. i can see possible problems (the 17 Feb revolutionaries, at least a week or so ago, preferred to interpret the term "military intervention" to mean "ground soldiers" while "no-fly zone" was seen as non-interventionist), but given that Ronnotel sees an urgent need to change from Libyan no-fly zone, IMHO the instantaneous new name should be the (e) option, and after that we can go through a normal page move discussion for one of the alternatives to (e) if there seems to be a viable one. Boud (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Title very bias, needs changing

I just read Wikipedia but I am so surprised at this title that I am speaking out. Please do not attack me like Colonel Gaddafi would if he is mad.

The word intervention is very propaganda like. Would you imagine "German intervention in Poland (1939)"?

Call it "UN Resolution 1973" or "Air strikes in Libya (2011)", but not intervention.

The news media is not using the words "coalition intervention". Sounds like a government bureaucrat invented it.

So, my proposal is

UN Resolution 1973

or Air strikes in Libya.

Invasion of Libya is also possible though it's only an air invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbme (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Germans invaded Poland with the intent to make it part of their empire. The Coalition is launching air strikes and missile attacks on military targets to give the opposition a chance to take control of Libya and end the murdering of civilians. Dosen't really make sense to compare the two. As for the name I think it should be simply "Libya No-fly Zone". Just like the Iraqi no fly zone page. TopGearR814 (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intervention is also when you have a crisis of some sort. Poland didn't have a crisis at the time. We are probably going to build a base or two there if this succeeds, plus some nice oil contracts for sweet crude. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Intervention is an appropriate word if the articles so chooses to use it. Libya was attacking and killing its own citizens so outside forces "intervened". With Germany attacking Poland, that was a case of a country attacking another country to annex it; no intervention there. An "invasion" can stand on its own, such as the case with Poland and Germany. An "intervention" results from a crisis and then may consist of air strikes, a blockade, naval strikes, or even an invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

Is there a reason We have it simply named Coalition and not specifying which "Coalition?" Like "UN coalition" or United Nations intervention in Libya? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. The reason is that we don't know what to call the coalition yet. Therefore, we are waiting until this coalition calls themselves something so that we can give this article a more appropriate name later.--192.5.109.34 (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to 2011 Military intervention in Libya

I've moved the page to 2011 Military intervention in Libya.

First of all, why? Well, I don't see any consensus for the move done by Ronnotel - the only thing close to a consensus was proposal (e) in the section Title etc. The word "coalition" itself has problems, as mentioned previously multiple times on this talk page and does not provide any substance as it does not give an accurate description neither of what kind of intervention (economic, diplomatic, military...) this is nor who forms this coalition. Therefore, it is pretty much meaningless. I understand that this might not be the ideal move, but it does reflect the consensus much more accurately.

Second of all, what if I'm stupid and I shouldn't have done this? Needless to say, if anybody deems this page move unnecessary or plain wrong, please, Ronnotel or anybody else, do move the page (back) to an appropriate place. I will, of course, not engage in any page move wars and will not engage in any futher moves. There also may be issues with capitalization of the word Military in the title - as I'm no expert, please feel free to change that. I apologize if this was too bold a move. Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

BOLD is great, but moving this page around is unhelpful. A couple of days with the "wrong" name (e.g. the cap "M" in "Military") is not the end of the world. Just wait for a bit of consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Theres no reason for leaving the "M" capitalized. I think that 2011 Coalition intervention in Libya is a little more precise. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do please change the capitalization if it is incorrect - I apologize. I do not see "coalition intervention" as any more precise than "military intervention", for the reasons I mentioned above. Would you like to give some arguments why it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking if you could explain it a bit. :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this a circumvention of consensus seeking? (ie. you should not boldly rename things when an officially filed active discussion is underway) 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That crime had already been committed, leaving the article with a very poor title with little support. This latest move is at least a step in the right direction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the coalition title was fine, and I think this one is fine, I'm just glad its not still using the no-fly name. I think either one will do fine until things settle down and in a week or two we can make an informed choice on what name will be best in the long term. Monty₈₄₅ 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best would be 'United Nations intervention in Libya' considering it was a UN proposal with countries enforcing a UN-mandated no-fly zone under UN auspices. SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with "coalition" is that it's a word that acts like it has a clear meaning, but it doesn't. It's been used for a couple of decades now to mean "The USA plus whoever decides to go to war with it this time round". Not precise at all. It got a bad name in Iraq when those wondering where the WMDs were changed it from "Coalition of the Willing" to "Coalition of the Lying". Not a wise choice these days. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "military" shouldn't be capitalized per conventions, I'd suggest performing the related change. Brandmeister t 09:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and would do it but the move tab is not there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "M" shouldn't be capitalised. - SSJ ^t 10:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The proper title is coalition intervention in Libya. The "2011" isn't needed because there isn't another article about another coalition intervention of another year. The rather lame "coalition" is needed so far because the intervening forces are still quibbling over command structure. Once they have made some more stable arrangement, this can be changed to "allied", or possibly "NATO". --dab (𒁳) 13:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Proper title"? How is that "proper". Who has defined it as such? And how is "Allied" much better than "coalition"? They're both just clichéd words that really don't mean what some people seem to think they sound like they mean. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 UNSC intervention in Libya would be more sensible. 'Military' clarifies absolutely nothing. There's been nothing but military operations going on in Libya since the conflict began. This is NOT about Nato or 'allied' or whatever. Read the resolution, and note the signers Flatterworld (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

