![]() | 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 2 |
it was mentioned that not only the U.S Air Force and U.S Navy but also the Marine Corps is participating as well. should we make a split under the Strength? USMC harrier jets conducted some missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
All U.S. strikes inside Libya to come from ships off coast, only missiles from subs and destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifedania ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Recommend moving "Command" to above "Summary of Events" .. as the hour-by-hour summary is going to get very long. Rosetta1207 ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed all the countries other than the US and Libya from the infobox. This operation is the US component of the multi-national operation, so other countries are not participating in a 'Operation Odyssey Dawn'. I suspect that this article should be redirect to Libyan no-fly zone Nick-D ( talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Amazing, god bless America, and god bless Wikipedia. This whole article is poppycock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.205.178 ( talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose the use of youtube videos for use on this article as reference from military accounts-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see the copyright of the picture inserted in the article is disputed but the pictures are available form navy.mil, that makes them public.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=98686
http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.119.191.153 (
talk)
14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesnt make sense to have separate articles for US, UK and French operations in Libya, simply because they each have different code names. They are coordinated coalition operations against a single enemy. The articles should be unified under a new title, perhaps Coalition operations in Libya. - 67.161.54.63 ( talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:SEEALSO, you generally don't include links to other articles in the body of the article and in the see also section. For now I put the French, Canadian, and British operations in the see also section so that they are easier to find. Thoughts? BurtAlert ( talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What does Operation El Dorado Canyon have to do with Operation Odyssey Dawn, or the 2011 Libyan Civil War in general? -- SomeDudeWithAUserName ( talk with me!) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ciao to everyone from the hottest front of Italy, is it possible that the name of the operation "Odyssey Dawn" was taken due to the light produced in the night and the ballistic trajectory of the Tomahawk missiles wich, once launched, remember the sun rising? -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's the start of a decades long journey of course. (Just like the Odyssey.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Most US military operations are selected randomly from pairs of code word lists. In recent years we have become used to names like Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Provide Comfort, etc which were political choices (effectively propaganda) replacing the random words generated by the military. Odyssey Dawn is just going back to the way things were. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lybian state media is not a reliable source. Wait for some independent reports first.-- Terrillja talk 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
( ←) No no no no no. The Libyan government is the absolute and utter antithesis of a reliable source right now. Come on, we want independent, third party sources, not claims from one of the belligerents! This could, in fact, be a blatant lie! Does anyone truly think that the Libyan propaganda machine is giving accurate counts of casualties? No information may not be ideal, but wrong information is worse. Worse still is disinformation, which is what Wikipedia propagates by using the Libyan government claim. I fully support whoever removed it. Swarm X 05:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please show me evidence where it says the media is clearly taking the information to be made up, in those exact words. And please, your opinion that the numbers are a PR stunt is a non-neutral point of view and may be even original research since you don't have evidence. I don't deny the possibility the numbers may be propaganda, but that doesn't mean we don't include them. The numbers weren't given by the Libyan state televion, they were only broadcasted by state tv. The number was an official number given by the government military. Our opinion on weather we think they are liares, butchers, rapists or whatever DOESN'T COUNT. Every mayor news media is now reporting the number given by the government. EVERY major news media, that makes the number at the very least notable since it is being brodcast by everyone. If the media thought like you that just because the number may be unreliable they wouldn't even mention it. However they did mention it, because the major news media is sticking to a neutral point of view and so should WE (Wikipedia). And WP: IAR is just an excuse to ignore the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality) and if that rule is used than that makes Wikipedia a hypocrite. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe from where you come from Terrillja ***'s sake is not uncivil. But where I come from we are taught to watch our language. And actully you just told me that I am pissing you of, and that was directed toward me, so that was even under Wikipedia rules offensive. In any case Swarm has appologised so we can move on. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added the Libyan claim again, with a note that the numbers are unverified. Hopefully that works. Bart133 t c @ 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is some strong bullshit, IMO. First of all, is there any confirmation that the civilian casualties even came from the US operation? I don't see this in the other operations on wiki. If it isn't included on those operations than it shouldn't be included in this one. This should be taken down because:
1) There is no reliable source for such a claim. 2) There is no evidence that it was even from the US operation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 ( talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
1. I think the accurate targeting of the missiles is more reliable than a government on a propaganda mission to keep its leader in power. 2. There are now reports (big surprise) that Gadhafi forces are collecting bodies killed in previous fights to say that they were killed in bombing. Also CNN reports that people in Benghazi were happy with the bombings, and support the coalition saying that no civilians are being killed by them. Read the CNN article here. On top of all that, as previously said, it cannot be said that if civilians were killed, they were 100% killed by bombs dropped by the United States, so listing casualties on the US Operations page would be posting information that is known to be not accurate; doing so is academic travesty. A solution to this would be to merge all of the operations articles into one page, which would allow for more fluent discussion of coalition casualties, ect. Just link the operations page to auto-connect to the other page. ( johnsmithy678) March 20, 2011 20:25 EST
--I think that stating "the Libyan government claims..." is a good compromise and leaves the ultimate decision of trusting the government source up to the reader. I'm not sure if you all have seen this New York Times article but it casts serious aspersions on the validity of the Libyan state television (which, if you recall, is the same outlet that claims the rebellion was caused by Al Queda giving ecstasy to the rebels).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21libya.html?pagewanted=2&ref=libya
"Libyan officials and state television have said that dozens of Libyan civilians were killed in the air attacks. But an Indonesian newscaster, Andini Effendi, reported Sunday that she was able to visit two Tripoli hospitals after the airstrikes early on Sunday and found no influx of casualties, only empty ambulances. State television did not show any scenes of destruction, and Libyan officials declined to show any to visiting journalists either.
Instead, they promised Sunday to bring foreign journalists to a funeral for civilians killed in the attacks. But the funeral turned out to be more of a pro-Qaddafi political rally, and the true number of dead remained a mystery.
On the way to the funeral a bus full of journalists was parked waiting for about 25 minutes near a waterfront cemetery, until the arrival of several truckloads of hundreds of Qaddafi supporters waving green flags and wearing green headscarves. Then, when journalists entered the cemetery amid gunfire in the air and pro-Qaddafi chants, they found three freshly covered graves and 24 empty cinderblock holes.
One of the recent burials was said to have died of causes unrelated to the attacks. Another was said to belong to a 3-month-old baby girl, Siham Atabeeb, who was said to have been killed when a bomb hit her home. But neither of her parents nor any siblings were there, and people who said they were more distant relatives told conflicting stories about whether her mother was also wounded and whether she had any siblings.
People around the other fresh grave also said they were relatives, but people gave conflicting descriptions of the deceased — he was 25 or 29; he was killed in his home, driving by a military base, or walking in a neighborhood near the Qaddafi compound; he was a taxi driver, unemployed, or in some other profession. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpmui99 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the U2 spy plane has been utilised. The reference link is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custaro ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Image #18 clearly shows a U2, and was taken at RAF Arkotiri, Cypress on 3/20/10. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/air-strikes-on-libya/100031/
The Secretary of Defense is in the operational chain of command unless the President expressly directs otherwise, see Title 10 United States Code Section 162 (b) [4]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the operational chain of command, he merely assists the President and/or the Secretary in exercising their command functions. RicJac ( talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence:
Excerpts from the source:
According to the source, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the coalition's operation, not just the US part. 75.47.154.52 ( talk) 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is so confusing. Then where are the other countries operations considered individual contributions ie page on Operation Ellamy? See the MOD's version of Ellamy--"the UK's military action in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973." Are you saying Odyessy Dawn is top then Elammy is under Odessy Dawn? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
From the main article: " The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." It does not say Odyssey Dawn is international name. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This article therefore implies it is an American dominated intervention which so many politicians and people says it is not. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Mr. Gates, General Ham, or Admiral Locklear have a flag other than the United States flag? Operation Enduring Freedom simply has the US flag next to the equivalent names; others have no flag at all Operation Taylor Common or no commanders listed Operation Sea Dragon (Vietnam War). Does anyone know the guidelines regarding this? Perhaps now is a good time to bring this to light so all the pages can be fixed. Evan.oltmanns ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Yes (band) article links to Odyssey Dawn, which redirects here. Interestingly, however, Yes discography does not list it, and a quick search on Google and a few online stores showed no such albums existing; just plenty of allusions to it in reference to this operation (e.g., quotes of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show). And there weren't an article about this album, whether it is real or not. So, not sure what would be the most appropriate here, a disambig-redirection notice, or removing the link from the Yes page? -- 88.141.100.39 ( talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
