Misplaced Pages

Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:29, 21 March 2011 editPeasantwarrior (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,934 edits →Move: res← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:55, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,179 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(595 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Old AfD multi|date=11 March 2011 (UTC)|result='''keep'''|page=Proposed Libyan no-fly zone}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Aviation=yes|class=start}}
{{ITN talk|date1=19 March 2011|oldid1=419701011|date2=25 March 2011|oldid2=420631101}}
{{WikiProject Africa|Libya=yes|class=c|importance=mid|Libya-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=c|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|
{{WikiProject Arab world|class=c|importance=mid}} <!-- Arab League declares no fly zone --> {{WikiProject Africa|Libya=yes|importance=Top|Libya-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=c}}}} {{WikiProject Arab world|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Aviation
{{oldafdfull| date = 11 March 2011 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Proposed Libyan no-fly zone }}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> =y
{{calm talk}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> =y
{{talk page|search=yes}}
| b3 <!--Structure --> =y
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=days}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> =y
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> =y}}
{{WikiProject Canada|importance=Low|military=yes}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations -->=yes|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy -->=yes|B3 <!-- Structure -->=yes|B4 <!-- Grammar and style -->=yes|B5 <!-- Supporting materials -->=yes|African=y|Aviation=yes|Canadian=y|French=y|Italian=y|Post-Cold-War=y|British=y|US=y}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USMIL=y}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Mid}}
}}
<!-- Arab League declares no fly zone -->
{{Press
| subject = article
| author=
| title=Rapid Fire: 2011-03-22
| org=Defense Industry Daily
| url=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Rapid-Fire-2011-03-22-06809/
| date=2011-03-22
| quote=One of the best places for an overview of the allied operations in Libya can actually be found on Misplaced Pages. Hail to the swarm.
| archiveurl=
| archivedate=
| accessdate= 2011-03-30
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 1 |counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(3d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Libyan no-fly zone/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{ITNtalk|19 March|2011}}


== Strength ==
== USS Enterprise WONT be involved off of Libya ==


Its needed in the battlebox a streght ondicator of teh opossing force...at lest indicating how many US ships have taken part or how many planes gadhafi poses over libya , etc. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:14, 19 March 2011</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP -->
This page makes mention of the USS Enterprise being used eventually off of Libya. There seems to be no proof that that will be so. The USS Enterprise seems to be busy operations along with the USS Carl Vinson.
--] (]) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
: I know. I removed the Enterprise repeatedly from the article, but other editors keep putting it back into the article. ] (]) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:: i re-deleted it again..stop putting it up <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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


2011 military intervention by who? This should be renamed to 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, for two reasons. One, to specify who is intervening, and two, to remove the unnecessary word "military" from the title, as it is redundant. I will probably make a move request in a few days when I have time, or somebody else can move the page. ] (]) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


== Requested move 11 October 2022 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
----
<span id="reqmovetag"></span>{{check talk wp}}
{{If mobile|tag=div
| <small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />''']''' See no agreement below either to keep the current title or to accept this proposal, so the status quo ante remains. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone ]''!'' ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>06:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
----
| {{Tmbox
|small =
|imageright =
|image = ]
|type = move
|text = It was proposed in this section that ] be ]&#32;to {{no redirect|2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya}}.
----
<small>'''{{smallcaps|result:}}'''</small><br />''']''' See no agreement below either to keep the current title or to accept this proposal, so the status quo ante remains. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone ]''!'' ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>06:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
----
<div class="floatleft" style="font-size:75%">''Move logs: {{·}} ''</div>
<div class="floatright" style="font-size:65%">''This is template {{tls|Requested move/end}}''</div>
<!-- This is template "Requested move/end". -->
}}
}}


] → {{no redirect|2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya}} – per ], as NATO is by far the biggest contributor to the intervention forces, and the role NATO played in Libya is a major point of focus, both the Misplaced Pages page itself and the news sources that talk about this. Alternatively, if '''2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya''' is too wordy / over-disambiguated, simply '''NATO-led intervention in Libya''' could be used, or you can opt to keep the title if that’s more preferable. ] (]) 06:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] (]) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)</small>


*I agree. It should renamed. ] (]) 23:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


*'''Oppose''' - The intervention is the consequence of a UN resolution. Multiple countries that are not part of NATO were involved. NATO itself was not part of the intervention at its beginning but only join after a while. So limiting the name of the article to NATO alone would be misleading. --] (]) 23:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
And US Army or CNN rates are reliable and independent?
*:I get where you're coming from here, but NATO is still a major, consequential (arguably, ''the'' most consequential) participant of the intervention. So much to the point that NATO themselves acknowledge that their actions (either knowingly or unknowingly) may have contributed to Ghaddafi being killed. Per the ]:

*:<blockquote>According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO later learned "from open sources and Allied intelligence" that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike was likely to have contributed to his capture and therefore his death.</blockquote>
==Rename==
*:And it's true they weren't the only participants, yes, but that's also why I specified the change to be "'''NATO-led''' intervention," not just simply "'''NATO''' intervention." ] (]) 02:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Article should be renamed ''International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising''. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Agreed. No-fly zone is just a small part of what is going on. - ] (]) 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC) *'''Support''' NATO was the main contributor and every single source mentions NATO significantly. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' NATO was the main belligerent in this conflict. Merely stating "military" is not enough. ] (]) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*Comment copied from ]:
This matter has been raised at ]. The name of this article isn't helpful to those trying to understand what's going on. (I don't think "Operation Odyssey Dawn" would help either.) ] (]) 20:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Mellohi!}} I don't agree with this move. Adding "NATO-led" is unnecessary as it was the only such intervention and ] favours the current title. Saying "NATO-led" is not even entirely accurate given the UN mandate, as was pointed out by an "Oppose" !voter at the discussion, which you don't seem to have mentioned in your close. Please could you reopen the discussion? &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 12:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