i suggest that discussion of new names go to a new section. The name change by Peasantwarrior was only intended to help clean up a procedural mess. Boud (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It resulted in a new procedural mess. We've got two separate discussion areas about the naming of this article, and a potential revert to Libyan no-fly zone when the requested move expires. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Title etc another try

After reading through #Title_etc and other discussions above, arguments for and against the most likely titles include... Are we ready to try a WP:Requested moves procedure for XYZ as the new name for this article? (this is just a template to help the discussion get started) Boud (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Main article image needs updating

The article image of the map needs updating, missing RAF Akrotiri (Cyprus), RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall etc --SuperDan89 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On it. Jolly Ω Janner 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

also Decimomannu in Sardinia needs to be put on the map, as the UAE and Spanish planes will be based there. as for from Trapani: Italian planes are departing for missions in Libya from there too. In Sigonella there are Danish and Italian planes. From Souda Bay French and Qatari planes depart for mission over Libya. noclador (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

also British Typoons are now based in Southern Italy - can anyone find out which base they are based at? noclador (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They're at Giaoia del Colle and are already on the map. I have updated the map. Let me know if there's anything else, which is being reported. Jolly Ω Janner 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed someone added the naval forces to the map. What about the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown? That should also be included. Soutsc (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties wrong info

First, the casualties for Libya are much smaller.

Second, International Forces got 2 planes shot down, whether Pentagon denies it or not.

Third, as long as Pentagon is realiable source, Libyan State TV is also reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indepentdent organisations such as the UN would be best to use. However, I would regard the Pentagon more reliable than Libyan TV, especially for their own forces. Jolly Ω Janner 19:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Libya state TV is in no way a reliable source. These are the same people who supported the ideas that Gadhafi told the people at the start of the uprising (when it was one) that it was because of was caused by, Al-Qaeda, then drugs, then the West. Then he just outright denied it and the whole time Libya state TV supported and assured the people these were true. TopGearR814 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would sort agree with you on the third part, to an extent. Pentagon itself is not a fully reliable source and I wouldn't use information coming solely from Pentagon. However, Libyan state TV is, frankly, ridiculous, and such a claim, strong as it may be, can be confirmed from multiple sources (Bin Laden joining forces with the US and Israelis to sell drugs to Libyan youth, just to name one of the mental acrobatics offered to us by Gaddafi and the good people of Libyan TV). About the casualties you mention: if I'm reading correctly, the article currently says "Unknown number of civilian casualties", which is very NPOV. If you're talking about military losses, these numbers have been confirmed by a number of videos and still images. Thus, these casualties are something very difficult to deny and my personal opinion is that their inclusion in the article is correct.