i created the criticism section. delete if not needed. Zyon788 ( talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is being vandalized by clearly pro-Kadhafi editors with outrageously partisan sentences such as qualifying the no-fly-zone by the terms "no-life-zone". This article should be protected RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.250 ( talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Spanish forces contributing to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 have been placed under the command of AFRICOM, hence can be included as part of Odyssey Dawn. [5] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
From BBC News live:"Spain has voted overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in the coalition to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's request for formal approval of the move was adopted by 336 votes to 3, with one abstention. Spanish planes have already been patrolling Libyan airspace. Madrid has also sent a frigate and a submarine to join coalition forces." It does not say Spain places its forces under US Command. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 military intervention in Libya in the section forces committed--none of the links say the forces are directly under US command. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A good example:
and now:
and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller contingents are under direct command of the US main command. noclador ( talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So why are those forces considered as under US command? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As you wish - but the command structure is as follows:
noclador ( talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
and Italy wants this structure (to which Turkey is massively opposed)
noclador ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No source! Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." from 2011 military intervention in Libya From MOD: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/LibyaOperationEllamy.htm No where does it say that the British are subordinating their Ellamy Op under Odessy Dawn Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." If you continue to insist that Odyssey Dawn is the whole military US dominated/led involved, then this setenence from the 2011 military intervention in Libya is out of place. Who is right? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not depict the accurate Daily actions of those non-UK, French and Canadian Forces. Get it right Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of following a good standard, is there a good reason why the three related operations (UK, France and Canada) all mention the other three related operations in their article preamble but the US does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Belligerents = United States in the infobox? That's just not right. It's a bunch of nations, together. What's the difference who's operationally commanding the assembled forces? -- Y not? 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are how the operation names are defined by the ministries of defense of the countries that originated the names.
U.S. Department of Defense
French Ministry of Defense
UK Ministry of Defence
Canada Department of National Defense
In summary, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the international coalition's operation, Operation Harmattan is the French participation, Operation Ellamy is the UK participation, and Operation Mobile is the Canadian participation. 75.47.133.120 ( talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name. They haven't said why.
Greece is also giving "supportive assistance" and it has not given its operation a name either."
It therefore also says the other nations--non UK, French and Canadians--are involving themselves but NOT as part of OD. Unlike the other articles, you guys are pushing your point that OD leads all non-UK, French and Canadian forces. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
aaargh,... why always put errors in the lead paragraph :( "The US has attempted to hand over operational command of the operation to NATO (whilst keeping political and strategic command in the hands of a small group of nations), but these efforts have failed so far." The US has not attempted to do that, it wishes to hand over command as soon as possible and to any command that is ready to take over command. NATO, the French, a new command - whoever; also the idea with NATO having command of the operation and a small group of nations taking political command is an idea, but as yet not agreed upon or thought out. There is a summit about that on Tuesday in Paris, until then the US will command the operation. noclador ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"Operation Odyssey Dawn is the code name for the international military operation in Libya." This simply isn't right, "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is the name for the US part of the operation. Some other countries might be using this name. But it's not a name for the whole operation, as there simply isn't an actual unified operation. Also, why the ugly note in the references section, why not simply create a small subsection for the name like we usually do?-- Sloane ( talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That is just one source from the US and you didnt sign you signature Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: Why aren't you using a Wiki account? Just wondering Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
From
UK MOD:
What is the chain of command?
This operation is currently under US command with high-profile French and UK involvement, as well as close co-ordination with a range of other countries including Arab states.
What is the name of the Operation?
The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].
