![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
On 1 July 2014 Bgwhite (talk | contribs) . .Removed what s/he described in the edit summary as: "POV edits. Remove 2009 Gaddafi statement... Not about Libya, but what Gaddafi purposed, (sic) also POV. Keep this about Libya and summation. This has already been argued to death at :Libyan Civil War"
The relevant section is headed "Libya under Gaddafi". Gaddafi's policy statement for Libya is therefor within that topic, nor is it POV. Whatever has been "argued to death" in a separate article is irrelevant to the present Libya article, which is the main overview article and as such has precedence. Moreover, edit summaries are not the appropriate place for discussion. If Bgwhite wants to argue, let him or her argue and gain consensus in the Talk place here, which Bgwhite has not done, thereby encouraging an edit war. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite also appears to have reverted further content without specifying same in the edit summary. That kind of behavior sails dangerously close to vandalism. Stop it please. If you genuinely want to improve the article in good faith, then there's lots of room to do so. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite: I deny all your allegations above. Nor is it your prerogative to arbitrarily order me to ANI. I intend to adhere to WP:BRD (and a few other rules) whether you like it or not. Thank you for your interest and assurance of your good faith. A new discussion section below will follow shortly. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I look forward to a frank and fruitful discussion with you and/or whoever else wants to join in. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck says (above)"Nobody here is doing anything against policy ..." (except me, allegedly). So this discussion is initiated in terms of WP:BRD with a view to improving an understanding that may be acceptable to all interested parties and thus avoid an edit war.
User talk:Bgwhite has deleted content including three bibliographic entries on the grounds of what he wrongly alleges (see section above) is "POV", "one sided", "anti-Nato", "pro-Gaddafi", etc. In so doing, User talk:Bgwhite has violated policy as specified in policy shortcuts: WP:BALASPS; WP:BALANCE; WP:NOTTRUTH; WP:TRUTH; WP:VNT; WP:WEIGHT; WP:DUE; WP:BIAS; WP:WORLDVIEW; WP:V; WP:VERIFY; WP:VER; WP:VERIFICATION, among others.
Neutrality requires that an article must represent fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The item at issue which User talk:Bgwhite deleted, which deletion he then attempted to justify in terms of "policy", was properly sourced to Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. International Security purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.”
There can therefor be no question as to whether or not the above source conforms with WP policy. WP criteria for reliable sources (RS), specifies that “academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources”. In determining proper weight, editors must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it. When reliable sources diverge, editors must present what the divergent sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.
User:Gwhite claims his deletions/reversion were done in good faith. If one accepts his assurance of good faith, then his breaches of policy can only be attributed to sloppy editing or to unconscious systemic bias. As far as I know, he has never complained of or reverted existing content and sources in the Libya article such as "Libyan terrorism: the case against Gaddafi", which is not supported by research documentation, and the tone and slant of which is stridently anti-Gaddafi, nor is it properly referenced, and it has been that way for a long time without any objection by Gwhite or anyone else for that matter. (see ref 56, Libya article). There are numerous, similar, other sources in the article that give weight to the dominant Western anti-Gaddafi narrative. So much for Gwhite's alleged concern for neutrality when complaining about the tone and slant of "anti-Nato" sources contributed in good faith by me in the interests of balance and NPOV. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted 41.134.206.2's edit again. Again this is POV pushing. Dbrodbeck an I agree that this is POV pushing. If you would like to discuss the edits, that would be fine. If you are only going to rant about me or the evils of Wikipedia, I again will not participate. Bgwhite ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Should you refrain from discussing this in a sensible and constructive manner, it will be taken as concurrence that you have no justification for the reversions at issue. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure everyone is ignoring you not because your arguments are so ironclad, but because you're yet another in a long, long parade of mendacious editors lecturing everyone about their limited Western mindsets, failing to assume good faith, and arguing in favor of things that are contrary to both reliable sources and common sense. I see no reason to engage with you further beyond assuring you consensus does not exist for your POV-pushing edits; I can't speak for any other editor, but I suspect those you mention may feel similarly. There are only so many hours in a day, and in light of your hostile, stubborn, and non-constructive attitude, I have none for you. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All reports indicate the General National Congress has reformed and is meeting in Tripoli, and commands a base of support considering it to be Libya's legitimate government, while the House of Representatives is meeting in Tobruk and has its own supporters: [1] [2] [3]. (Meanwhile, of course, most of the country appears to be outside the direct control of either government: [4] [5]) - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Some sources state that Libya uses the EET time zone and not CET as stated in the Wikipedia article. Which one is correct? -- Allanth ( talk) 09:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This article on Libya should have some mention in it about the incursion of ISIS/ISIL into Libya: /info/en/?search=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_occupation_of_Derna /info/en/?search=2014_ISIL_Expansion_in_Eastern_Libya — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaEremita ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not 100% confident but isn't the following sentence misleading?