Second, about planes shot down. Now, I'm not claiming a priori that's not true. Are there any photos or videos of these planes after their shooting down? One would expect such an event getting significant attention from Libyan TV and I'm sure they'd send a reporter to the crash site. If it crashed in the Mediterranean, are there any images/videos of it being fired at and hit? Any photos of it leaving clouds of smoke behind? Again, I'm not disagreeing with you a priori - "Western" powers have been known to lie (frankly, the whole thing about planes being turned around mid-air once they heard there were civilians on the ground, while entirely possible, seems a bit like a stunt for the world public, if you ask me). I'd just like to at least see some circumstantial evidence of it being plausible. But that may just be me. (I don't think so, though.) Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan TV is a tool of the propaganda machine of Gaddafi. Everything they report is unreliable at best and pure fantasy at worst ("People in Benghazi live in a nightmare! A nightmare"); therefore unless a more reliable source confirms something we shall and will disregard Libyan State TV as a source. noclador (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the "nightmare" part was from an American channel, but yes I would agree that Libyan State TV is in no way a reliable source when it comes to this conflict. -- Philly boy92 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the plane shot down. At least, "unknown" casualties shud be added.Frajjsen (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly a matter of belief. There have been no facts, presented by Libyan TV or otherwise, supporting that claim. Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And then, why we believe in the Pentagon :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already told you, I do not a priori believe in what Pentagon says. I'm sure nobody does. Let's be explicit here: which parts of this article that have not been supported by multiple sources (especially videos, images, witness accounts etc.) do you find incorrect? The casualty figures you mentioned earlier are indeed supported by an extensive amount of such material. Once again, this is not about belief. To make a classic argument, check out this image: File:Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg. Now, some people believe that the guy in the left of the picture once existed, some believe that the guy in the right of the picture is the creator of universe as a whole. Now, I don't believe either one of them existed, so I'd need to be convinced by proof. Can you tell me who's right? How do you know? :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I cannot prove that the left guy ever existed to you unless you accept my proof procedures, 2. that guy at the right looks uncannily familiar. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Another anti-aircraft fire taking place right now Frajjsen (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Some forces have a record of lying about planes being shot down, some don't. That's what makes some sources reliable and some not. Libyan state tv is, imo, the equivalent of Comical Ali on this. Flatterworld (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont know, where all this Libya casualties come, but I douby it seriously. 16 soldiers? Havent they leaved killing soldiers at 3 phase?

14 tanks? Only one - bombed by France.

70 vehicles? I havent heard anything about destoyed vehicles.

Unknown number of civilians? Ridicuolus.

A pic of shot down MIG-21 was also shown. Western powers said nothing. It was rebel plane however(I doubt they have planes however)

Never mind.. this wiki offers only 'encyclopedic' information and simply NO 'US-negative' information.

Hidding, removing... what else?

Heres another pic of shot down french plane - it is from yesterday.

http://content.marica.bg/news/2011/03/0000012210_w480.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe you think this is a picture of a French plane shot down yesterday. No, this picture is of a rebel plane you mention - a MIG-23, if I'm not mistaken. It was all over the news and the incident is discussed in 2011 Libyan uprising, where you can find exactly the same photo you posted, the one on Wikipedia being of slightly higher quality. It is not from yesterday: actually, you can see it was uploaded on Wikipedia on March 19, three days ago!

About the tanks, vehicles or soldiers, you might have not heard anything about it. However, there are multiple pictures, videos and witness accounts of such vehicles. You can see some here: [26]. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if we didn't have the true story behind this crash (we do, as correctly described by user:Peasantwarrior), separating all French fighters from the MiG-23 on the photo is straight forward. Notice tailplane (both D.Mirage 2000 and D. Rafale lack this completely, and the old Mirage F1 hasn't been used at all by the French Opération Harmattan), and the long relatively slender wings, typical of swing wing jets (unlike all French fighter jets). There are numerous other differences that perhaps are less obvious to people without a military background and I do understand why people would not immediately notice those, but that IP 92.247.220.195 missed the obvious wing and tailplane differences that I just mentioned can only mean that he/she didn't even bother checking. RN1970 (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The current reference for Libyan casualties listed does not contain the information listed. This reference should be removed and the information tagged as needing a citation, or removed completely until information is available. Alousybum (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Costs

This topic was covered by BBC News 24 and by Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 today. The costs for UK are quite staggering and must be very similar for all those other nations similarly committed. I see no reason why this topic should not warrant its own section in the article, provided WP:OR could be avoided. It currently seems to get a mention only in Ref 86 currently. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Find some more sources talking about it and put them in the article as best you can then. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2011_War_On_Libya_Belligerents.svg

Why is Greece not included, but Sweden is? Sweden isn't even providing anything until asked. The Greeks are actively allowing military bases to be used for operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.233.23 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because there's a lot of conflicting reports about Greece, including that they will not partake in military operations. [27] Allowing military bases to be used doesn't make one a participant in a war.--Sloane (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And Svenska (Sweden)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sweden has offered to join, if they were asked by NATO, but so far nothing has come of it (probably because the operation has been in disarray with the lack of leadership). --Sloane (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hence Sweden shouldn't be included in the belligerents... SSDGFCTCT9 (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing in the sky, nothing in the (info)box. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest rename to 'UN Coalition intervention in Libya'

