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.
This article badly needs information on the history of the oil sector, given the huge influence it has had on that nation. I couldn't find anything in the article or its companion Economy of Libya that gives history (when was the first well drilled, how deep are the wells, table of how much was produced in each decade, etc). The information could be put in a separate article, but it needs to be somewhere. Off2Explore (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Flag
The flag was commented out by Tim Starling on Oct 7 along with the following message:
"Oops -- Tim Starling 02:03, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)"
I have restored the flag, and asked Tim Starling to state his reason for removing the flag of Libya from this article.
Perhaps the admins should reconsider their decision to make Tim Starling a sysop.
Tjdw 19:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Update: Tim Starling apparently was experimenting with a fix he had made to a temporary problem, and says he's sorry for leaving the page as it is. (Read my user talk for his comments
Meaning
I'd keep only the modern meaning on this page, and move the ancient meanings into Libya (disambiguation). --Shallot 14:26, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Independence
the info box said Independence (From Italy & Great Britain),
which was not true, so I deleted it.
Italy drove the Turks out in 1912.
Italy can be said to have lost control with the fall of Tripoli in 1943.
Libya was then under Allied administration.
Independence was the result of a UN vote --ClemMcGann 12:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
^In that case you might want to fix the article on Libya's flag. -- Spacewars
The infobox had independence being achieved from Italy. It is true that Italy was the main European colonial power in Libya in modern times, but Libya did not gain independence from Italy. Italy lost Libya in the 1947 peace treaty and from that point on (and from 1942-1944 effectively) Italy had ceased to govern Libya. Instead, Libya was administered on behalf of the UN by France and the United Kingdom. A similar situation arose in Somalia, wherein Italy initially was booted from Somalia (and then the area was run by the British), but later the UN allowed Italy back in to govern Somalia as a trust territory. Eritrea was also lost by Italy and then run by the British until union with Ethiopia.208.131.167.219 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt the fact that Libya gained its independence from France and the United Kingdom. All other Wikipedia editions (including the Arab one) list Italy as the country from which independence was achieved, so does the CIA World Factbook. The 1947 treaty in which Italy relinquished claims over Libya should be explained as an Italian agreement with Libyan independence in my opinion. It was by no means annexed by either France or the UK. The trusteeship of France and the UK didn't last long enough to regard them as the 'rulers of Libya'. Libya de jure remained Italian territory. East Timor is listed as having achieved independence from Portugal even though Indonesia ruled East Timor for 24 years and the UN for another 3 years. Because of the overwhelming amount of sources which state that Libya gained independence from Italy, I will change the country from which independence was gained from to Italy immediately. --84.26.109.69 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You may doubt it, but the fact is that Libya was not de jure Italian territory on December 23, 1951. The 1947 treaty cannot be "explained as an Italian agreement with Libyan independence" sicne the treaty quite clearly states that Italy renounces/relinquished its claims over all of its colonies. Besides, it would mean that the article (+ the other Wikipedia editions and the CIA World Factbook) is still wrong and that Libyan independence legally came about the day Italy signed the treaty in 1947. The other Wikipedia editions could simply be following this version or the CIA World Factbook. Now the CIA World Factbook may be informative, but it can have errors, just like Encyclopaedia Britannica can have errors (as a recent study comparing Britannica and Wikipedia has shown). And exactly how long does a trusteeship have to last for the UK and France to be regarded as the rulers of Libya? The entire point of a trusteeship is temporary administration in preparation for independence, which means that by the terms of the trusteeship, France and the UK were entrusted to rule Libya until it could gain independence. And it was the UK that installed the King of Libya. Putting a time limit for administration of Libya is pretty artificial and then it begs the question "What about other areas of the world?" What about Hong Kong which was ruled by the UK for 100+ years and has only been under the administration of the PRC for under a decade? Are we to consider that if Hong Kong gained independence tomorrow that it had gained independence from the UK even though the UK had turned over the administration to China? In point of fact I bet that nobody can provide the name of a single Italian administrator in Libya between 1947 and 1951, whereas for Italian Somalialand (Somalia) there were 4 between 1949 and 1960 when the area was an Italian trusteeship. In fact the Italian Somaliland article disproves the idea that Britain and France could not have been rulers of Libya since the article quite clearly mentions an "interlude of British rule" and notes that "the British continued to administer the area" throughout the 1940s. In fact the Italians did not have to get back Italian Somaliland, but were only allowed back by the United Nations because they had apparently administered the area fairly well and were expected to do so again if given the chance. The UN could just as easily have allowed the British to continue running the area. Also the fact that the Italians were granted the trusteeship of Somalia/Italian Somaliland shows that the trusteeship was not on behalf of Italy (as some might argue) since such an arrangement would be redundant. The situation with East Timor is entirely different. East Timor is listed as having gained independence from Portugal because Portugal never legally (de jure) gave the country independence (until 2002)...the Portuguese administrators simply packed up and left without any official ceremony or declaration (so in a way Portugal behaved like an absentee landlord) and shortly after they did so Indonesia came in and occupied the place and unilaterally annexed it. There was no treaty signed by Portugal relinquishing its claim on E. Timor and there was no international agreement (or even bilateral agreement between Portugal and Indonesia) that provided for Indonesia's governance of the territory. Portugal never even recognized the Indonesian annexation (which if they did would have amounted to a legal transfer from Portuguese to Indonesian authority), they just simply left and forgot about the area for 20+ years. Just check out http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/libya/libya31.html and it will show that Libya was only an "Italian possession administered by Britain and France" until it was decided not to return the colonies to Italy and Italy agreed to that decision in the peace treaty of 1947. And other Wikipedia editions and the CIA World Factbook do not amount to overwhelming amount of sources. Perhaps you should check Encyclopaedia Britannica (I don't have it, and the online version is no longer free, but when I get the time I'll check the library) 72.27.85.54 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
facts about libya
Libya is a country that suffers under the rule of the most dangerous dictator
[Moammer al Qaddafi] for more than 36 years of executions, imprisonments,
Corruption and total absence of all types of liberties and justice, the Libyan
Regime prohibits the citizens to practice political liberty, there are no elections
In Libya, no decision making is attributed to the people or any other establishment
In the country. All decisions are made by one man that is [Qaddafi].
Political opposition is crashed without mercy. No liberty of opinion in Libya.
All the media/press is owned by the government, No services are provided by the state
To its citizens, once you get inside the country, you will notice that it’s sinking in a
Strange kind of oblivion, people can hardly laugh. Their faces are grim, because of the
Death and torture, inflicted by the one-man authority that kills and jails freely
Without a single opposing word. The super international powers are supporting
The notorious Qaddafi regime because of the great advantage they are taking
From the dictator, it’s the Libyan oil that Qaddafi pumps through pipes
To the so called free world. American oil companies were present in Libya
Even during the 80’s, where the relations were in a very poor condition
To the eye of the beholder. But in fact, oil was sold at very cheap prices to
The American, British and other western companies. It’s really intriguing why
The human organizations are hushed by the terrorist regime. Is the world so
Black and ugly to this point. Why nobody is speaking about us and all the
Injustice that is present in our country? No voice can scream the truth about
This place called Libya. All of those who tried were violently killed and tortured
By the Libyan secret police. The most feared organization in Libya. It’s Qaddafi’s
Bloodstained hand that eliminate all of those who try to ask for a better life for themselves and their families, the Libyan secret police is actually structured in
A very strange way: there is no organic system in this police apparatus unlike
Any other police agency in the world. However there are two active departments
In this time. The foreign security department and the {mukhabarat}={the intelligence}.
Those two departments practice their activities outside the country.
Inside the country, it’s usually the interior security along with the foreign
Security department that practices all of those sick behaviors inside the country.
It’s apparent that the foreign security department is really the most active department
In the country. To understand how those systems work and to have an idea
About their modus opperandi. We should know that every one of those
Departments are composed of so many different branches. Every branch has its
Own specific domain, but none of those will strictly adhere to the rules that
Organizes it’s work. For example in the mid 90’s during the clashes between
Some Islamic rebels in cyrenaeca region. The foreign security agents were
Fighting side by side with the interior security, the intelligence the
Revolutionary committee agents and the popular police agents. Thus when you
Try to take a look at the security system in Libya; you’ll notice that there are
More than a hundred police agency in the country. All to serve the dictator.
The revolutionary committee role is marginalized in the late 80’s in libya.
After so many crimes committed abroad by the death squads of the revolutionary
Committees. The regime is always renewing it’s self, one of the most
Significant features that can help understand why Qaddafi is still there.
The regime kills those who served it for a very long time in order to get rid
Of any potential danger that might be posed by those who know so much.
And have their relations in the different governmental establishments like
[bakkar] and [al zaddmaa] who were killed in some very strange mysterious
Circumstances. One died in a car accident, and the other is allegedly said to
Have fallen from a horse, while in fact those guys were physically liquidated
Because they knew some important information that can prove the direct
Involvement of the Libyan de facto leader in the pan am case and other
Terrorist acts sponsored by Qaddafi. Some of the most important figures
In the totalitarian Libyan regime is {moussa kossa} the head of the Libyan intelligence service. And once the head of the foreign security department. This man was present
In the Libyan popular bureau {embassy} in England when the British police woman
Were killed by a bullet coming from one the Libyan embassy’s windows when
The killers inside were trying to dissipate a manifestation against Qaddafi the killer.
As a Libyan I was disgraced to read the above so called "facts about Libya". I wouldn't be surprise if the person who wrote it hasn't seen Libya in quite a while and perhaps is a little bitter. I however visit Libya every year and spend about a fifth of every year there.
Firstly, Politics and Government play a very minor role in the lives of many libyans. For the large majority of Libyans the most important thing is wages and earning a good living. In this respect, the so called disgusting dictatorship government is implementing schemes to modernise the Libyan economy and create jobs for the average Joe. Security isn't paramount in Libya, a country which few foreigners know better than me. The people are not depressed and sad. The average adult thinks of what they'll do for Eid or what relative they have to visit. The average teenager thinks of Britney's latest song or the latest Julia Roberts film, an actress much admired by Libyan girls and boys alike.
I have made it my duty to IMPROVE Libya related articles in Wikipedia. If you search any country you will get an overall review of that country, the history, culture, etc. Unfortunately articles on Libya, this one being a prime example is 70% antiquated Gadaffi related politics and 30% old views and statistics. What ever happened to Libya's rich history, it's beautiful cities, beaches, and people.
If you are interested in the real Libya, i would advise you to visit two Libya articles I imporved Libya national football team, Libyan Arab Airlines and Tripoli International Airport. I hope to have improved many more Libya pages by the end of next year.
This article seems very POV, particularly regarding US/Libyan relations in the 1980's, are there any credible sources that suggest Libya was not involved in the "Suicide Squads" in Germany? I seem to rember Quadafi threatening such action before hand, maybe I'm wrong...nonetheless article seems to sympathetic to Libya
foloowing the protests against the libya regime in london, all the shops and establishments were
closed and people were coerced to go out in the streets to protest
against the opposition. they turned our people into a rented mob who say what they are told
and do what they're told to do. there are really no protests or manifestations in libya,since it's
prohibited. they only occur when the qaddafi wants the others to
believe that the libyans can express themselves.