"Muammar Gaddafi remained in power until a US State Department-backed coup[11][12] in 2011 overthrew him."
The wording sugggests that the coup was, influenced, initated or suggested by the US State Department. While the US did ultimately back the coup against Gaddafi, it was Libyans who took up this fight to free themselves. If I am not mistaken, the US (specifically) only became involved after they were "criticized" for not acting. The specific nature of said criticism I do not recall.
69.158.169.223 ( talk) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to make the intro a little better [6], especially as the header does not match the text. If there was only one kingdom with no successions I am hesitant to call it a kingdom. I think we should mention the form of government that Gaddafi implemented. I also could not find a source for the claim of expulsions from the country. Scientus ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6443:1400:D1B2:C984:E18B:6A26 ( talk) 17:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Vandalisim i assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.142.88 ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
According to these two- sources, the official formal name of Libya is and has been "State of Libya" since ~2014. Even in the article itself under the Etymology subsection, there is an (unsourced) sentence stating: "The current name, "State of Libya" (Arabic: دولة ليبيا Dawlat Libya), was adopted unanimously by the General National Congress in January 2013.". Why is the full name in the article just 'Libya'? -- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the lead's "recent history" paragraph reads as follows:
In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution, remaining in power until the Libyan Civil War of 2011, in which the rebels were supported by NATO. [1] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production. [2] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe. [3] [4]
In other words, "dictator grabbed power and did dictator stuff until NATO helped the people get freedom." I was surprised it made no mention of what is specifically addressed in the article regarding the social advancements projects in Libya under his rule and replaced it with:
In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution. From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in all of Africa. Without borrowing any foreign loans, this kept Libya uniquely debt-free. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. Much financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs, making the country a popular destination for labour migrants. In 2011, the country descended into a civil war , in which the rebels were supported by NATO. [5] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production. [6] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe. [7] [8]
For unknown reasons, User:Mezigue reverted this due to alleged "POV-pushing". I noted that omitting it violates WP:DUE and that a lead should reflect the article. I was again reverted. I'm not sure there is anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Two sources are included re its official name: The EU and the CIA World Fact Book. If you follow the links, both sources say its official name is plain "Libya". "Libya" is also the name used and notified to UN. If it's been changed to "State of Libya" proper sources are needed to show this. In the meantime I've removed the references to "State of" and the statement concerning a change having been made which did not cite any sources whatsoever. For avoidance of doubt:
This should read "Bangladeshis", but I can't make the change myself without possibly damaging the link. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the spelling "Lybia" a valid historical spelling or just wrong? For disclosure pertains to the requested move of Lybia (crab genus) seen here.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think so, see here:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lybia
The legitimacy of the two rival governments in Libya is obviously a conscientious issue, but it should be noted that there were previous revisions of this article where the Tobruk-based government was repeatedly named as 'internationally recognised', despite only having gained such recognition from minorities in the Egyptian and Russian governments, whilst the Tripoli-based is recognised internationally and by the UN as a more viable and legitimate legislature. This can be verified by multiple media articles and organisations as well as a number of NGOs, e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-partition-trump-administration-sebastian-gorka
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKBN12F051?il=0
However, there is some dispute as the Tobruk government did gain some international recognition before the Tripoli government was re-established, perhaps leading to some confusion:
http://www.ecfr.eu/mena/mapping_libya_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.196.122 ( talk) 11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This page needs to be protected against vandalism. 2605:6001:EB50:A900:AD66:471D:480B:D98A ( talk) 09:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This article from February the 5th suggests that the new Libyan biometric passport will have a somewhat modified emblem. Currently the star and crescent on the old, green interim passports serves/had served as the de facto emblem/coat of arms of Libya. However, these new blue ones have a star and crescent where the crescent is slightly tilted and thicker, and the star is a bit off-center. Should the current emblem file on the page be updated to reflect this?-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/2015/08/07/6355978/peace-talks-between-libyan-factions.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ncrss.com/report3.docWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
For a long time now there has been revisions over exactly what the official name for Libya is supposed to be now. It used to be "State of Libya", then just "Libya" with a reference, now the former again without a source.