There has been the criticism that 'coalition' is too vague as it doesn't actually identify the coalition party. There is the equal criticism that 'military' is likewise too vague for similar reasons. It occurred to me that 'UN Coalition' is the proper and superior term for usage here, as it identifies the UN, and more specifically the coalition acting under UN mandate, as the principal actor. Regards, -67.161.54.63 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We should rely on WP:COMMONNAME methinks, and wait for a common name to emerge. Is it me or is everything about this whole thing, that is name-related, just one big point of contention? Though I think we can agree the country is called Libya (joking of course in case y'all think otherwise. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why this love affair with the meaningless word "coalition"? It's a filler. It's imprecise. It doesn't tell the reader anything. And it's associated with negatives - "Coalition of the willing/lying" in Iraq. I agree that at the moment it is a UN endorsed action. That could be added. And surely it IS military in nature. And it IS an intervention. Exactly what is the problem you're trying to solve? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's very easy to confuse it with George Bush's coalition, and I personally don't like it one bit. I liked them being called Allies more, but then of course you have the problem of the Allies of World War II/United Nations (which no one uses ofc). I do wish they'd create a nice name for our forces, or at least a unique one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• NATO's taking over, so you might start using that.--Sloane (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Until we have a common name I would not worry. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to "NATO Intervention in Libya". No 2011 at the beginning cause this could go on to next year but if it does end in this year the 2011 could be added. TopGearR814 (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO works. Let's wait till they take it over officially though and the papers start talking abotu it like that though. Or ~just when they take over, whichever. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. It should be say Military enforcement of UNSCR 1973.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, except for the fact that it took me quite some time to figure out what UNSCR stood for. Happy for it to mention the UN. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"coalition" was just a preliminary vague term while people were still bickering over command. One should hope they will get their act together over the next few days, and if the whole thing ends up under NATO command, we can just call it a NATO mission. --dab (𒁳) 17:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, 'NATO intervention' does not work here, simply because the NATO is not currently the active party. Also, there are non-NATO members in the coalition. NATO is not the party currently engaged, therefore it would make no sense to rename the article to accommodate a late addition. 'Coalition' does mean something if the context is given, and the context here is a UN mandate. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter if the French come first then the UK and the US

I'm referrring to the Commanders and Leaders info boxOther dictionaries are better (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the tidiest, easiest, most NPOV way is to list items alphabetically, so, "no"! Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

 Done The lead sentence sounds a little POV to me. Stylistically, the sentence should strive to include some aspect of the article title in bold to give the reader a better understanding of the topic. As it stands now, it looks intended to emphasize the humanitarian aspect of the operation. However, that seems at odds with the title and content of the article, which focuses on the military aspects. Can we change it back to something more on point? Ronnotel (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreeOther dictionaries are better (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot agree. "the sentence should strive to include some aspect of the article title in bold" is a terrible policy. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface."

as for "military aspects of the operation", I am not sure this makes any sense. This is a military operation. It does not "have military aspects". Its purported motivation is humanitarian. Its nature is military. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree on the purportness of the humanitarian part. If you look at the text I replaced, it looked like someone was trying to invoke the phrase "humanitarian intervention" and was employ rhetorical devices to support that interpretation. Whether we use boldface text is, in my mind, not that important - I just want the reader to be clear what the article describes - a military intervention. Ronnotel (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"In March, 2011, a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US launched a military intervention in Libya to enforce a no-fly zone established over Libyan airspace by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 on 17 March 2011."... "Since the beginning of the war, the initial coalition has expanded to 14 nations, with newer nations mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade." - It is annoying that all the time one editor tries to add his "War on Libya" POV to this article. noclador (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The most NPOV term we can use here is "military intervention". There's no evidence of actual humanitarian assistance underway at this time. To call this such is mislead. This article describes bombs being dropped, not school building and other do-gooderisms. Ronnotel (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Undid revision 420366383 on 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

I undid the undo of my revision. Both countries were bombed after UN Resolutions. Both countries are in the Middle-East region. The date may be coincidence, but the two are hardly unrelated.--161.28.254.255 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this should be added. It is entirely irrelevant. The 2003 war in Iraq was not UN sanctioned. It was also not about Libya, which strike me as the two possible reasons to put thins in the see also section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Arms embargo

This needs a separate article, Operation Unified Protector. It is part of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 but will be a separate NATO operation performed by a separate naval force.[28] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