The Libyan Supreme Court is to rule on November 15th and, as Bulgaria is a member of NATO and even Russia is backing the nurses, it is possible that war could break out. As the article is so hard to find, I suggest we place it at the top of the article on Libya until the crisis passes - that's the logical place for readers to look. Simesa 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is funny ... It is mainly written by Bulgarian.
New Page
I've hacked the history section into a concise accurate portrayal. I took out much of the information which is already covered in the "history of libya" main page. I also added a was non-existent "Culture" section. - Jaw101ie 21:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
New Pics
I have found some Creative Commons pictures on the internet which I have inserted into the page. I think they were much needed and have made the page more informative. Jaw101ie 12:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Population
There's nothing here on Libyan Jews, that's why I'm linking to Jewish exodus from Arab lands which has a section on Libya (Spanglish 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
This is now addressed in the Religion section. -- (Mingus ah um 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
Where this has been added: is "pogrom" really the word we want to use? That has such an Eastern European connotation. These were not Christians attacking, these were Muslims. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It’s the same basic mechanism, regardless of the perpetrators’ religion. ‘Pogrom’ is the most common English term for it, so we should use it. —xyzzyn 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia's article on Conscription, I read that "Currently, countries that draft women into military service are China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru, and Taiwan", but I haven't found any mention of it here. Is this correct? Emma li mk (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Population and Idi Amin
Information has been added regarding Libya's support to Iddi Amin and Libyan Jews.
Minor edit to intro. A country or the people can be "led" but not "square kilometres". Kahuzi 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
A few thoughts...
First of all, we need to standardize the spelling of "Qadaffi" on the page. I don't care which version we use, but we can't use more than one in the same article (see the Religion section). Also, I object to the following bit, "Qadhafi himself is a devout Muslim". That strikes me as rather more an opinion than fact. How about something like 'Qadhafi claims to be a devout Muslim', although "claims" is obviously inappropriate as it could be taken to imply that the "claim" is baseless. Can anyone come up with a good NPOV way of stating that it is Qadhafi's assertion that he is a devout Muslim and not "fact"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think your use of the word assertion is good. "Qadhadi asserts that he is a devout Muslim, and his government is taking somewhat of .."
Also, the use of the word "somewhat" twice in the religion section has been called vague in the FAC page. It needs to be tightened up --Jaw101ie 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll make the change to "assertion". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ugh... the article on Qadhafi uses Gaddafi throughout... it's unprofessional for the Libya and the Muammar al-Gaddafi articles to use different standardized spellings. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the spelling to Gadaffi and standardised it throughout. --User:Jaw101ie 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it that you meant to write Gaddafi, not Gadaffi. Looks like you (or someone) got it right in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
FA status
I just opened up the page to do some edits when I saw the star. A big thank you to everyone who contributed, we got there in the end. Yipee --Jaw101ie 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I just started looking at it tonight and saw the star, glad the copyedit issues were resolved. Congratulations! Walkerma 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad you thought the copy-editing issues were resolved. I don't. Tony 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
History
One big gap in an otherwise very good article: more than a millennium of Libya's Islamic past is subsumed under:
The Arabs conquered Libya in the seventh century CE. In the following centuries, many of the indigenous peoples adopted Islam, the Arabic language and culture. The Ottoman Turks conquered the country in the mid-16th century, Libya remaining part of their empire, although at times virtually autonomous, until Italy invaded in 1911. In the face of years of resistance, Libya was made a colony.[10]
Surely a featured article should give a few more details than that - at least enough to be comparable with the coverage of the classical period? - Mustafaa 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
someone needs to work on this, its the most important part of the article and its shit-myers|| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.60.67 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 September 2008
Flag of Libya
I think someone should add the old flag of Libya, the one before Gaddafi's reign.
A minor aesthetic note... I thought there was an image error on the front page FA box, showing nothing but green. I was surprised to know that it's simply the Libyan flag. I don't know if there's a policy for this, but maybe change the picture up front? A sat photo would look good, yeah? Just a thought. Experia 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
wow, it really is green? just pure green? Dang, somebody's lazy. Suppose that way everyone can draw it. --Anoma lee 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually kind of think it's cool. But yeah, the concern is warranted, however no other featured country has had anything but their flag on the front page. -- Zanimum 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am suprised there is that much debate about the image I made, but hopefully, it should be solved soon. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I just read about this flag on Carrie's blog on GameSpot. This is so awesome. I can't believe I missed it on the front page. --Optichan 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the flag of Libya and I think it is one of the most unique and inventive flags in the world, I like flags that represent political and social aspects of their country, Libya is a highly underrated country, in Britain, where I live, Colonel Gaddafi is painted as some sort of tin pot dictator, akin to Robert Mugabe, the discovery that he actually holds no official title or office must come as a surprise to some, the nation of Libya is probably the closest anywhere in the world will come to true democracy (like Gaddafi, I believe in direct democracy rather than elected representatives)-Ted Fox 01:19 17 March 2008 (GMT)
Thanks for deleting that comment
I was just about to delete it, bt someone beat me to it.
I think someone should add the old flag of libya, the one before Gadaffi's reign.
Vandalism of excerpt on Main Page of Wikipedia
Libya article: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West."
Main page excerpt: "Libya is led by revolutionary Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, one of the most infamous political figures of the 20th century."
Perhaps someone who has worked on this article can update the main page?
If you have better wording of this phrase, please feel free to update it. I don't believe it is vandalism.--KungfuAdam(talk) 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nation-State
I'm a bit confused by the frist paragraph which states that Libya is the 17th largest nation-state on earth. Does this truely mean there are 16 larger Nation-States on our planet or just 16 larger COUNTRIES? If it is in fact the 17th largest country, would there be a way to clearly state that while including that it happens to be a Nation-State?Gabenowicki 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you haven't just made this country up? I've never heard of it before now. :/
Brian, Iowa.
They don't teach geography in Iowa?--KungfuAdam(talk) 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What about history as well? -- Szvest 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the place where the American ship "Philadelphia" was demolished, have you heard of that ship?!!!
Come on,it's the 17th largest country in area in the world, and it has the largest coast on the mediterrainean sea, it's not a place that you can't see in the map.
I'm surprised anyone wouldn't know that Libya exists, it's right at the top of Africa, has a well known leader and has probably the coolest flag in the world-Ted Fox 01:23 17 March 2008 (GMT)
Line Break
This might look a lot cleaner if there was a line break in the info box between the romanization of the long name and the translation. I didn't know how to effect that. Balonkey 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already a line break there. Do you mean something else? —xyzzyn 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It just looks a bit jammed up on my screen bc the name is so long anyways. I was thinking like:
Arabic characters
Romanization
English
Does that make sense? It's a minor issue, i'll give up if not editable User:Balonkey 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like i can't even get a break where i want it on the talk page. Is it my browser? Hell...
Native Libyans
"Native Libyans are primarily a mixture of Arabs and Berbers." Does this mean that the majority of natives are of mixed stock? Or that the majority are either Arab or Berber? I suspect it means the latter, but the way it is worded suggests the former. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Would removing "native" make sense? -- Szvest 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Native" doesn't seem to be the problem, it's "mixture". Are you saying that they are individually of mixed ancestry, or that the population is a mixture? - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree that the population is a mixture. In other words, the population is composed by Berbers and Arabs not but mixed Berbers/Arabs. That would be true in Morocco and (Algeria w/ a lesser degree) where you got some population of a mixed Arab/Berber stock. That's not the rule in Libya due to its relative low size of its population and history. Szvest 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what the sentence means is that Libyans are, mostly, either of Arab or Berber descent. It is rare for Arabs and Berbers to intermarry therefore there are very few Libyans of mixed Arab Berber descent. Jaw101ie 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is rare, maybe today it is, but when Arabs first migrated and settled in what is Libya there must have been some intermarriage, as in almost every place Arabs settled (except in Malta) correct? Also, do Libyans who are of of mixed Arab and Berber ancestory, identify as just Arab? Or as Arab-Berber? I think it should be mentioned how Libyans, regardless of ancestory, identify themselves. --Inahet 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also add that you need to clearly define what a so-called arab or berber is, then people can get a better picture of the population. Only recently in Northwest Africa, the berber revolts have been making press so US media had to start inserting the berber thing what speaking of these countries. Berber and/or arab does not give you an idea of how the people actually LOOK. Berber, like arab is not a race. When you see how many clear-cut, visible to the eye black people are in lIbya, it would blow your mind. It is shocking to know how they had race riots over other Africans. I wondered how they were able to tell the difference between native Libyans and other Africans.?
My point, this berber/arab nonsense does not give the reader any info at all. In certain African countries, the non-controversial parts of Africa(not North Africa), they break it down by tribes. Other countries, they don't mention tribes or race. Still with others, "black" might come up. With the history if Libya and Roman occupation, "left-over Italians for ages ago" are never mentioned in North Africa. Despite many claims, you can see it in some people. Just because one invader comes in and takes over, that does not mean that the old one just left! If you can, can you try to be more sepcific than just "arab/berber?" There is a lot more to it than this term to get your minds off of actual Africans(that is clearly black) in North Africa.--71.235.81.39 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Motto
Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto Freedom, Socialism, Unity? I did a Google search, and the only websites which list that motto are Wikipedia in various languages (and some mirrors) and the FIFA website. I couldn't find anything official. Pruneautalk 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Italian speaking country?
Is it really correct to have Libya in this category? Quite missleading in my opinion.
no, it isn't Italian speaking country.
No, it is not.. Older generations did speak a poor southren Italian accent with bad grammers, Italian is not present in Libyan schools, however, English is more present in Libya, but not to be considered a 2nd langauge, Haytem A.F 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haytem (talk • contribs) 02:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't agree more. The situation of Italian in Libya is no better than the situation of other foreign languages. In fact speaking Italian is considered a big wow for scarcity reasons, among other things.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 23:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Foreign Relations
Guys, Foreign Relations needs to be CLEANED UP. The article is already too long! I think in future we should concentrate on UPDATING not increasing; the article is too long as it is! Because this article is now FA, everybody has to be careful what they add and make sure that it is not to the detrement of the article. The Foreign relations section has become way too long and it seems that everybody wants to add their part to it. The original Foreign Relations section which brought the article to FA had a little bit on the Kingdom a bit on the 70's (Nasserism Era) and 80's (terrorist actions). It then had a paragraph on the present and future (Western Detente).
The current Foreign Relations has irrelevant material from as far a field as Chad, Idi Amin, the Polisario, LN 114, the list goes on...
Whoever wants to begin clean up feel free
"HIV Trial in Libya", dose not deserve it's own section. There are a lot more issues dealing with Libya than the trial of 7 nurses.