All ground attacks are therefore under US command, including missions by UK, France and Canada (who have their own mission names). The FAQ suggests that "Odyssey Dawn" is specific to US forces only. That other countries are conducting missions under US command does not preclude them from having operational names different from OD. Kelvinc ( talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
should we only tell about the immediate outcome from the operation or should we add what has happened overall? Zyon788 ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the code name will be for the the NATO coordinated action commanded by royal canadian air force lt gen Charles Bouchard (ie in additional to Operation Unified Protector)?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Operation Unified Protector started as NATO enforcement of the arms embargo, but has now taken on the NFZ too. SACEUR explained it in his blog. [22] Extreme care will have to be taken in what is now added to this article and what is added to Operation Unified Protector. ShipFan ( talk) 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Vice Admiral Gortney confirmed that AC-130s and A-10s were used "over the weekend" but no specifics. [23] ShipFan ( talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
With NATO taking over enforcement of the NFZ, which US and coalition forces need to be noted as being transferred to Operation Unified Protector? ShipFan ( talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The following from GlobalSecurity.org [24] seems to clear up some of the contradictions in the news media about operation names, and clarifies who some of the countries were that participated in Operation Odyssey Dawn.
So before the coalition formed, various countries had their own operational names. When the coalition formed, its operation was called Odyssey Dawn and included the US, France, UK, Italy and Canada and various countries, who kept the the operation names for each of their respective participations in the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn. For example, " 'Opération Harmattan', the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, ...".
For some info about GlobalSecurity.org, see the wikilinked article about it and also GlobalSecurity.org - About us and GlobalSecurity.org - Praise from others. 75.47.131.253 ( talk) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the name of the Operation? The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].
Le 21 mars, l’amiral Samuel J. Locklear, commandant de la Joint Task Force US « Odyssey Dawn », [emphasis mine] s’est rendu à bord du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle . L’amiral Locklear dirige l’état-major embarqué à bord du bâtiment de commandement américain USS Mount Whitney en opérations au large de la Libye.
[30] - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)This is apparently the first time London, Paris and Washington have failed to come up with a unified chain of command for the operation.
Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion."
This unprecedented, three-pronged command is reflected in the different names for the operation: The French are calling it Harmattan (the name of a hot wind that blows over the Sahara); in Britain, it is Operation Ellamy; and in the US, it is Odyssey Dawn.
On that, I can fully agree with you. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 2 |
it was mentioned that not only the U.S Air Force and U.S Navy but also the Marine Corps is participating as well. should we make a split under the Strength? USMC harrier jets conducted some missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
All U.S. strikes inside Libya to come from ships off coast, only missiles from subs and destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifedania ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Recommend moving "Command" to above "Summary of Events" .. as the hour-by-hour summary is going to get very long. Rosetta1207 ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just removed all the countries other than the US and Libya from the infobox. This operation is the US component of the multi-national operation, so other countries are not participating in a 'Operation Odyssey Dawn'. I suspect that this article should be redirect to Libyan no-fly zone Nick-D ( talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Amazing, god bless America, and god bless Wikipedia. This whole article is poppycock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.205.178 ( talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose the use of youtube videos for use on this article as reference from military accounts-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I see the copyright of the picture inserted in the article is disputed but the pictures are available form navy.mil, that makes them public.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=98686
http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
79.119.191.153 (
talk)
14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesnt make sense to have separate articles for US, UK and French operations in Libya, simply because they each have different code names. They are coordinated coalition operations against a single enemy. The articles should be unified under a new title, perhaps Coalition operations in Libya. - 67.161.54.63 ( talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:SEEALSO, you generally don't include links to other articles in the body of the article and in the see also section. For now I put the French, Canadian, and British operations in the see also section so that they are easier to find. Thoughts? BurtAlert ( talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