This article transponds only claims (loses) by western media, not neutral sources. At that fashion, we`ll need to mention at least some claims by opposing sides (french loses,...). --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see this earlier discussion about the claim that a French plane was shot down. WP:RS is important. RN1970 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, all that western media claims are same as in all wars in last 20 year. First of all, "media preparation" was launched weeks before air strikes, by getting into program "innocent" citizens of Libya that required strikes (same as Kuwait scenario in 1991, when a daughter of Kuwait ambassador to US claimed that she was a girl, that was a victim of Iraqi attacks). And all those people were anonimous! No opposite side had a chance to give their point of view. Also, we need to keep in mind that in 1999, when F-117A was shot over Yugoslavia, Pentagon claimed that it crashed due to mechanical faillure, all untill December 1999, when Kosovo War was over long ago.--DustBGD89-3 (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS. Please also remember this is not a WP:FORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, read WP:UNDUE. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why he should do that(read WP:UNDUE)? Maybe because you ignore every one with different position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well he could read it to see whether Reference suggesting he do so was right. There's as good a reason as any. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What DustBGD89-3 writes is a criticism of Wikipedia, I guess. "The most important condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" would make Wikipedia to claim the World is flat if we were in Middle Ages. Kavas (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey statements

User Noclador has deleted this summary of statements by Turkey from the article (again):

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution and said that he had called for Gaddafi to step down several times. However, he said that Turkey would never point guns at the Libyan people.

This summary of statements by Turkey seems like a relevant thing to add to this article. If there's a problem with the characterisation as "mixed reaction", this can very easily be solved by simply deleting the "Support", "Mixed" and "Criticism" titles from that section of the article. Which might be a good idea anyway. More info on Turkey's rather ambivalent position is needed too (like their opposition to NATO taking control).--Sloane (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution - so he does not criticize it, also Turkey sends ships to enforce the weapons embargo; criticism is something different. I do not see any criticism in Erdoğan statement. noclador (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read my comments again. Turkey has a pretty ambivalent attitude towards this operation. This can simply be covered by including some of the comments they've made over the past week. If you dislike the characterisation of "mixed" (not "criticism "as you wrongly state), we can and probably should just remove the classification of all statements, just one big reaction section seems much more suitable anyway. --Sloane (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

don't wiggle around now! the paragraph as it is now is fully in support of the intervention!! If you add other comments that may change the things, but you can not put Turkey in a category because comments they have made that ARE NOT in the paragraph. If you add some real criticism then naturally the paragraph can stay. But do not say, this must stay because of comments they made, but which are not in the paragraph; if it is not in the paragraph and it is not sourced, it is not there, if it is not there, then it is not there. noclador (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More criticism from Turkey: Amid arguments over the scope and command of the air campaign against Tripoli, Turkey both blocked Nato planning on the no-fly zone and insisted that Nato be put in control of it, in order to be granted a veto over its operations, senior Nato officials said. "Turkey blocked further planning while the coalition [of the willing] continues," said a senior official. Ankara wants the broad coalition involved in the air campaign to cede control to Nato in order to limit its operations, the official added. The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks on ground targets in Libya and signalled that agreement on this would be the price of their assent. [29]--Sloane (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

is this criticism? it sounds more like "arguments over the scope and command of the air campaign against". criticism of the command structure is irrelevant. Has any Turkish government official said the no-fly zone, the operation ecc. is wrong? if yes, then put Turkey in the critics section. if not, then there is no criticism of the no-fly zone and operation. noclador (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks" --Sloane (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

He is right that it is not related to actual criticism of their air attacks though, rather a desire to have a direct say in the goings on here. As well, could you two please tone it down a notch? You've been at each other's throats for a while (I saw the 3RR complaint) rather than working together to help improve the article. Let's just chill, fellas. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sloane, please quote completely: "The Turks specifically called for a halt to air attacks on ground targets in Libya." they did not call for an end of the arms embargo, they did not call for an end to the no-fly zone. noclador (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkey's opinion is mixed. Turkey supports military intervention but not France's assault on Libya without informing NATO. Turkey is also suspicious of Western powers' desires, and think that the aim of the operation should be limited to the implementation of UN resolution. Turkey will provide support for armies that fight against current Libyan government, but will not order its army to fight against it. Turkey's position on Afghnistan is the same, Turkey supports the operation in Afghanistan and has troops there but does not point guns at Taleban. But, if you disagree on this, and think that Turkey does not criticize the operation at all, you don't have to remove sourced material, do you? Kavas (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sand buzzard is using the sources out of context to show that Turkey is completely against the operation, but this is also not true. Kavas (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that Turkey does not criticize the operation at all, I removed the current statement of Turkey, because as it was, it showed only that Turkey fully supports it. This mess came about because there were three sections Support, Mixed and Criticism - I moved now all to the page started by another editor International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya, which does not try anymore to separate the opinions. Which in my view will massively reduce the debate. Please have a look at the new article and let me know what you think. noclador (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea if some editors do not try to seperate it again. Kavas (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, noclador (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)