The Head of State
Eventhough I don't agree on calling this position "Head of State" , I will continue on working on the "heads of state of Libya section" . Anyway my point is the current head of state is not "Zentani M. az-Zentani" but "Zenati M. az-Zenati" . So im changing it . Libyan 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
First Nation to gain independence
The article states "When Libya declared its independence on December 24, 1951, it was the first country to achieve independence through the UN..." with a reference. I recently saw the same claim on tv although WP may well have been the source. How can this claim be true when Israel was created as a result of resolution 181 some 3 years before Libya became independent. Both Israel and Libya declared independence. So is this an error or is there some distinction in the way Israel and Libya became nations that makes the statement technically valid? No comments about the legitimacy of Israel please. Robert Brockway 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I think misunderstanding may arise from the wording of the phrase. The facts however are indeed correct. This article states that Libya was the first "country to achieve independence through the UN". The nation of Israel, as you've written above, was "created as a result of res. 181". Libya was a country, whose people were actively seeking independence while in their homeland, under the control of another nation. It is thus a more accepted definition of the term 'achieving independence'. I think that is the reason why it is internationally accepted, that Libya was in fact the first nation to achieve 'independence' (as per my defintion of the word above), through the UN. Jaw101ie 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jaw101ie. Thanks, I think your explanation does indeed make sense. There was no State of Israel before May 14 1948 but it sounds reasonable that there was a State of Libya before Libyian independence as it was already a recognised nation that was dominated by another. Robert Brockway 23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism
With all the vandalism on this page's recent history, could we have a semi-protect? Nyttend 05:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
An admin has to emailed for protection to be put onto an article --Jackacon 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. For immediate intervention, always refer to WP:RFPP. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Highly Political Page
I am beginning to become slightly concerned over the highly charged political language devoloping in the page. The foreign relations section has again become bloated. The HIV trial, in my opinion, deserved two to three lines not a whole sub-section.
The reason I began editing the page months ago to featured standard was to give a balanced view of Libya and to reduce the weight of Politics on the page. I think the Politics section should be the same length as any other, agreed?
Also, this is not a news page. It is an encyclopedia. It does not mean that everytime a news article pops up about Libya it has to be added as four to five new sentences, UNLESS the news article in question is indeed RELEVENT to the page. Jaw101ie 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with Jaw101ie. While I do believe the HIV trial is an important event in the contemporary politics of Libya and that it should be mentioned, by no means does it deserve a section in the article. One or perhaps two lines and a link are enough. A reader of the article as it stands, who is new to Libya, would conclude that nothing happend in the country recently besides the trial.I call for subsuming the subsection into its containing section and in a modest length. Everybody please vote. I vote (Shorten and subsume) Hakeem.gadi (talk) 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the subsection and provided a mention of it within the section. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, though it was number 27 not number 23. SGGH 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Religion section
I don't know much about Libya but in the religion section it called a group a "conspicuous minority", which isn't quite neutral, so I changed it to just "minority"...Trimethylxanthine 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:CEN-SAD-emblem.png
Image:CEN-SAD-emblem.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Two Americans dead in Disco bombing
Does the Turkish woman who was killed count for anything or are we only counting American lives here? :-/ 84.9.33.108 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Libya - Former Jewish Homeland?
I call recall reading an account that after the destruction of the second temple (ca. 70 ACE) there was considerable Jewish immigration into Libya. Libya at that time was sparsely populated, and there had already been a significant Jewish minority there for some time. The new immigrants embarked on a campaign of intensive conversion. This was successful, so that within a short time, Libya, although still nominally part of the Roman empire, in fact stood under the control of local Jewish leaders. (Indeed, one historian sees a connection between the names Libya and Levi). At this point, Libya was mobilised in an attempt to win back Israel from the Romans - an attempt which failed utterly and led to a precipitous end to the Jewish leadership in Libya.
Is this accepted history, a controversial interpretation, or just another crackpot theory? Does it merit inclusion in the article? [I do not have references handy, so I wouldn't make the adjustment myself, but it certainly seems interesting and significant enough to merit reference, if it can be substantiated.]
Never heard of that to be honest, I am a Libyan, I know we had a smal Jewish minority in Libya that was forced to leave in 1970, but a Jewish coloni? that is sort of "un-heard of".
in addition, it is known historically that a trip nammed the Libo was living in this land, and old Eygpt had some trade or afairs with, so the name Levi dose not stand a chance here.. sorry.
Haytem (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Recent politicaly charged football desterbances!
I think it is worth noteing that Colonel Qadaffi is in seriouse trobel with both his political rivals and Italian inspered football ultras.--The Lemmick unit in the sink (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In Libya
On July 9th, 1996soccer match, Qaddafi's younest son. Saadi Qaddafi"persuaded" the referee to award a contested goal so that his team could win. Over 30 people died in the ensuing riots. Mohamed Qaddaffi is Qaddafi's eldest son and a rival of Saadi's. During the football (soccer) match in Tripoli on July 9, a number of armed guards protecting a relative of Colonel Qaddafi opened fire on fans shouting protests against a call the referee had made in favour of a team controlled by Qaddafi's sons. A stampede ensued, and there were a number of deaths.
News leaked of a riot in Libya During a soccer game in Tripoli, Libya in February1997, a team sponsored by a son of President Qadhafi suffered a questionable call and started a brawl.when spectators at a football match chanted slogans against a son of Muammar Qaddafi. They were fired on by bodyguards, stormed the pitch and attacked the --- referee! Some 20 to 25 people may have died.
Should this be included due to it's rather politicaly charged nature?!--The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this is a FA, I would expect something more in the history section. Have nothing significant events found place in Libya since 1969? I couldn't find anything in the seperate history article either. Svwiki have added some few sentence compared to this one. I am working with a translation, and know for sure this will be a question in a FA-candidate discussion there. Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
THis just in: lyBia has the most retarded flage ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.128.181 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
When was political parties banned
According to this source, it happened already in 1952. According to the article it happened in 1972, and the reference given couldn't confirm the claim. I can't disprove the claim anyway, other than the link above. Grrahnbahr (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Fact issue, religion
"Libya was until recent times the home of one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world, dating back to at least 300 BC." Have to be changed. According to the source the first sign of jewish settlement was from the 3rd century BC (about 200 BC). Won't mess up the article with my excellent English, it is better if someone English-speaking user could do it for me Grrahnbahr (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No Libyan is Christian
This descussion took place between me and Troy 07 about the use of the statement 'Christians in Libya are almost exculsively foreigners' I took issue that the use of almost before exclusively suggests that there are very few Christian Libyans, which is not the case. Here is the descussion, please have your say:
Thanks for adding info about Copts in Libya. The lines you added say that the Coptic community in Libya is composed almost exclusively of foreigners. Are you sure that almost exclusively is the right choice of words here as I am not aware that there are non-Muslim Libyan nationals, which would mislead the reader to thinking that there is indeed a small (very small) indigenous minority of Libyan Copts - which is not the case. P.S. Consider adding the info to Christianity in Libya article as well. cheers. ;) -- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean I wrote that specifically in the article "Religion in Libya"? If so, than I only added to what had already been written.
This is the original sentence (as I remember it):
"The Anglican bishop of Libya has his seat in Cairo, as most Christians in Libya come from Egypt"
This is half-true, as Copts, who slightly outnumber the other denominations, are originally from Egypt — in fact, they are probably the closest to being pure descendants of the ancient Egyptians. However, you do have a point as to how this implies that the, quote, majority of Christians are almost exclusively foreigners.
I only added:
"The Anglican bishop of Libya has his seat in Cairo, as most Christians in Libya come from Egypt... including the Copts"
Either way, both are inaccurate, as it should probably only say that most Christians, the Coptic Orthodox, as well a few other denominations, have historical roots in Egypt.
I can tell you one thing for sure, though, I don't even remember writing the exact words: "the Coptic community in Libya is composed almost exclusively of foreigners". I know for a fact that this is not logical, as it is not feasible in most circumstances to have the majority being immigrants for centuries! The Italians have a history as well, as Libya was once a colony, so the same goes for all of the other Christians who have at least a notable prescence (ie: Catholics, Anglicans, Greeks, Russians).
Also, it was contradictary when it said that the Catholics have the largest minority, and then said the same for the Copts. According to the source I added, along with the Catholic source, the Copts should have about 10,000-20,000, so as this difference is not noticable, I see why the articles said what they used to.
Would you mind telling me where you think it needs help? Until then, I will try to add more information to the articles - may be it should clear up this mess with all this articles (the text is almost "exclusively" copy-and-pasted XD)Thanks a bunch. :)
~ Troy 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for having bothered you. I have rechecked the article and it appears that another wikipedian wrote that-I removed the word almost anway. Sorry again.
By the way, even though I do believe that 60000 does faithfully represent the number of Copts in Libya (most of which are from upper Egypt (which is the lower part;))-I know this as an unresearched first-hand knowledge), I would like to draw your attention to the fact that LookLex is not quite an accurate source. For example their entry about Libya is full of mistakes about obvious things. So if you can support your additions with more reliable source the article Christianity in Libya would be in a much better shape. I am willing to cooperate with you to dig up more info on Libya-related Coptic and Christian matters, as long as we work within the bounds of objectivity and neutrallity. Thanks a bundle.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I agree entirely about what you say about Looklex Encyclopedia. The only problem is, it's probably the only source that I can find for the Copts in Libya — notice that I only used the 1% figure as an approxamite estimate. However, if I do find a better source (AKA, any other source at all XD ), then I'll replace Looklex with that other source. In any case, I would like to thank-you for helping me out and I look forward to working with you. Later,
Also, I should notify you that whoever wrote "exclusively" to begin with didn't have any of the right sources. Thus, I have changed "exclusively" —> "largely" — not the best word, but I think that you'll find that it's far more suitable ;). Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The problem was with using the word almost with exclusively which is suggestive that there are some Native Libyan Christians, which is not the case. I know that claiming that 'No Libyan is Christian' is a paradigm sentence for a Negative proof, but given the fact that historically the last communities of christians in Libya go back to 9th century B.C. (I don't have a reference for that, but it is a word from a scholar who works on the history of christianity in North Africa) AND given the fact that no body, no source has ever mentioned the fact that contemporary Christian Libyan cases have been recorded AND given the fact that the law in Libya prohibits proselytization (so there is no way a Libyan can have a change of heart on matters of faith-at least not outloud), I think the burden of proof lies on the claim that Libyan Christians do exist. As of the present status quo, the best word to describe the situation is 'exclusively foreigners'. I am going to revert it to exclusively. If you think there are better reasons for keeping 'largely' please post me up. Cheers.-- hɑkeem¡ʇuɐɹɯǝǝʞɐɥ 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I am taking the descussion to pages Christianity in Libya and Religion in Libya and Libya so other people can chip in.