However to further complicate matters, Encyclopedia Britannica lists the official name as "The Libyan Republic". The article seems to have been last updated January 4 of this year from what I read, but there is no primary evidence here either.
What is the official name for Libya, if there is any now? I can't seem to find any direct evidence here.-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The United Nations official page, link given above, maintains that the long form official name is just Libya, which is also what the yet unchanged Constitution says. No change has yet been made officially. 92.184.96.148 ( talk) 10:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I am a Libyan living in the outskirts of Benghazi. I have seen many soldiers proclaim their Liberal stance and that a Liberal coup has occurred. Please send help as this is very serious. Thank you. 109.181.21.210 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to have the Italian name of the country on this article. Italian is no longer a significant language in Libya like French is in Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
not sure what this is about. It seems to have been suppressed in the media. Noel Ellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The last time we numbering the people of libya has been 7,307,345 in 2017 which means in 2030 will be 11 million عبدالوهاب الليبي ( talk) 02:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pacification of Libya. Note that, as the thread goes on, the conversation switches from discussing "Genocide of Libya" as a possible title to discussing whether to change it to "Second Italo-Senussi War".
Generalrelative (
talk)
00:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why there are images of two US politicians (Kerry, H Clinton) in an article that is supposed to be about Libya? Surely one image is more than enough. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Since no one has agreed with Logare, and since Logare has now been indefinitely blocked (for, among other things, apparent pro-ISIS edits), I'm gonna go ahead and hat this. If anyone feels that there's anything of value in here (other than a good demonstration of M.Bitton being very patient), feel free to revert this close. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Logare has done nothing but remove chunks of content without a valid explanation and now, they are removing properly sourced content that they disagree with. I will restore the article to its stable form and invite them to discuss their edits here. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's the wholesale content removal that is disputed and not just the official status of the religion. I already explained that the sport and health sections could be updated, but there is no reason to remove them as they contain encyclopedia content. Why remove the fact that 96.6% of the Libyan population are
Sunni Muslims, the image of Omar Mukhtar, etc? Basically, too much information is being removed without a valid reason.
I know what you said about the constitution, the trouble is you can't back it up with a source. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
|
That statistics was from 2010-2021, but in January Libya's population has reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com (they confirm my discussion) and I hope you accept my discussion and do the right thing and change it Yaseen albreky ( talk) 19:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Libya has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The population of Libya! The population of Libya was 6 million since 2010 until 2021, in January 2022 Libya's population reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com and other websites and I'm looking forward for you to change it and do the right thing, thanks Yaseen albreky ( talk) 19:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add fathi bashaga as tobruk PM in the infobox 212.108.149.148 ( talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220210-libya-parliament-names-rival-pm-in-challenge-to-unity-govt
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The state government is disputed. At the infobox, why we see only the one prime-minister and the other at note. Both of them should be shown equally. REPORT 62.74.61.231 ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya-- Julian Assange
and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya-- Julian Assange
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
On 1 July 2014 Bgwhite (talk | contribs) . .Removed what s/he described in the edit summary as: "POV edits. Remove 2009 Gaddafi statement... Not about Libya, but what Gaddafi purposed, (sic) also POV. Keep this about Libya and summation. This has already been argued to death at :Libyan Civil War"
The relevant section is headed "Libya under Gaddafi". Gaddafi's policy statement for Libya is therefor within that topic, nor is it POV. Whatever has been "argued to death" in a separate article is irrelevant to the present Libya article, which is the main overview article and as such has precedence. Moreover, edit summaries are not the appropriate place for discussion. If Bgwhite wants to argue, let him or her argue and gain consensus in the Talk place here, which Bgwhite has not done, thereby encouraging an edit war. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite also appears to have reverted further content without specifying same in the edit summary. That kind of behavior sails dangerously close to vandalism. Stop it please. If you genuinely want to improve the article in good faith, then there's lots of room to do so. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite: I deny all your allegations above. Nor is it your prerogative to arbitrarily order me to ANI. I intend to adhere to WP:BRD (and a few other rules) whether you like it or not. Thank you for your interest and assurance of your good faith. A new discussion section below will follow shortly. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 10:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I look forward to a frank and fruitful discussion with you and/or whoever else wants to join in. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Dbrodbeck says (above)"Nobody here is doing anything against policy ..." (except me, allegedly). So this discussion is initiated in terms of WP:BRD with a view to improving an understanding that may be acceptable to all interested parties and thus avoid an edit war.