What does Operation El Dorado Canyon have to do with Operation Odyssey Dawn, or the 2011 Libyan Civil War in general? -- SomeDudeWithAUserName ( talk with me!) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ciao to everyone from the hottest front of Italy, is it possible that the name of the operation "Odyssey Dawn" was taken due to the light produced in the night and the ballistic trajectory of the Tomahawk missiles wich, once launched, remember the sun rising? -- Nicola Romani ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's the start of a decades long journey of course. (Just like the Odyssey.) Hcobb ( talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Most US military operations are selected randomly from pairs of code word lists. In recent years we have become used to names like Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Provide Comfort, etc which were political choices (effectively propaganda) replacing the random words generated by the military. Odyssey Dawn is just going back to the way things were. 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lybian state media is not a reliable source. Wait for some independent reports first.-- Terrillja talk 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
( ←) No no no no no. The Libyan government is the absolute and utter antithesis of a reliable source right now. Come on, we want independent, third party sources, not claims from one of the belligerents! This could, in fact, be a blatant lie! Does anyone truly think that the Libyan propaganda machine is giving accurate counts of casualties? No information may not be ideal, but wrong information is worse. Worse still is disinformation, which is what Wikipedia propagates by using the Libyan government claim. I fully support whoever removed it. Swarm X 05:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Please show me evidence where it says the media is clearly taking the information to be made up, in those exact words. And please, your opinion that the numbers are a PR stunt is a non-neutral point of view and may be even original research since you don't have evidence. I don't deny the possibility the numbers may be propaganda, but that doesn't mean we don't include them. The numbers weren't given by the Libyan state televion, they were only broadcasted by state tv. The number was an official number given by the government military. Our opinion on weather we think they are liares, butchers, rapists or whatever DOESN'T COUNT. Every mayor news media is now reporting the number given by the government. EVERY major news media, that makes the number at the very least notable since it is being brodcast by everyone. If the media thought like you that just because the number may be unreliable they wouldn't even mention it. However they did mention it, because the major news media is sticking to a neutral point of view and so should WE (Wikipedia). And WP: IAR is just an excuse to ignore the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality) and if that rule is used than that makes Wikipedia a hypocrite. EkoGraf ( talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe from where you come from Terrillja ***'s sake is not uncivil. But where I come from we are taught to watch our language. And actully you just told me that I am pissing you of, and that was directed toward me, so that was even under Wikipedia rules offensive. In any case Swarm has appologised so we can move on. EkoGraf ( talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added the Libyan claim again, with a note that the numbers are unverified. Hopefully that works. Bart133 t c @ 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This is some strong bullshit, IMO. First of all, is there any confirmation that the civilian casualties even came from the US operation? I don't see this in the other operations on wiki. If it isn't included on those operations than it shouldn't be included in this one. This should be taken down because:
1) There is no reliable source for such a claim. 2) There is no evidence that it was even from the US operation.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 ( talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
1. I think the accurate targeting of the missiles is more reliable than a government on a propaganda mission to keep its leader in power. 2. There are now reports (big surprise) that Gadhafi forces are collecting bodies killed in previous fights to say that they were killed in bombing. Also CNN reports that people in Benghazi were happy with the bombings, and support the coalition saying that no civilians are being killed by them. Read the CNN article here. On top of all that, as previously said, it cannot be said that if civilians were killed, they were 100% killed by bombs dropped by the United States, so listing casualties on the US Operations page would be posting information that is known to be not accurate; doing so is academic travesty. A solution to this would be to merge all of the operations articles into one page, which would allow for more fluent discussion of coalition casualties, ect. Just link the operations page to auto-connect to the other page. ( johnsmithy678) March 20, 2011 20:25 EST
--I think that stating "the Libyan government claims..." is a good compromise and leaves the ultimate decision of trusting the government source up to the reader. I'm not sure if you all have seen this New York Times article but it casts serious aspersions on the validity of the Libyan state television (which, if you recall, is the same outlet that claims the rebellion was caused by Al Queda giving ecstasy to the rebels).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21libya.html?pagewanted=2&ref=libya
"Libyan officials and state television have said that dozens of Libyan civilians were killed in the air attacks. But an Indonesian newscaster, Andini Effendi, reported Sunday that she was able to visit two Tripoli hospitals after the airstrikes early on Sunday and found no influx of casualties, only empty ambulances. State television did not show any scenes of destruction, and Libyan officials declined to show any to visiting journalists either.
Instead, they promised Sunday to bring foreign journalists to a funeral for civilians killed in the attacks. But the funeral turned out to be more of a pro-Qaddafi political rally, and the true number of dead remained a mystery.
On the way to the funeral a bus full of journalists was parked waiting for about 25 minutes near a waterfront cemetery, until the arrival of several truckloads of hundreds of Qaddafi supporters waving green flags and wearing green headscarves. Then, when journalists entered the cemetery amid gunfire in the air and pro-Qaddafi chants, they found three freshly covered graves and 24 empty cinderblock holes.