Unique Military distinction
The Libyan military has a detatchment of soldiers who are the bodyguards of Col. Kadaffi who are actually called the Amazonian Guard, which makes Libya the only Islamic Nation to have women in the military. As stated, they are Col. Kadaffi's bodyguards. 205.240.146.14 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Recently, when I triedd to access this page, someone called the Zodiac seemed to have hacked it. Does anyone know what's going on? It seems to be fine now. http://i34.tinypic.com/dztkp2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.29.72 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Libya and the EU
Libya's attitude towards its illegal immigration/emigration problem is nowhere mentioned in this article, a matter of some importance to the country. A section could be created to include this information, or some suitable place found within the existing article. If no initiative is forthcoming, I don't mind attempting it myself. 92.251.78.145 (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
really big vandalism
someone just repeated "travel on the silk road was difficult" over and over again in the beginnign section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.248.67 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The Arabic Name of Libya
So, the page claims that /jamāhīriyya/ is the Arabic term for 'republic' however this is untrue. /jumhūriyya/ is. 'Jamāhīriyya' is a neologism coined by Muammar al-Qaddafi and there are zero examples outside of the official name of Libya in the Arabic language. It is interesting to note however how the term came to be since it's not a non-sense word. In fact there is a wikipage for the word that describes all that needs to be explained. I just don't know yet how to edit pages while including links and all that jazz so I don't want to do it yet. but someone - or I will when I have the time to learn how - should essentially copy-paste what's in the first paragraph of the Jamāhīriyya wikipage. cullen (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Supplying Weapons to the IRA
Why is it not mentioned that Gadhafi supplied many weapons to the IRA's Tom Slab Murphy
May it be that the Irish authorities were clever at intercepting these shipments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not municipalities
The 'primary territorial subdivision in Libya are called Shabiyah. These not, by any stretch of the imagination, "municipalities". They are large districts. There are only 22 for them (as of 2009) for an area of 1,759,541 km² (679,359 sq mi). See the map at File:Libya New Municipalities.png. On that basis, I have renamed the former "Municipalities" section to "Administrative subdivisions" in keeping with the sections of other countries, and changed the text. If you don't like it, please assume my good faith in making the change, and tell me why you don't like it, here on the talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have also changed the subsidiary articles such as Districts of Libya, the individual shabiyah articles, and I am in the process of changing the town articles. One of the problems is that since the number of districts has ranged from 46 in 1983 to 13 in 1995, each article about a district really ought to indicate its alterations.
1963 to 1983 - 10 governorates
1983 to 1987 - 46 districts
1987 to 1995 - 25 districts
1995 to 1998 - 13 districts
1998 to 2001 - 26 districts
2001 to 2007 - 32 districts
2007 to date - 22 districts
There is also the problem that as these numbers have changed, individual districts grew or shrank. Some seldom if ever changed, other areas were in almost constant reorganization. --Bejnar (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
False Modifications in the text of Demographics of Libya
Demographics of Libya
please take care of theses points :
by comparison you can easliy findout the big defferences that existing between the old edited verisons and the new one , while no thing changed in the references . notice that huge changes have been done in form and content of the article of Demographics of Libya that turned it into plotical and racial propaganda without any intervention of you As expected
the huge defferences existing between the Demographic text in the main article about libya and the Special article about Demographics of Libya , in the time that the references are the same
the defferences which already existing between the text and the map .
by claming that libyans are just arabised berbers one must rejects the arguments of so many resorces rather than libyans themselves that Show the opposite.
there is no any relationship between the piece of text ".[72] Most Libyans are arabised ethnic Berbers with small pockets of Berbers and Arabs.">>>> and the references below Num 72 : ^ Al-Amari, Mailud, (November 2004), "Population Dynamics and Fertility Trends in Libya", American Public Health Association, Accessed July 17, 2006 , please make sure of that if you want before Rushing to delet my Corrections .
Remember I'm just triyng to protect the Scientific standards of the WIKI which keep it's Reliability .
the piece of the text of "The Toubous account for 20% of the Libyan population" ... can any one please show me when can i find the Statistical research support that Strange information .
it's so clean that someone here is trying to Frustrate the real information .
please try to be Objective and protect the Reliability of the WIKI .
Thank you for the explanation, although I have difficulty understanding it. You removed more material than you have explained here, and some of the material you removed was clearly supported by the sources. That's why I reverted it. I am not actually very interested in this article, and won't make any more edits to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Politics
This article about the politics is completely false. Does anybody in the real world really think Libya is anything except a dictatorship? Please don't remove my changes. They were correctly cited. Doug rosenberg (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Culture
I think that I've got the culture section to a point where it no longer qualifies as an advertisement. I'm new to editing- does someone else want to remove the tag at the top of that section?
I'm adding a brief note acknowledging the current political and civil situation in Libya, which may well be of historic significance. In some areas (eastern Libya) it sounds like it's already verging on civil war -- though please note that I'm not going to use those words in the WP entry, not yet at any rate.
With the rulers of both neighboring nations just overthrown, I don't believe it is premature to place a reference to this in the top section. I invite someone to fill details below as events become clearer.
I am sourcing this from Aljazeera and also linking to a site that their reporters have recommended, which is following the sketchy reports which are emerging from Libya -- a closed society which has been compared to North Korea in that regard.
Praghmatic (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's likely an understatement - should this article have some sort of 'current event' header, surprised there isn't more talk - and had trouble finding any wikinews of it! 86.138.62.95 (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
can someone make sure that this section kept clean and properly cited. ie who in the world made the rumor that ghaddafi is in venezuela? 96.57.43.154 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
And it is now cited. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Presently on-going (edit)-war
Should this page not be (at least) semi-protected by now? George Adam Horváth (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection now requested. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Now semi-protected. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Religious / political bias?
The article notes: "Libya was liberated from the Italians on January 23, 1943. The Muslims of Libya responded with a three-day pogrom (November 5–7, 1945) against the Jews."
- Is this biased? The first sentence says that Libya was liberated, the second sentence says "The Muslims responded", which suggests that the pogrom was in direct response, yet it happened nearly two years later. It might be taken as a provocative or loaded piece of writing, suggesting the only or primary response that muslim inhabitants made to being liberated was to undertake a pogram against jewish inhabitants.
Plus it would be good to have references to prove the details, the terms "the Muslims" and "the Jews" suggests the author is trying to make a religious point here rather than offer facts. Do we know that it was exclusively muslims who carried out the pogrom? Would it be better to say "anti-Jewish rioting" unless we specifically know the religion of all the participating rioters? (as is found in the specific article on the incident). Thanks. --mgaved (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Have rewritten the offending section. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
History does not mention the Gulf of Sidra incidents.
I saw dozens of mentions of this particular statue (photo) in the news recently, but noted there's no WP article, and I can't even nail down a clear title. If anyone can help build up this article and get it into applicable Libyan articles (Bombing of Libya), etc. I think it makes a really interesting cultural topic. Thanks for any help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
We should keep both up, to recognize the two factions. Zenithfel (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
History Section
Did nothing happen between the 1969 coup and the 2011 uprising? That section desperately needs filling out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.165.91 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Foreign Relations
The first three paragraphs of the Foreign Relations section are fine, but from ¶4 on a serious rewrite is needed, as it is obviously written by someone with a second-hand knowledge of English. Confused syntax, missing modifiers, etc. Not being an expert on Libya, I'm not willing to do it as even some of the facts aren't clear. Billcito (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Have now done a fair bit on this, but a lot more remains to be done. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Politics section does not seem very NPOV - it seems to have a Libyan government PR perspective. So many people are visiting this page right now because of the ongoing crisis, it would be great to have a more balanced perspective. I wish I knew enough about the history to help. 128.148.235.72 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
change the flag to the flag of the old republic
24.57.22.204 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
What "old republic"? The pre-69 flag you are referencing is the flag of the absolute monarchy, when Libya was ruled by a King with absolute, authoritarian power. I feel safe to say that, if you don't know the difference between a monarchy and a republic, you have absolutely no business contributing to this entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This seems like a bit of WP:BITE, User:Felixhonecker. It is possible to decline the anon's request without telling them they have "absolutely no business" to contribute. — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It is sound advice. If they do not have a very, very, very, basic understanding of Libyan history, they should read the unvandalized Wikipedia entry before choosing to contribute. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Libya wasn't an absolute monarchy, it was a constitutional monarchy. But more to the point, Libya is in the news right now and not everyone visiting this page is going to know everything about its history. Let's all stay polite, stay calm, and assume good faith. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
See discussion above; until the flag of the country itself is reliably sourced as being officially changed, then the current flag remains. Insurgents/mutineers/rebels using the old flag is worth a mention but is not official for the country (yet). - The BushrangerOne ping only 06:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Government = Osama Bin Laden?
al-Qaeda claim a lot more territory than Libya. The Government is the body which runs the nation; and that (for now) is the regime of Gaddafi. This "disputed between Gaddafi and Bin Laden" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.206.27 (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does it say this?? We know that the only person who said that al-Qaeda is involved is Gaddafi. This has to be removed now. Number10a (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
They 'back' the protests insomuch as they support them. That article does not say that AQ are running the show. There is no RS that I have seen that actually says AQ are running these protests. I have seen the opposition called 'unorganized' and 'leaderless' though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism to this Article Listing "2011 Libyan Opposition" as "Government" Will Be Reverted"
(1) You cannot list someone as the "government" of something and then say there is "no organized leadership." (2) Civil unrest has nothing to do with a nation's independence. Nonetheless, the vandals have listed the government of Libya as being a group with "no organized leadership" and have listed civil unrest under "Independence." If you do not have a basic understanding of state structure and theory you should not be contributing to those sections of this entry until you have made some effort to achieve that. If you want to engage in slacktivism go to Twitter, not Wikipedia. I request consensus in making appropriate changes to undo vandalism. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Who reinstated the Gaddafi insignia?
That's the green flag and the coat of arms that Gaddafi himself uses. The protesters use the old flag. And as far as I know, Gaddafi is minimal, teetering to being kicked out of power. Seeing as the protesters have largely taken over the country, I suggest that the insignia are re-removed to prevent rows between edit-warring parties. And the one to reinstate them should explain why they did what they did. -- 92.4.54.146 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The green flag and the coat of arms of the country will remain the same for some time, whether Gaddafi is in charge or not. It shouldn't be changed until the new government actually changes the laws regarding the flag and the coat of arms. This applies to the official name of the country aswell. It's just about the formalities. 84.202.43.43 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Gabby815, 24 February 2011
{{edit semi-protected}}
Change the flag to the flag of the people, not Gaddafi's.