User talk:Bgwhite has deleted content including three bibliographic entries on the grounds of what he wrongly alleges (see section above) is "POV", "one sided", "anti-Nato", "pro-Gaddafi", etc. In so doing, User talk:Bgwhite has violated policy as specified in policy shortcuts: WP:BALASPS; WP:BALANCE; WP:NOTTRUTH; WP:TRUTH; WP:VNT; WP:WEIGHT; WP:DUE; WP:BIAS; WP:WORLDVIEW; WP:V; WP:VERIFY; WP:VER; WP:VERIFICATION, among others.
Neutrality requires that an article must represent fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The item at issue which User talk:Bgwhite deleted, which deletion he then attempted to justify in terms of "policy", was properly sourced to Kuperman, Alan J, "How not to intervene". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge MA, United States September 2013, retrieved 26 June 2014 (The online policy brief is a summation of an academic journal article titled “A Model Humanitarian Intervention? Reassessing NATO's Libya Campaign”, published by MIT Press on behalf of the Belfer Centre in the Summer 2013 issue of the journal International Security) The Belfer Centre is one of America’s leading think tanks in the fields of geo-politics and international relations. The author of the article, Alan J. Kuperman, is Associate Professor of Public Affairs in the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, Austin, United States. International Security purports to be America’s leading peer-reviewed journal of security affairs. Its publisher describes International Security as having “defined the debate on US national security policy and set the agenda for scholarship on international security affairs for more than thirty years … International Security has been consistently at or near the top of the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor rankings of all international relations journals. It also ranks #1 among journals of military studies according to Google Scholar.”
There can therefor be no question as to whether or not the above source conforms with WP policy. WP criteria for reliable sources (RS), specifies that “academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources”. In determining proper weight, editors must consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Editors may not may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether individual editors think it is true or think they can personally verify it. When reliable sources diverge, editors must present what the divergent sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.
User:Gwhite claims his deletions/reversion were done in good faith. If one accepts his assurance of good faith, then his breaches of policy can only be attributed to sloppy editing or to unconscious systemic bias. As far as I know, he has never complained of or reverted existing content and sources in the Libya article such as "Libyan terrorism: the case against Gaddafi", which is not supported by research documentation, and the tone and slant of which is stridently anti-Gaddafi, nor is it properly referenced, and it has been that way for a long time without any objection by Gwhite or anyone else for that matter. (see ref 56, Libya article). There are numerous, similar, other sources in the article that give weight to the dominant Western anti-Gaddafi narrative. So much for Gwhite's alleged concern for neutrality when complaining about the tone and slant of "anti-Nato" sources contributed in good faith by me in the interests of balance and NPOV. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 13:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted 41.134.206.2's edit again. Again this is POV pushing. Dbrodbeck an I agree that this is POV pushing. If you would like to discuss the edits, that would be fine. If you are only going to rant about me or the evils of Wikipedia, I again will not participate. Bgwhite ( talk) 21:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Should you refrain from discussing this in a sensible and constructive manner, it will be taken as concurrence that you have no justification for the reversions at issue. 41.134.206.2 ( talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure everyone is ignoring you not because your arguments are so ironclad, but because you're yet another in a long, long parade of mendacious editors lecturing everyone about their limited Western mindsets, failing to assume good faith, and arguing in favor of things that are contrary to both reliable sources and common sense. I see no reason to engage with you further beyond assuring you consensus does not exist for your POV-pushing edits; I can't speak for any other editor, but I suspect those you mention may feel similarly. There are only so many hours in a day, and in light of your hostile, stubborn, and non-constructive attitude, I have none for you. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
All reports indicate the General National Congress has reformed and is meeting in Tripoli, and commands a base of support considering it to be Libya's legitimate government, while the House of Representatives is meeting in Tobruk and has its own supporters: [1] [2] [3]. (Meanwhile, of course, most of the country appears to be outside the direct control of either government: [4] [5]) - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Some sources state that Libya uses the EET time zone and not CET as stated in the Wikipedia article. Which one is correct? -- Allanth ( talk) 09:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This article on Libya should have some mention in it about the incursion of ISIS/ISIL into Libya: /info/en/?search=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_occupation_of_Derna /info/en/?search=2014_ISIL_Expansion_in_Eastern_Libya — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaEremita ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not 100% confident but isn't the following sentence misleading?