One of the recent burials was said to have died of causes unrelated to the attacks. Another was said to belong to a 3-month-old baby girl, Siham Atabeeb, who was said to have been killed when a bomb hit her home. But neither of her parents nor any siblings were there, and people who said they were more distant relatives told conflicting stories about whether her mother was also wounded and whether she had any siblings.
People around the other fresh grave also said they were relatives, but people gave conflicting descriptions of the deceased — he was 25 or 29; he was killed in his home, driving by a military base, or walking in a neighborhood near the Qaddafi compound; he was a taxi driver, unemployed, or in some other profession. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpmui99 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the U2 spy plane has been utilised. The reference link is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custaro ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Image #18 clearly shows a U2, and was taken at RAF Arkotiri, Cypress on 3/20/10. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/air-strikes-on-libya/100031/
The Secretary of Defense is in the operational chain of command unless the President expressly directs otherwise, see Title 10 United States Code Section 162 (b) [4]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the operational chain of command, he merely assists the President and/or the Secretary in exercising their command functions. RicJac ( talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.html Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence:
Excerpts from the source:
According to the source, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the coalition's operation, not just the US part. 75.47.154.52 ( talk) 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is so confusing. Then where are the other countries operations considered individual contributions ie page on Operation Ellamy? See the MOD's version of Ellamy--"the UK's military action in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973." Are you saying Odyessy Dawn is top then Elammy is under Odessy Dawn? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
From the main article: " The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." It does not say Odyssey Dawn is international name. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This article therefore implies it is an American dominated intervention which so many politicians and people says it is not. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Mr. Gates, General Ham, or Admiral Locklear have a flag other than the United States flag? Operation Enduring Freedom simply has the US flag next to the equivalent names; others have no flag at all Operation Taylor Common or no commanders listed Operation Sea Dragon (Vietnam War). Does anyone know the guidelines regarding this? Perhaps now is a good time to bring this to light so all the pages can be fixed. Evan.oltmanns ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Yes (band) article links to Odyssey Dawn, which redirects here. Interestingly, however, Yes discography does not list it, and a quick search on Google and a few online stores showed no such albums existing; just plenty of allusions to it in reference to this operation (e.g., quotes of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show). And there weren't an article about this album, whether it is real or not. So, not sure what would be the most appropriate here, a disambig-redirection notice, or removing the link from the Yes page? -- 88.141.100.39 ( talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
i created the criticism section. delete if not needed. Zyon788 ( talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is being vandalized by clearly pro-Kadhafi editors with outrageously partisan sentences such as qualifying the no-fly-zone by the terms "no-life-zone". This article should be protected RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.250 ( talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Spanish forces contributing to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 have been placed under the command of AFRICOM, hence can be included as part of Odyssey Dawn. [5] 203.7.140.3 ( talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
From BBC News live:"Spain has voted overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in the coalition to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's request for formal approval of the move was adopted by 336 votes to 3, with one abstention. Spanish planes have already been patrolling Libyan airspace. Madrid has also sent a frigate and a submarine to join coalition forces." It does not say Spain places its forces under US Command. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
2011 military intervention in Libya in the section forces committed--none of the links say the forces are directly under US command. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A good example:
and now:
and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller contingents are under direct command of the US main command. noclador ( talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
So why are those forces considered as under US command? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As you wish - but the command structure is as follows:
noclador ( talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
and Italy wants this structure (to which Turkey is massively opposed)
noclador ( talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No source! Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." from 2011 military intervention in Libya From MOD: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/LibyaOperationEllamy.htm No where does it say that the British are subordinating their Ellamy Op under Odessy Dawn Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." If you continue to insist that Odyssey Dawn is the whole military US dominated/led involved, then this setenence from the 2011 military intervention in Libya is out of place. Who is right? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article does not depict the accurate Daily actions of those non-UK, French and Canadian Forces. Get it right Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of following a good standard, is there a good reason why the three related operations (UK, France and Canada) all mention the other three related operations in their article preamble but the US does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Belligerents = United States in the infobox? That's just not right. It's a bunch of nations, together. What's the difference who's operationally commanding the assembled forces? -- Y not? 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Here are how the operation names are defined by the ministries of defense of the countries that originated the names.