The "flag of the people" to which you're referring was promulgated by a King through a decree-law issued without vote at his whim and will in 1951. The solid green flag was selected by an act of the elected People's Congress in 1977. Get your terminology straight. You want us to change the flag to "the flag of the absolute monarchy" not "the flag of the people." Felixhonecker (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
the people in the east whatever , and elsewhere have chosen the tri color flag, not the all green gadaffi flag - your pro-gadaffi userbox means whatever you say is POV twisted honecker, the green flag is the flag now of fanatics, mercenaries and secret policeSayerslle (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a NPOV source indicating a constituted and recognized government enacted legislation to adopt the flag of the totalitarian monarchy? You seem so certain in your statement that I'm sure such a source should be easy to find that a new government has been legally recognized and enacted legislation establishing a new flag. Post your source and we'll make the change. If you don't, stop using Wikipedia for your slacktivism. Twitter and Petition Online are good Slacktivist tools. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
We should keep both flags to recognize the two factions.Zenithfel (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree, that we should have both flags in the infobox at this time, until Gaddafi is officially out. --Aude (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Is thee any precedent we can use here, or policy? I think not, but I may be wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Until such point as the revolution is successful, technically the government still in "control" right now is Gaddafi's. Adding in the other flag would be a POV violation, in my opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Qxyrxian Spongie555 (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Qxyrxian. Until Gadaffi steps down or the international community recognizes the the opposition as the legitimate government of Libya then we should only feature the green flag. Looking around the other language wiki's we are the only ones feature two flags that I saw. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides in political issues Gailim (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not strictly determined by the United Nations or other official recognition. See for example the Burma article which retains the name preferred by Aung San Suu Kyi. Two flags are a good reflection of the actual situation on the ground as acknowledged by world governments. Shii(tock) 05:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that support your (implied) claim that any world governments have recognized any body other than the Gadaffi government as a possible secondary, alternative, or forthcoming government? 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a bit different, that page is called Burma because that is the most common name in English. Similar to how we refer to Germany as Germany instead of Deutchland. This is about government sovereignty, not a name. To my knowledge the opposition haven't set up any form of governing structures; nor have any existing structures defected from the Gadaffi regime (aside from a few embassies). It does seem as if the revolt will succeed but wiki is not a crystal ball. Until Gadaffi goes down and the new government officially changes the flag then we should only have the green one. Gailim (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I see the 1951 flag is also in the history section, with an appropriate caption. I think that works and should remain there, but understand that it may be too premature to put the 1951 flag in the infobox. Things are changing rapidly in Libya, so maybe 1951 flag (and the opposition gov) will be official soon and the infobox can be updated again accordingly. --Aude (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a very simple matter: No one has declared any flag to be the new official flag of the country. Maybe a new government will revert to the 1951 flag. Maybe they'll pick a similar one or a new one. Maybe the revolution will fail and it'll never change. Maybe it'll succeed but they'll keep the present one. But the bottom line: it hasn't happened. Wikipedia editors are not in any position to predict what the flag or official name of a future government might be. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Whatever we ultimately do, we shouldn't use the image File:Flag of Libya (2011 protests).svg. The old 1951 flag, crescent and all, appears to be the most common flag in "Free Libya" right now. If any flag becomes the new flag of Libya in the next few days it's going to be that one. Wait and see I suppose. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Both flags should be used Zenithfel (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
100% agree with Zenithfel - Libya, the whole country, is not under the green flag. if the country is split, the flags should be split. that is the reality at the moment - reality is the master. Sayerslle (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We display no symbols in the infobox for Northern Ireland even thouth the symbols of the UK remain the de jure symbols of that entity. We do the same for Kosovo where symbols are displayed on an second infobox below, not in the main infobox. We could go for a no symbol infobox here to avoid taking sides in this conflict. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That is an idea too, - at the moment the infobox looks pro-gadaffi, that may not be the intention, but that is how it looks. Sayerslle (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to anyone who understands Wikipedia policy. It is merely pro-What's-True-Right-Now: Gaddafi's government is still the recognized government of Libya. I (personally) look forward to changing the article to reflect that changing... but not until it happens. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Watching Channel 4 news - benghazi - all the tricolours - everyone who looks at the page will not understand wikipedia policy anyhow - load of rubbish. Sayerslle (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
And if a few thousand people protest outside Washington, DC waving Confederate battle flags, should we change the United States page to display that flag as the national flag? The protestors' use of the flag does not change the official flag of Libya, which is what the infobox is for. - The BushrangerOne ping only 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Also: there were at least a dozen different flags flown during the American revolution in the 1770s-80s. When they'd successfully replaced that government then they chose an official flag, which was different from most of those the people had been waving. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In the east the country is being re-formed and you compare that to a demo. I dunno, not very analagous. the 'official' kind of mind, not the most supple. Sayerslle (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I was comparing it an armed revolution. But anyway... Glad to hear the country is be re-formed. Let us know when it's recognized as an actual government, and we'll update the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Standing Series of Counter-Proposals
I have deleted all of my counter-proposals by an implied consensus of request. I stand by my conviction that this is a thoughtful and well-intentioned rhetorical exercise necessary to achieve perspective for this entry, however, will defer to the consensus judgment that I must represent only my own viewpoint instead of representing a different viewpoint in their absence and that rhetorical consideration of other outlooks is disruptive. Instead of tit-for-tat I will be filing WP:CIVIL complaints "as necessary" (deleted words "en masse" as they were poorly chosen; I regret my choice of English colloquialisms often leaves something to be desired), in keeping with P&P. Berber1 (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
First One of Many
DELETED Berber1 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
For someone who is so quick to accuse others of WP:CIVIL violations, you are being very uncivil yourself. Please stop trying to escalate the conflict on this discussion page, as declaring your intention to disrupt WP to make a point will most likely just get you blocked (along with any other accounts you used before this one you've just created). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's all try to remain civil and calm here. Berber1, There's no need to remove all references to the uprising. We just need to avoid prematurely talking about opposition governments before we know exactly what is going on. Our current policy is working fine for the time being. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I, and others, have been called pro-Qadaffi. Well, sorry, we can dish it as well as we can take it. We have one extremist position represented here and, while I'm in the moderate center like most of you, I am willing to represent the other extremist position in their absence to achieve balance of perspective. Please read my original statement. (For the record, my other Wikipedia account has been dormant for 2 years with an irrecoverable password which is the genesis of my current one. So I'm more than familiar with P&P despite my light editing history.) Berber1 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
That is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Repeating yourself ad infinitum does not make it so. Please keep this on-topic. As I noted, we have a moderate position and an extremist position in this Talk page. I have volunteered to represent the other extremist position so all sides are represented. I would hope to be thanked for offering to provide balance of perspective, rather than attacked. Thank you for choosing to phrase your interaction with me in a restrained and civil manner moving forward. Berber1 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You are not going to be thanked for it, because it would not be constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Note my above message and amendment of this section. Berber1 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Interim Gov.
There is a new Gov. That will govern Libya until the Next elections. The US Recognizes it as the Gov. And Not Gaddafi. Therefore since the opposition wins, the flag and info must be changed. Here is My Source (From Al-Jazzera English): http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122702915408866.htmlfatcowxlive (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you can point out where it says anyone has recognized that government in the article, I have missed it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Russia has come out and said they have been monitoring, via satellite, air traffic over Libya and have found no evidence the Libyan Air Force ever ran a single air strike against protesters. (http://rt.com/news/airstrikes-libya-russian-military/) Another reason we should wait before crazy, reckless editing. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle to support western foreign policy objectives/oil power plays. Felixhonecker (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Why should we necessarily trust the report of one newspaper (that happens to be russian) rather than a lot of others that disagree? hereQwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not saying that that report is wrong, but I'm saying that you can't take one report as suddenly the definitive word on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to dismiss sources on racial grounds. The fact that 'it happens to be Russian' does not call into question the legitimacy of the source. Russians are as capable as anyone else of formulating clear thoughts and coherent positions. Wikipedia is no place for racism. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping to conclusions--I, in fact, was calling out your implication that somehow because it was a russian report it was less biased than western media reports. I'm not dismissing the report--my question is, why do you seem to be dismissing all of the other reports? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Because they're based on YouTube videos from Freakzilla44 and LibayCoolCat17 versus military-grade satellite info from the Russian Defense Ministry Bureau of Spatial Assessments and Recce. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this mentioned in the article? The air strikes by Gadaffi vs various targets? I cannot find it, but perhaps i have missed it. (I do see where two F1s landed in Malta and their pilots would not bomb targets, but no claim about air strikes). Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There have been reports of air strikes on Adjabiyah haven't there? Russian and Chinese official news sources aren't likely to report a popular uprising against corrupt elites very favourably are they ? that isn't racism, its just being aware isn't it? Sayerslle (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Were you in Abjabiyah? Did you see the "airstrikes" there? Fact is there were no airstrikes, there's barely any insurgency. There are probably 17 kids running around spray-painting walls and the west is hyper-inflating it to give NATO an excuse to go on an oil-grab. If there are any insurgents they'll be utterly crushed within the week by Jamahiriya forces. Should be able to be swept aside fairly easily. By this time next week Dr. Saif Qadaffi will be sipping Italian sodas on the portico of the Corinthia Hotel. The former UN ambassador is going to be in for a rude surprise, though, when he has to move from the diplomatic manor in Englewood Heights to a studio apartment in the Bronx -- LOL. Felixhonecker (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC). Felixhonecker (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This is not a place to discuss your opinions about what is or is not occurring in Libya. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
OK dad. Sayerslle - let's move this to Qwyrxian's talk page. (J/K, Q!) Felixhonecker (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just spotted another BBC link - video of airstrike can be seen here. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This whold discussion is out of place here, it belongs to the article on 2011 Libyan uprising. No reason to duplicate the description of the events here. Andreas (T) 14:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the material for now, it was just added anyway. Here [5] is the reference used, it does not look like an RS to me for a current event. What do others think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the site, it publishes 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, umm, I think this makes it pretty clear that it is not an R.S.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Flag and coat of arms
Until a formal change of government occurs, these are still the official symbols of Lybia. So having them in the infobox is not taking sides, so please leave them be for now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do - Dn9ahx (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
A little patience required. I have no doubt they will be changed by the end of the week, but until then Saddhiyama is correct. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Just changed the flag back again... Dpaanlka (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the original flag! The bland green one, made personally by Gaddafi was ridiculous. Andalus7 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" appears to have collapsed, we could remove the long form name from the lead paragraph and infobox but leave it in the name section. Dn9ahx (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the long form names from lead paragraph but have left it as the official long form in the name section.Dn9ahx (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The Libyan mission to the United Nations has changed over to the pre-Ghaddafi flag. As far as the international world is concerned, Libya now operates diplomatically under the monarchist flag. 2ltben (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you provide a ref for this - would allow us to remove GSPLAJ symbols from infobox - we could leave leave it without symbols to remain N-POV between the two sides Dn9ahx (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The Monarchy Flag is used by most Libyan Embassy so therefore it should be changed NOW. fatcowxlive (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
will remove existing symbols - we could have both in infobox or have none at all Dn9ahx (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Dn9ahx I'm sure you have made millions of Libya happy! fatcowxlive (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would want the monarchy back(my opinion) but until Gaddafi is out of power the original symbol and flag are still the national flag and everything since the opposition hasn't taken the entire country and no changes to the law regarding the national flag and symbols have been made. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We display no symbols in the infobox for Northern Ireland even thouth the symbols of the UK remain the de jure symbols of that entity. We do the same for Kosovo where symbols are displayed on an second infobox below, not in the main infobox. We could go for a no symbol infobox here to avoid taking sides in this conflict. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed all symbols from the infobox - at least until the conflict is resolved, or until we can reach a n-pov consensus.Dn9ahx (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The United Nations itself continues to use the solid green flag of the Great Socialist Jamahiriya. The Libyan ambassador at the UN, or in DC, despite continuing to physically occupy mission grounds, is no longer, by his own statement, representing the government of Libya so it doesn't matter if he's flying the monarchy flag or the flag of Disneyland. Ambassadors are not envoys of the state in its corporate persona, but the personal delegate of the sovereign. Until, if ever, the former Libyan ambassador is issued credentials by a recognized replacement government he holds no legal office and has held none since he renounced the government de jure. This should not even be a point of dispute. We can't go changing the flags of country entries every time there's an insurrection. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Noone has yet to provide a source that says the flag is not accepted as the official flag of the (as of yet) representational government of Libya. The way things are going we are probably going to have to change the flags, but at the moment there is no reasonable grounds for it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I was advocating the solid green flag be maintained as the flag for this entry. I think we agree but I'm not sure. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologise if I was unclear, my contribution was in support of your statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