"Muammar Gaddafi remained in power until a US State Department-backed coup[11][12] in 2011 overthrew him."
The wording sugggests that the coup was, influenced, initated or suggested by the US State Department. While the US did ultimately back the coup against Gaddafi, it was Libyans who took up this fight to free themselves. If I am not mistaken, the US (specifically) only became involved after they were "criticized" for not acting. The specific nature of said criticism I do not recall.
69.158.169.223 ( talk) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I tried to make the intro a little better [6], especially as the header does not match the text. If there was only one kingdom with no successions I am hesitant to call it a kingdom. I think we should mention the form of government that Gaddafi implemented. I also could not find a source for the claim of expulsions from the country. Scientus ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6443:1400:D1B2:C984:E18B:6A26 ( talk) 17:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Vandalisim i assume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.142.88 ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
According to these two- sources, the official formal name of Libya is and has been "State of Libya" since ~2014. Even in the article itself under the Etymology subsection, there is an (unsourced) sentence stating: "The current name, "State of Libya" (Arabic: دولة ليبيا Dawlat Libya), was adopted unanimously by the General National Congress in January 2013.". Why is the full name in the article just 'Libya'? -- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 20:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the lead's "recent history" paragraph reads as follows:
In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution, remaining in power until the Libyan Civil War of 2011, in which the rebels were supported by NATO. [1] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production. [2] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe. [3] [4]
In other words, "dictator grabbed power and did dictator stuff until NATO helped the people get freedom." I was surprised it made no mention of what is specifically addressed in the article regarding the social advancements projects in Libya under his rule and replaced it with:
In 1969, a military coup overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform. The most prominent coup conspirator, Muammar Gaddafi, was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution. From 1977 onward, per capita income in the country rose to the fifth-highest in Africa, while the Human Development Index became the highest in all of Africa. Without borrowing any foreign loans, this kept Libya uniquely debt-free. The Great Manmade River was also built to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country. Much financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs, making the country a popular destination for labour migrants. In 2011, the country descended into a civil war , in which the rebels were supported by NATO. [5] Since then, Libya has experienced instability and political violence which has severely affected both commerce and oil production. [6] The European Union is involved in an operation to disrupt human trafficking networks exploiting refugees fleeing from the war for Europe. [7] [8]
For unknown reasons, User:Mezigue reverted this due to alleged "POV-pushing". I noted that omitting it violates WP:DUE and that a lead should reflect the article. I was again reverted. I'm not sure there is anything other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT at work here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Two sources are included re its official name: The EU and the CIA World Fact Book. If you follow the links, both sources say its official name is plain "Libya". "Libya" is also the name used and notified to UN. If it's been changed to "State of Libya" proper sources are needed to show this. In the meantime I've removed the references to "State of" and the statement concerning a change having been made which did not cite any sources whatsoever. For avoidance of doubt:
This should read "Bangladeshis", but I can't make the change myself without possibly damaging the link. 213.127.210.95 ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the spelling "Lybia" a valid historical spelling or just wrong? For disclosure pertains to the requested move of Lybia (crab genus) seen here.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think so, see here:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lybia
The legitimacy of the two rival governments in Libya is obviously a conscientious issue, but it should be noted that there were previous revisions of this article where the Tobruk-based government was repeatedly named as 'internationally recognised', despite only having gained such recognition from minorities in the Egyptian and Russian governments, whilst the Tripoli-based is recognised internationally and by the UN as a more viable and legitimate legislature. This can be verified by multiple media articles and organisations as well as a number of NGOs, e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-partition-trump-administration-sebastian-gorka
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKBN12F051?il=0
However, there is some dispute as the Tobruk government did gain some international recognition before the Tripoli government was re-established, perhaps leading to some confusion:
http://www.ecfr.eu/mena/mapping_libya_conflict — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.196.122 ( talk) 11:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This page needs to be protected against vandalism. 2605:6001:EB50:A900:AD66:471D:480B:D98A ( talk) 09:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This article from February the 5th suggests that the new Libyan biometric passport will have a somewhat modified emblem. Currently the star and crescent on the old, green interim passports serves/had served as the de facto emblem/coat of arms of Libya. However, these new blue ones have a star and crescent where the crescent is slightly tilted and thicker, and the star is a bit off-center. Should the current emblem file on the page be updated to reflect this?-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/2015/08/07/6355978/peace-talks-between-libyan-factions.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ncrss.com/report3.docWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
For a long time now there has been revisions over exactly what the official name for Libya is supposed to be now. It used to be "State of Libya", then just "Libya" with a reference, now the former again without a source.