U.S. Department of Defense
French Ministry of Defense
UK Ministry of Defence
Canada Department of National Defense
In summary, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the international coalition's operation, Operation Harmattan is the French participation, Operation Ellamy is the UK participation, and Operation Mobile is the Canadian participation. 75.47.133.120 ( talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
"Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name. They haven't said why.
Greece is also giving "supportive assistance" and it has not given its operation a name either."
It therefore also says the other nations--non UK, French and Canadians--are involving themselves but NOT as part of OD. Unlike the other articles, you guys are pushing your point that OD leads all non-UK, French and Canadian forces. Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
aaargh,... why always put errors in the lead paragraph :( "The US has attempted to hand over operational command of the operation to NATO (whilst keeping political and strategic command in the hands of a small group of nations), but these efforts have failed so far." The US has not attempted to do that, it wishes to hand over command as soon as possible and to any command that is ready to take over command. NATO, the French, a new command - whoever; also the idea with NATO having command of the operation and a small group of nations taking political command is an idea, but as yet not agreed upon or thought out. There is a summit about that on Tuesday in Paris, until then the US will command the operation. noclador ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
"Operation Odyssey Dawn is the code name for the international military operation in Libya." This simply isn't right, "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is the name for the US part of the operation. Some other countries might be using this name. But it's not a name for the whole operation, as there simply isn't an actual unified operation. Also, why the ugly note in the references section, why not simply create a small subsection for the name like we usually do?-- Sloane ( talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That is just one source from the US and you didnt sign you signature Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: Why aren't you using a Wiki account? Just wondering Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
From
UK MOD:
What is the chain of command?
This operation is currently under US command with high-profile French and UK involvement, as well as close co-ordination with a range of other countries including Arab states.
What is the name of the Operation?
The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].
All ground attacks are therefore under US command, including missions by UK, France and Canada (who have their own mission names). The FAQ suggests that "Odyssey Dawn" is specific to US forces only. That other countries are conducting missions under US command does not preclude them from having operational names different from OD. Kelvinc ( talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
should we only tell about the immediate outcome from the operation or should we add what has happened overall? Zyon788 ( talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the code name will be for the the NATO coordinated action commanded by royal canadian air force lt gen Charles Bouchard (ie in additional to Operation Unified Protector)?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Operation Unified Protector started as NATO enforcement of the arms embargo, but has now taken on the NFZ too. SACEUR explained it in his blog. [22] Extreme care will have to be taken in what is now added to this article and what is added to Operation Unified Protector. ShipFan ( talk) 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Vice Admiral Gortney confirmed that AC-130s and A-10s were used "over the weekend" but no specifics. [23] ShipFan ( talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
With NATO taking over enforcement of the NFZ, which US and coalition forces need to be noted as being transferred to Operation Unified Protector? ShipFan ( talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The following from GlobalSecurity.org [24] seems to clear up some of the contradictions in the news media about operation names, and clarifies who some of the countries were that participated in Operation Odyssey Dawn.
So before the coalition formed, various countries had their own operational names. When the coalition formed, its operation was called Odyssey Dawn and included the US, France, UK, Italy and Canada and various countries, who kept the the operation names for each of their respective participations in the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn. For example, " 'Opération Harmattan', the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, ...".
For some info about GlobalSecurity.org, see the wikilinked article about it and also GlobalSecurity.org - About us and GlobalSecurity.org - Praise from others. 75.47.131.253 ( talk) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
What is the name of the Operation? The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].
Le 21 mars, l’amiral Samuel J. Locklear, commandant de la Joint Task Force US « Odyssey Dawn », [emphasis mine] s’est rendu à bord du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle . L’amiral Locklear dirige l’état-major embarqué à bord du bâtiment de commandement américain USS Mount Whitney en opérations au large de la Libye.
[30] - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)This is apparently the first time London, Paris and Washington have failed to come up with a unified chain of command for the operation.
Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion."
This unprecedented, three-pronged command is reflected in the different names for the operation: The French are calling it Harmattan (the name of a hot wind that blows over the Sahara); in Britain, it is Operation Ellamy; and in the US, it is Odyssey Dawn.
On that, I can fully agree with you. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)