so the flag at the u.n. is more relevant to the article than the flag of the east of Libya? - the flags colour, the look of it, its just about power , was the green flag the result of a goddam plebiscite , its just about power, and the powers in the land are split now.Sayerslle (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There is only one government that has obtained international recognition as the legal government of Libya. That is the government sitting in Tripoli at the moment. That government has established its flag as green on an unadorned field. That's the only thing that matters to me. When, and if, the insurgency obtains international legal recognition as the government of Libya then we can change it to their flag. However, there are many nations in the world in which rebel actions are ongoing. Just because you have taken an interest in one does not mean the standards by which national flags are displayed should be adjusted. If you have a problem with the government in Tripoli being the legally recognized government of Libya then take it up with the nations recognizing it. However, legality of governance is established by consensus of the nation-states of the world, not by Wikipedia contributors. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
well. I'd prefer no flag to just this one flag,- when you watch the news, you know, whats actually happening, - you see other flags than just the pro-gadaffi green flag - still, I see where you're coming from. Sayerslle (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what you prefer or don't prefer; what images you see on the television or what images you don't see on the television. If you can provide an abundance of objective sources indicating the legally recognized government of Libya is using a flag other than unadorned green then we can discuss changing it. A flag is a legal identifying mark, not a fun piece of decorative sports insignia. It has practical juristic uses in territorial marking, navigation of international waterways, etc. Every man, woman and child in Libya could be flying the pre-'69 flag and yet the unadorned green flag would still be the flag that should be displayed on this entry until the authorizing instruments that establish it as the identifying mark of the incorporated state have been amended. I have reported you for vandalism. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Reality is important. thanks for reporting me for vandalism, bit quisling esque, or somethinglike that. I'm not a vandal, thats the reality.Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 'reality' is not important, per Wikipedia policies. Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion, and the green flag is the only verifiable national flag of Libya at this time. Alternative flags would be included in pages on the movements using them, but not as the national flag on the country's page. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
BBC news tonight 'in the east the gadaffi green flag has been replaced by the ..' etc.. who 'verifies' flags anyhow. Obviously not the people of the east of Libya. I think it's indecent seeing just the green Gadaffi designed flag, ..well, whatever, nevermind..seeing the situation develop it's ominous isn't it..power has a lot of (craven) worshippers..Sayerslle (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
As I have noted in the Vandalism report, due to your increasingly aggressive and erratic behavior I would prefer you not engage with me further. Wikipedia is not the forum to engage in factional in-fighting between different ideologies. I appreciate your passionate support for the Benghazi mutiny, however, this does not excuse you leaving incendiary messages on other users talk pages nor does it excuse you engaging in four reverts to a consensus edit in 24 hours. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is this report you've concocted? May I read it? Sayerslle (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is needed to change an entry, not to undo changes. The entry originally had the unadorned green flag. One-third vocal participants shouting and edit warring to change it does not equal consensus. No further changes should be made to the flag without an exhaustive discussion here that should allow many days for a very, very long and contemplative dialog. To reiterate, the national flag of Libya should not be changed to the flag of a single political party engaged in an armed mutiny in a remote eastern region anymore than the flag of the United States should be changed to the flag of the Republican Party on the basis of them winning recent elections. Note User:Sayerslle has made 4 reverts in 24 hours and has been reported for edit warring. On a personal note I express my earnest hope he is censured or restrained from his continued vandalism of the Socialist Jamahiriya's WP entry. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Er...I only count three edits to the page in total during the last 24 hours by User:Sayerslle, which is perfectly in line with WP:3RR (although WP:BRD should have been followed instead of continual reverts, there is no policy violation). - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Per User:Toddst1: "While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits." Felixhonecker (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not "consider" which entity is legitimate for Libya. Wikipedia simply reports the entity that is recognized by the world's governments as the sole, legal government. In the unlikley event that changes, so will this entry. Your efforts would be better spent lobbying the UN than Wikipedia editors. Until specific legislation is enacted by a legally recognized government restoring the flag of the absolute, totalitarian monarchy this entry will not change. Felixhonecker (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
the tri color flag isn't being waved by people who support totalitarianism erichhonecker, but those who favour a move toward democracy and less power in the hands of an unelected elite - Sayerslle (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a very simple matter. Until such time that someone who is recognized by other governments as the government of Libya takes formal action to change the flag, name, coat of arms, anthem, or any other symbol of the country, they should remain as they are. That's how Wikipedia works. When/if a formal change takes place, the people who are eager to see Gadaffi fall can all cheer to see that change reflected here. But it hasn't happened (at least not yet). Until it does, we need to leave those parts of the article alone. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this is not a vote or poll. We rely on secondary sources, and until such time reliable secondary sources recognise any other symbols as the present ones shown in the article as, we don't change them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Serious questions: Is this page about a country or about a government? Does the Libyan State the symbols of which are displayed still even exist? If the answer is no (which is pretty clear to me given the definition of "Etat" in French: "Sovereign authority acting on the whole of a given people and territory" - translated from "Petit Robert"), why keep on displaying them, and them only? And, as what is left of the government controls only a small part of the country, why refuse to even display the flag that is all over the rest of the country, and recognized as a symbol of most of current Libya by the Libyan people, and, for an example among many that you can find easily if you need, by the secondary source "What's in a flag" above? (And please, for a good faith discussion, refrain from using arguments given from a position of authority - "It is like this because that's the way it is". This is particularly inappropriate here...) --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Find a source that says that the tri colour is the flag of the government of Libya and we will gladly change it. The thing is, it is not. Until the nutjob that runs that country is ousted (hopefully soon) and the new government gets around to changing these symbols, the old symbols stay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read the first sentence on the Libya page. It is about a country, not a government. --RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It is about a country that has a government, which has chosen these symbols. That government may be corrupt and collapsing, but it's the only one the country has so far. I look forward to that changing, but declaring victory prematurely wouldn't help that happen. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
To take an example from elsewhere on Wikipedia, there are many different flags currently flying over Somalia, and most of the country is not under the control of the Transitional Federal Government. However, the TFG is still the internationally recognized government of Somalia, so its flag goes in the infobox.
The situation in Libya changes daily, and it seems likely that the opposition will soon take power, establish a formal government, restore the old flag, and change the official name of the country. If and when that happens, we can edit the page accordingly. Until then, let's all be patient and calm and wait to see what happens. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I expected this to happen, now, they have to be recognized, and they have to change the flag, name and coat of arms, and then we can do it, but not until then. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Libya is headed down the same route as Sudan, or for that matter most of Africa. War Lords are claiming territories and cutting up the map. Look at the former Yugoslavia and the Czech republic... it's history people.Redcitydubs (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this might be a good point to rewrite some of the article, since it appears we now have two entities claiming to be the legitimate government, each with de facto control of some of the country, and it could still be a while before the situation is fully resolved one way or another. I propose removing Gadaffi specific details from the infobox as a first step. [7]
I just created Mustafa Abdul Jaleel, who is supposedly the head of the new "Council". It's a placeholder article, and badly needs more information. People will need to know who this guy is. --John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There's already a page on him. I put in a redirect. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If we do go ahead with this I would also propose rewriting the lead section. Maybe something like this? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Give it a few days. Let's see who wins. --John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I second the motion. Control of Libya is split between factions, both of which claim to be the Libyan government. We can't predict the future, but we can and should update this article to reflect current information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Orange Tuesday and Kudzu1 - why 'lets see who wins?' - lets keep it as accurate as possible to reflect current reality - thats what wp can do isn't it - nothing is set in stone. Jeremy Bowen this morning on BBC 'more than ever, in this divided country, there are two versions of the truth.' the country is divided, the infobox looks like it is controlled by, (Christopher Hitchens words.).the 'hideous old man and his terrible offspring' who envisage his 'continued private ownership of Libya and its people'. - Sayerslle (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have created a status neutral infobox on my talk page User talk:Dn9ahxDn9ahx (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should go ahead and use that. Not sure what convention would be for disputed flags/coats-of-arms, but it's easy enough to address that with an embedded picture in the "Libya under Gaddafi" section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
We do something similar for Northern Ireland (where the Union Flag is de jure but not shown in the infobox) and Kosovo (where independence is disputed). I tried to use this infobox before but a user undid it as vandalism and threatened to report me to INTERPOL as an "al qaeda supporter". The user was banned for 24 hours for this. Dn9ahx (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a fun experience. Now that the UK government is holding direct talks with the National Transitional Council, and now that the council is claiming itself as the Libyan government and exerting an observable degree of control (and wielding an observable degree of legitimacy) over the parts of Libya in revolt against Gaddafi's regime, I think it's safe to go ahead and update the infobox. This wait-and-see approach is putting Wikipedia behind the times. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks great. I'll let you do the honors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Both of these additions seem to be apt, as for waiting to 'see what happens', this is Wikipedia and doesn't wiki mean 'quick' i.e. quick to respond to changes in this case ? As a further change should we have theNational councils flag as an alternative ( i.e. have both in the info box ? ) Lee∴V(talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
We still do not have any international recognition of the council as an actual government though, so we I think, have to wait on this until there is recognition. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure that we do. Somaliland for example doesn't have international recognition but since it has de facto sovereignty and it declared independence it's treated as an independent state on Wikipedia. Libya isn't an identical situation, obviously, but I think the core principles are still there. There's a regime which claims to be the government of Libya. It has de facto control over half the country. I think that's enough to warrant a mention regardless of the international community's official stance.
I'd add that the question of international recognition isn't exactly clear cut. France has strongly supported the new council, the UK sent a diplomat to Benghazi, and the US said that Gaddafi has lost his legitimacy to rule. And the Libyan permanent mission to the UN defected and no longer represents the Gadaffi regime. There hasn't been any official change in recognition yet but the Tripoli government is rapidly losing its capacity to participate in international affairs. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that precedent does apply. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm putting the new infobox and lead section on the page but with an added sentence explaining that the opposition government doesn't have any international recognition. I don't imagine this is any kind of permanent solution but it seems like a reasonable one for now. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the most analogous situation is Afghanistan from 1996-2001, when the Islamic State controlled very little territory but had most of the international recognition and the Islamic Emirate controlled most of the territory but only a handful of states recognized it. Unfortunately this predates Wikipedia so there's no precedent set in terms of style. China might be the next closest example. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
We could use the Kosovo model for this - in the politics or history section have two infoboxes - one for the GSPLAJ and the other for the Libyan Republic - both which claim to be the sole authority for Libya. Dn9ahx (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the modifications which were tried these days, sadly reverted by editors who don't participate to these discussions. I completely disagree with their edit summaries ("Restoring common sense. Wiki-activists don't get to determine who or what a nation's government is. Until there is recognition by actual public bodies, e.g. the U.N., there is one recognized gov't of Libya", "Restoring lost info, agreed with tarc here, wikipedia can not just all of a sudden drop the official government here and pretand it's not still in power and not recoginized by the outside community indluding the united nations"), both included the word "recognition" or "recognized" : this is not an article about international relations but an article about "Libya" - points of view of the "outside" community are of course very important (note that this "outside" community also includes mainstream media though, not only international organisations and ministries for foreign affairs), but "inner" points of view, and considerations related to loss of territorial control are also very important. Erasing an information from an infobox is not a "loss of info" (the information stays elsewhere) but a necessary step towards NPoV when including all relevant information is impossible, due to its complexity. French Tourist (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree. It doesn't even matter whether the part of Libya no longer controlled by the regime is goverened by a transitional council or in a state of anarchy - the regime can not claim to be the Libyan state and hold the sole authority over all state-related issues (name, insignia, type of government etc pp.) if in fact they are limited to areas controlled by their militias. Neither should wikipedia pretend that the regime still has the authority to define anything for all Libya. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
International recognition is a rather important part of government though. The situation is in flux it seems, and, I think we are rushing a bit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's important, which is why the Council's lack of it is worth mentioning. Perhaps more prominently if need be. But I feel like there's a pretty clear precedent set by the inclusion of the states with limited recognition on various sovereign state lists and the like, which is that unrecognized claims are given strong weight on Wikipedia if they are backed up by some kind of de facto power. The view of the international community is one POV. We shouldn't ignore it by any means but we do have to balance it when it is out of sync with the situation on the ground.