However to further complicate matters, Encyclopedia Britannica lists the official name as "The Libyan Republic". The article seems to have been last updated January 4 of this year from what I read, but there is no primary evidence here either.
What is the official name for Libya, if there is any now? I can't seem to find any direct evidence here.-- Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 17:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The United Nations official page, link given above, maintains that the long form official name is just Libya, which is also what the yet unchanged Constitution says. No change has yet been made officially. 92.184.96.148 ( talk) 10:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I am a Libyan living in the outskirts of Benghazi. I have seen many soldiers proclaim their Liberal stance and that a Liberal coup has occurred. Please send help as this is very serious. Thank you. 109.181.21.210 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to have the Italian name of the country on this article. Italian is no longer a significant language in Libya like French is in Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
not sure what this is about. It seems to have been suppressed in the media. Noel Ellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The last time we numbering the people of libya has been 7,307,345 in 2017 which means in 2030 will be 11 million عبدالوهاب الليبي ( talk) 02:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pacification of Libya. Note that, as the thread goes on, the conversation switches from discussing "Genocide of Libya" as a possible title to discussing whether to change it to "Second Italo-Senussi War".
Generalrelative (
talk)
00:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why there are images of two US politicians (Kerry, H Clinton) in an article that is supposed to be about Libya? Surely one image is more than enough. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Since no one has agreed with Logare, and since Logare has now been indefinitely blocked (for, among other things, apparent pro-ISIS edits), I'm gonna go ahead and hat this. If anyone feels that there's anything of value in here (other than a good demonstration of M.Bitton being very patient), feel free to revert this close. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Logare has done nothing but remove chunks of content without a valid explanation and now, they are removing properly sourced content that they disagree with. I will restore the article to its stable form and invite them to discuss their edits here. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's the wholesale content removal that is disputed and not just the official status of the religion. I already explained that the sport and health sections could be updated, but there is no reason to remove them as they contain encyclopedia content. Why remove the fact that 96.6% of the Libyan population are
Sunni Muslims, the image of Omar Mukhtar, etc? Basically, too much information is being removed without a valid reason.
I know what you said about the constitution, the trouble is you can't back it up with a source. M.Bitton ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
|
That statistics was from 2010-2021, but in January Libya's population has reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com (they confirm my discussion) and I hope you accept my discussion and do the right thing and change it Yaseen albreky ( talk) 19:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Libya has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The population of Libya! The population of Libya was 6 million since 2010 until 2021, in January 2022 Libya's population reached 7 million as in www.worldometer.com and other websites and I'm looking forward for you to change it and do the right thing, thanks Yaseen albreky ( talk) 19:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please add fathi bashaga as tobruk PM in the infobox 212.108.149.148 ( talk) 14:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC) https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220210-libya-parliament-names-rival-pm-in-challenge-to-unity-govt
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The state government is disputed. At the infobox, why we see only the one prime-minister and the other at note. Both of them should be shown equally. REPORT 62.74.61.231 ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya-- Julian Assange
and that the groups that the West says is the government of Libya-- Julian Assange