I disagree with the claim made in the edit summary that we would be "pretending the old regime isn't still in power" if we made this change. Gadaffi is clearly mentioned in the infobox and the lead as being still being in power. I also disagree with the claim that we would be "determining who or what a nation's government is". We would not be making that determination at all. We would be instead be acting on reliable sources which tell us that the government of the country is disputed between two entities. I would also add that both reverting editors mentioned that recognition from the United Nations was a factor, but "recognizing" isn't really one of the things that the United Nations does. And anyway the fact that Libya's Permanent Mission to the UN claims to no longer represent Gaddafi certainly muddies up the entire UN question.
I agree that we should be patient and I am comfortable with waiting more before changing the article again, but I do feel like this recent declaration is precisely the type of major milestone that we should be patient for.Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When/if the actual government falls and another takes its place, that is when the box and related information should be changed. An encyclopedia is not a platform for breaking, up-to-the-second news; we're here to provide information on the nation of Libya, not to advocate for change, not to presuppose events on the ground. As much as some may not want to hear it, Libya still has one leader, one government, one flag, and one coat of arms. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You talk about one government falling and another taking its place, but that isn't necessarily the course events will take. There isn't always a clean break in between regimes. Again, look at Afghanistan from 1996-2001 for an example.
I'm not trying to predict or advocate for anything. What I'm saying is, according to reliable news sources, there are two entities right now claiming to be the sole government of Libya, and both of them do indeed exercise control over a substantial portion of the country. We should be reporting on the details of this dispute in a neutral manner. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Leaving the green gaddafi flag alone in the infobox, still looks POV in the current situation. i liked the 'activism' that changed the look of the infobox. AS Hitchens wrote yesterday " Inaction favours Gaddafi "- so inaction over just leaving the green flag is POV - it favours gaddafi - reliable sources recognise a divided reality - the international community recognises this. tarc may not like it , but that is the reality. tarc if you want things to stay as they are with Gaddafi's flag alone,just his flag in the infobox you are a wiki-passive-ist (not pacifist of course, Passive - meaning - hands off the infobox, leave it as it is ), , that is just as POV as wiki-activist. (and divorced from reality)Sayerslle (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see this as a POV issue, again, I would suggest taking this to the NPOV noticeboard, rather than just saying it s a POV violation. The Gadaffi regime is still the government of the country, while this is contested, especially during a civil war, they are still the internationally recognized government. I remain unmoved by the arguments presented so far. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure international recognition isn't the only factor we should consider though. Look at Côte d'Ivoire for another example: Ouattara is internationally recognized but the infobox just lists the president as "Disputed". Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
'one nation, one leader one flag' the tarc/brodbeck line looks a bit strange if its so united that towns like Zawiya, from which the worlds media have been barred,have to be flattened into unity, there are two governments, two flags, disunity, - RS sources abound for the dual nature of the country , the dual flags, the dual governments -Sayerslle (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Where did I say 'one nation, one leader, one flag'? There is a civil war going on, which may be over soon one way or the other. Gadaffis is still the internationally recognized leader of the country. When, precisely when, or where, did I say the country was united? Honestly, please if you are going to quote me, don't make stuff up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Was there consensus reached on changing the infobox, flag etc? I don't see it, but perhaps I am missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't appear so. However before someone reverts I would say the situation we were discussing has changed pretty significantly now that France has officially recognized the National Council. And when I say officially I do mean officially officially. Like with a planned exchange of ambassadors. [8] I can't see how one could argue that Libya doesn't have two governments at this point. Gadaffi's regime has more recognition to be sure, but that's a difference of degree, not type. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey. Edit summary people. The place for a discussion is the talk page, not a revert war. Also can we try to tone down the personal attacks please? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah true enough, things seem to be changing quite a bit today. One of the reasons I figure we should be extra careful is the fluid nature of the situation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should also consider the fluidity of the fluidness. Clearly its all very fluid and there is alot of fluidness and fluidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.38.230 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The leader of Libya is listed as Richard and the title is Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Dance. Also, instead of Secretary-General of the General People's Congress, it has been changed to Secretary-General of the Elvish Committee and the Crossdresser Council.User:Mountainmenace is responsible for the vandalizing. Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
Fixed, and user warned. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Libyan Republic
"Libyan Republic" would certainly be the most logical name for a new state, but the phrase doesn't appear at all in a Google News search. Do we know for sure that ntclibya.org is actually the website of the Council? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In the Independent I see Benghazi called the capital of 'Free Libya' - don't know if that's relevant.Sayerslle (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that may be more of a description than anything. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I kind of feel like this was added too hastily. We don't have any independent corroboration for the name or the site. For all we know it was just registered by some random person. Would anyone object if I removed it until we have something that can be more clearly traced to the Council? Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object. vive la france. Sayerslle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Libyan flag
The official Libyan flag is still the green-flag, until the flag is officially changed by the government and by international organizations. So please don't put any other flag, the flag used by the opposition is not used officially by the government or by international organizations. A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Kind of a 'business as usual' argument - but things are not 'as usual' - the green flag icon represents the official power you say- but not in Benghazi it doesn't - benghazi has different flags flying, a different power has prevailed - so why does wp gives precedence to gadaaffi power and the gadaafi designed flag , rather than to benghazi people power , and the tri colour flag they fly. NPOV violations.Sayerslle (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, different flags are being flown in Libya and on Libyan embassies. But, no law has been issued that the flag is officially changed nor none of the international organization is using the new old-flag. The tricolor-flag flown in different cities of Libya is mentioned on Flag of Libya article and on the main article also. A.h. king • Talk to me! 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
When documenting matters of international law (e.g. national flags), WP gives precedence to international law. Sayerslle, if you can show us a legal declaration by some recognized government of some other flag – any other flag – as the official flag of Libya – or of East Libya, Outer Libya, or whatever nation state you imagine exists at this time outside of Tripoli – I will cheerfully change the article myself. Until then, please drop these tedious demands that Wikipedia make this declaration on its own authority. We (and you) don't have it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This is not submittable as it is Original Research, however, on a purely anecdotal note I telephoned the IMO in London late yesterday and asked about proper flagging of Libyan-registered merchantmen. A man named Darek (Darrekk? Sp?) Sulleman at the IMO told me, for purpose of navigation in international waterways, the Libyan (green) flag must be displayed on merchant shipping, not any variants, no matter how many pop culture references there are to them due to current events. Legal identification of ships is one of the few remaining - and probably most important - practical applications of flags these days. If Sulleman was correct, and I have no reason to believe he was lying, a ship in international waters flying the monarchy flag would be - under international law - a pirate vessel and could fired upon or boarded indiscrimantely. If we put the monarchy flag up we are de facto stating that the nation of Libya's entire merchant fleet consists of pirate ships. Considering the history of the Barbary Wars this borders on outright cynical racism. Please do not let the racists win this edit discussion. Do not take down the green flag until it is legally changed. Berber1 (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The green flag is the flag of gadaafi supporters , as well as ..whatever else it is... so NPOV is being violated, because other libyans are at this moment choosing another flag - -just the green flag, is POV in the current situation - I didn't make any demands - sorry this is tedious for you, keeping you from peter pan and his adventures.if someone comes to the page and wonders what does the flag of libya look like - the infobox should have, well it looks like this, or this, as of late february 2011 - wp is not an arm of officialdom, documenting the situation in international law is it?, isn't it about providing information on realities isn't it? what is the wp:policy on flags? The current reality is the flag looks like this, or this. - you say, no it doesn't look like that tri colour -one-at-all- and- you -erase- it-from-the-infobox-muttering-about-tedious-etc.. blah blahing about international law . anyway, i'm finished. Sayerslle (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The green flag is also the current flag of Libya. This has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions. If you truly think this is a POV problem I suggest you take this to the NPOV noticeboard. Currently there is absolutely no consensus to change the flag, and, there is no government using that flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I add my support (edit) to the overwhelming consensus to keep the current flag of Libya as-is on this entry. Sayerslle, I've just jumped in here but read everything before I posted this and it appears abundantly clear that your position has been duly noted and duly rejected. Continuing to scream about it just junks up the discussion page. With due respect, please stop. Thank you. Berber1 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
you add your opposition to the consensus to keep just the one flag - isnt that what i wanted? .. Im not screaming - i'd have been screaming perhaps if id been stuck in one of them prison cells in Benghazi that got liberated by the new forces in the city - but I'm not shoved in a prison, so I am not screaming. With due respect please curb your sarcasm and hyperbole - the colours of the revolution, in Benghazi are tri- coloured - the helicopter pilots would not attack their own people , and the new flag has been painted on the helicopters, -- some normality returns says the BBC man - they've uncovered the burnt out cells of the internal security headquarters , they kept 5 in a cell, just one tiny window, the BBC man spoke to a man beaten with a leather whip and given electric shocks under the old green regime, -then I'd scream, if i was being tortured but that isn't my case thank God, so i aint screaming, so i wont continue to scream about it - - dead interesting report it was , you'd have found it enlightening, - 'shining a light into the darkest corners of gaddafi's rule' the journalist said - he was in the east of the country Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
lolwut Berber1 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at that policy - I think I know the gist -'the talk would talk and go so far aslant' kind of thing, William Empson,..I just think the one flag infobox is misrepresenting the reality, for POV reasons when all is said and done, - thats my last thought on it , and 'lolwut' berber. i thought you were trying to clear the junk from the page. all talk, hYpocrite Sayerslle (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had quite enough of you. The next personal insult you post on this page will result in a WP:CIVIL complaint. Berber1 (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Al-Jazeera: "Gaddafi's control of Libya is now limited to Tripoli" [9]
The current upper part of the infobox (Gaddafi's flag only) is a serious violation of the principle of neutrality of point of view.
According to Sovereign_state, it would be more appropriate for a "State of Tripoli" (and still not all of it), maybe, but certainly not for the country of Libya.
(Where are the Wikipedia rules that would state that governments, or legal documents, would be the only acceptable sources of neutral point of view, or the only verifiable sources?)
A box with both flags, or with none, would offer a more neutral point of view - RecognizeFreeLibya (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with RecognizeFreeLibya, especially on his third item. Asking for "legal documents" is a flawed rule, and it is especially flawed during a civil war or revolutionary events. I don't agree with the inclusion of both flags, since we have currently no source showing that the insurgent flag is in a reasonable sense a flag of the state of Libya, but we have numerous enough sources which show that the PoV according to which the green flag has ceased being relevant is not marginal - it has been removed from some embassies, which are state organs ; and of course it is now down in large tracts of Libya. The solution "no flag in the infobox" until things get clearer is the one I do support. French Tourist (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please show me a RS that says Libya has no flag, then we will show no flag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Your requirement is not reasonable. I do not suggest the insertion of a new information as you seem to imply, but the removal of an obsolete one. I don't assert that "Libya has no flag" and that this information has to be inserted in the article - if I did a RS for this information would be of course required. I simply ask the removal of the assertion "The flag of Libya is green" (assertion included graphically in the infobox) because I think this last assertion is now outdated, and can give sources supporting this assertion : [10] ("Even the flag outside Libya's mission at the UN in New York has been changed from the one used by Gadhafi's government") or [11] ("A Tale Of Two Flags: Libya's Battle Of Symbols"). I think I do enough when I prove that the situation is very different from what it was a few years ago when the green flag was inserted in the article, that sources that were relevant say in 2008 are no longer relevant in the present situation. French Tourist (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I simply require sources, as does all of WP. Libya has a flag. We display that flag, when the Gadaffi regime falls, and changes the flag we can change it. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You first required sources for an assertion I did not support. Hence I did not give the sources. Now you simply require "sources" - I gave two above. Why are they irrelevant ? You write "Libya has a flag" - I have given two sources supporting the assertion "Libya had a flag until recently, but now things are slightly trickier" - I don't think the infobox in its present state is consistent with this assertion. French Tourist (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The sources are not acceptable because (1) NECN made no mention of any flags, (2) NPR was not a radio report but hosted on the "blogs" section of their site. Blogs can not be used by WP as sources regardless of the parent organization authoring it. Your request is dismissed. There is no need to refile it. You may make the suggestion to change the flag again in April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Libya has a flag - is a flat lie, in late February 2011. Is the green gaddafi flag the only one you see when you watch the news? Disgusting. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of lying? Please assume good faith. As noted at WP:ANI 'The side who wins on Wikipedia doesn't actually determine which side wins in Libya'. Please remove this statement. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
the whole east of libya flies a different flag to the green flag so how can I agree that libya has just one flag . the sentence 'Libya has a flag , in my estimation, is a flat lie. That's how i see it. How can I cease seeing things as I see them? Its just my opinion. I do assume good faith - do I have to share all the sentences , and judgments of others? Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
When that flag is internationally recognized I will be happy to call that a lag of Libya. No you do not have to vet your statements of course. I also believe you understand my position. Then you call what I typed a lie. That is certainly not WP:AGF which is a pretty darned important principle around here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If I can mediate (while of course I have shown I have a strong opinion), I suppose Sayerslle simply means "this is inaccurate" when he refers to a lie, and indeed this is my position. I really do not see why a flag should be "internationally recognized" to be a flag - Category:Flags is full of flags with no interaction with international law at all, from the Flag of Lisbon to the Rainbow flag. You seem to ask a strange condition to admit a "flag" as a possible candidate as a flag of Libya (and could I ask, have you sources proving that the green flag has ever been "internationally recognized" ? I know of recognitions of states or governments, but flags ?). Even if you had proved the assertion "the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya" -I don't think you did- this proof would not prove as a corollary that "Libya has a flag" is accurate. Libya might, as I think, have now a blurred number of flags, something between zero and two (it would be "between zero and one" if you could prove that the 1951 flag is not a flag of Libya, of course). French Tourist (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we know where we 3 stand. I see no consensus at this point. Others will likely weigh in throughout the day Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem isn't "recognition", it's official adoption. The old flag is widely used in Libya right now, that's no doubt, but that doesn't automatically make it a state flag. To use Egypt as an example, the Arab Liberation Flag was introduced in 1952 and was widely used during and after the Revolution, but the old flag of the kingdom remained the official national flag until 1958. Now, do I think Libya is going to follow that same path? No, that seems unlikely. But the point is we can't know for sure what the new flag of Libya is going to be until a new flag actually gets adopted, and it's not our job to predict the future. Just like with everything else concerning this ongoing revolution, we need to wait and see. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
My disagreements at every step of this discussion (there is a similar one on :fr) always stand on words like "official", "legal" - here the expression "state flag". This article is at the same time about Libya (a country) and about the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (a state). It is a normal thing to have only one article for the state and the country in most situations, since there are seldom great discrepances between both - French Republic redirects to France, and it is very reasonable. There are noteworthy exceptions : I think of China, with no infobox and no flag or of Western Sahara with no flag in the infobox, while Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic gives one. Presently (I don't try to "predict the future" - I don't claim to know what the article should look like next week), there is an increasing gap between the country Libya and the Libyan state. Were the infobox about the state of Libya, there would be nothing contentious (if I forget the embassies) : the flag of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is green. But this article is not only about a power structure but more generally about a "country". Obviously, the flag of a power structure, may it be a state or a province is ruled by law, international relations and so on. In this case, the state is losing control on part of the country (as in Somalia) but, supplementary circonstance, the populations of the areas where the state does not rule any longer do not recognize the state flag as the flag of the country (while the problem does not arise in such terms in Somalia). In such a special situation, we should not forget that this article is not only about the power structure. French Tourist (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
That "problem" very much arises in Somalia. Al Shabaab does not fly or recognize the state flag, but the TFG's info is still in the infobox because the TFG is the official government of Somalia. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
More to the point though, the situations in all three of those countries (China, Western Sahara, Somalia) date back decades. The division between the ROC and the PRC is firmly established, as is the division between the SADR and Morocco's Southern Provinces. The situation in Libya is fluid. At some point in the near future it will begin to solidify into a new form. When that happens we can start changing the article to reflect that new reality. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no gap between the country and state of Libya that warrants action. Any gap is transient and will solidify shortly. EuroAmerican media have been cheerleaders of this revolt; the ground reality is that it will - short of foreign intervention - be absolutely crushed by the government de jure et de facto of Libya. The world is not going to end if the flag on this article is out of date for a couple weeks. The discussion should be tabled until April 2011. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit of both, but it still boils down to recognition. Because who are going to adopt a new flag? The Libyan government. And who is the official Libyan government? The government that is official internationally recognised as such, and that is still the regime of Ghadaffi. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Who are going to adopt a new flag. the Libyan government you say. Poppycock. the answer to your question - who is going to adopt a new flag , is - the forces of the uprising - this is who bloody well has, adopted the tri-colour flag , it has become the symbol of the uprising. Their organisations are developing - but their flag is completed. you answer the question wrong so you can arrive at your own conclusion. the people of much of Libya have adopted a new flag, the regime will stick with its green flag - the ongoing symbolic denigration of the flag of the uprising as being in any way relevant to the infobox of the country Libya is weird. and NPOV violation. Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a technical difference between adopting a flag, which the uprising has clearly done, and legally adopting a state flag, which I don't believe they have. This isn't a matter a bias for one side or another, it's just a matter of gauging what the uprising has and has not done. It's entirely possible that within a few days we won't even have to draw that distinction. Until that time let's stay patient. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The so-called insurgents are on the verge of being crushed as the counter-offensive has begun; that's why western reporting has dropped-off, there's no "good news" to report. There's no point in changing the flag at this moment since the rebels won't exist in a week and we'll have to change it back. Felixhonecker (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sayerslle if you truly find it weird and an NPOV violation (which you clearly do, as you have said so) might I suggest taking this to the NPOV noticeboard? Perhaps you will get some satisfaction there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The flag of a police state is not the flag in the east of Libya at this time - why do I need to ask what reality is, at a noticeboard.Sayerslle (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Because we disagree about which is the appropriate approach for Wikipedia. Essentially, myself and other editors like Orange Tuesday are arguing that "flag" in the infobox can only represent the official flag of a country. You're arguing it should represent the flag that is commonly seen on videos and pictures in areas not under state control. I don't know about others, but for myself, as soon as there is some sort of official announcement of concession or surrender by the Qadaffi government, I would then be content to remove all flags from that section until a new flag is legally adopted. Remember, Sayerslle, we're not actually arguing about "reality" here. We're arguing about a Wikipedia article, and what various fields in infoboxes represent, and what reliable sources have said, which points back only indirectly at "reality". Since you seem convinced that you're right about how this flag does or doesn't match up with our NPOV policy, then the next step is for you to take the issue to a noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, the green flag is only now hoisted in Tripoli and Sabha. Nowhere else... -- 92.4.114.2 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Whew! That's a lot to read about a dispute concerning what is or is not an official flag for a nation and government in a state of flux. What no one else seems to have pointed out is, is that flags are also used as a method of keeping score. Whether you be a rebel or not, usually you would have a flag to represent your side, if you've had the time to make a new one like the USA did and later the CSA did, or you're in a rush and reuse an older flag design until you have the time to come up with a new original design, like they seem to be doing in Libya. But anyway, either side chooses a symbol, tempoary or not, to represent their side in debates, demonstrations, arguments, fights, battles, wars, rebellions, revolutions, et cetera. If territory is lost or gained, flags are raised or lowered accordingly by whomever gained the new territory for their side. It seems to me, that the Rebels of Libya, in their haste, chose an older flag design to represent them, as they've not had time to make a new one. It could be that they have since made an official decision to make that their official flag. But either way, they need a method of showing the world which cities and other territories, et cetera, are controlled by whatever side for the time being. Once the conflict is resolved, then we should know for sure what the new Flag of Libya will be, if there is one. Right now it just seems to be a method of Libyans on both sides of the internal conflict, showing each other which side they've chosen to support. I was just reading in another article in "Wikpedia" about how the first CSA flag caused battlefield confusion by being too much like the Union Flag. The Libya factions don't seem to have that problem of flag confusion at least. As for what is official and what is not official, well, the leaders and the people of the CSA, officially approved of their flags, as each one came along. Meanwhile though, the rest of the World did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate nation, even though they had their own currency, and so on and so forth. Libya is in a similiar scenerio here, but not exactly the same, because France and maybe someone else that I'm not aware of yet, has recognized the Libyan Rebels' leaders as an official government entity. But I somehow don't see the Libyan Civil War in progress, lasting as long as the U.S. Civil War did, what with today's technologies. So what I see here is a conflict between the patient and the impatient. The impatient want to see the flag changed to show the World, at least for a little while, that the Flag of Libya has changed once again, while the patient want to see if is is worthwhile to make the bother to change the official data. In the meantime, the flags on the battlefields seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Rebels. Yet as far as I know, the old regime is still the official government replete with their symbols. The United Nations and other official bodies, don't seem like they are willing to announce a victor just yet. Changing the flag from the green one to the older one, the tri-color one, would seem to indicate that the war/game/event is over for all parties concerned, with a definite victor. Shoot by the time I'm finished here, that just may be the case. Whew! That's all for now. Leo Star Dragon 1. 70.129.174.55 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
.svg){kind=link}