::After the above comment by ], an initial ] RM closure by ] describing the action simply as "moved." was reverted by ], saying "per admin request". —⁠ ⁠] (]) 15:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest to leave it as "Libyan no-fly zone" until a name catches on in the press etc. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:: I'd vote for Operation Odyssey Dawn, or '''at least''' a redirect thingy. Same way we have with Operation Just Cause. Just my two cents on the deal. Have a great Wiki kinda day folks! ] (]) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC) :::Just to be clear, I '''Oppose''' this move request, for the reasons given. The present title is both more accurate and better. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::I was asleep, sorry for the lack of response. The forced reopening was unacceptable. — ''Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung'', '']''''']''' (]) 15:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
::Why? Just give it its true name: ''International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising''. Misplaced Pages is not only a set of extracts form renowned medias, its creators can analyse the reality too.] (]) 08:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. This is a clear case of over disambiguation. Was there more than 1 military intervention in Libya in 2011? ] (]) 15:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

*:There was not, no. Then again, it could still be ] if it was titled "NATO-led intervention in Libya." It would also be ] with other intervention titles on this site like: ], ], ], ], ], etc.
It should not be redirected to ], which is just the US military involvement. The British, French and Canadian components have different operational names. Leave it as is for a day or so until we get a clearer picture of what is going on. ] (]) 07:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*:I think the question of who, in particular, is doing the intervening is still important information in my opinion (and I say this as someone who has no real love for Gaddafi). ] (]) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

*::'''Support''' "NATO-led intervention in Libya" for the above reasons. The original suggestion is too much of a mouthful. <span style="font-family:monospace;color:#006400 !important;font-weight:bold;">//]::]</span> 23:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is not it done yet? It definitely should. Many people just do not search the whole article so they do not find that small in size information, but great in the meaning - it must be mentioned in the title.] (]) 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' current proposal ''2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya'' as overly disambiguated, as pointed out by others. Other proposals may have more justification. ] (]) 19:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

*:if 2011 was removed for brevity, would that be more a preferable option? ] (]) 23:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
:I agree that the three operations should be bundled into this one article and the article should be renamed ''International Intervention in the 2011 Libyan uprising'' (flows better) until this thing as a whole has its own common name. We can't favour the US op in this as this go-around, we're not even the main guys. ] ] 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I like 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya better than the backup, because it fits ] (which is primarily about consistency rather than disambiguation). If that fails, oppose NATO-led intervention in Libya, as I believe it a downgrade from the current title due to the naming convention. ] (]) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. ] is already the article for the NATO specific component of the intervention, and IMO a large chunk of the details here should be moved there. Calling this article '''NATO-led..''' means it becomes almost a dup of "Operation Unified Protector". There is room for a broader article about NATO '''plus''' non-NATO intervention within the broader topic of ], and thus it should be '''Foreign military intervention in First Libyan Civil War''' or maybe '''2011 foreign intervention in Libya''' if we want to shorten it a bit, but IMO that looses the important context of it occurring during a civil war. ] is an article which should mention NATO in the title given its strict scope. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 22:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
As each of the antions have thier own code name, and this is only what the USA calls thier participation the page should be renamed (as it appears to be about the whole operation not just the US part.] (]) 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*:Well that's the issue, isn't it? Even though it wasn't just exclusively NATO, NATO has such a prominent role that its almost inevitable that they come up. NATO is mentioned (through Misplaced Pages's find-and-replace visual editor) a total of '''92 times''' in the article text, and even the very first line begins with ''"On 19 March 2011, a multi-state '''NATO-led coalition''' began a military intervention in Libya."'' "France" / "French" is mentioned '''44 times total'''. "United Kingdom" / " UK" / "British" is mentioned '''37 times total'''. "United States" / " US " / "U.S." / "American" is mentioned '''50 times total'''. All three of these countries are part of NATO, and NATO itself is listed as a belligerent. The only non-NATO member to be mentioned prominently here is Qatar, which is mentioned '''12 times'''. There's even an "]" subsection in Enforcement to distinguish between NATO and non-NATO contributions to the intervention

*:So I guess it just seems strange that, out of nearly every conflict I've seen with "intervention/military intervention" in the title (even manually searching for pages containing "intervention" in the title), this is one of the only ones that doesn't mention who the intervening parties are. Maybe some info here can be moved to Operation Unified Protector, but I don't know. Non-NATO participation shouldn't be ignored, obviously, but it also just feels a little silly to not mention NATO very clear role in the title, all things considered. ] (]) 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter what we call this article now: Frankly, this whole article will eventually be merged into a section in an article named something like "Libyan Civil War (2011)". This international military intervention is really just one of the components in that war: You have to keep the big picture in sight and not try and focus too narrowly on just one aspect of what's going on. Right now, I suppose it's acceptable to have it as it's own article only because it's front-page news, but from a historical perspective, it would not right to try and completely separate the revolt on the ground from the international coalition-style response in the air. The two are very closely tied together. ] (]) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I'm not sure why we are talking about ]; it's the same length. It's helpfully more specific as a descriptive title and also isn't longer, which is an improvement to me. I considered the possibility that in some cases "X-led intervention in Y" without "military" could be vague about what kind of intervention it is, but when X is the name of a military organization, it seems clear by implication. ] (]) 10:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
==No longer just a proposal==
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
The UN security Council has just voted for the imposition for a no-fly zone: resolution 1973 is now in place ] (]) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:No-Fly zone notability has just shrunk massively because the UNSC resolution is much more far reaching. No Fly Zone is a nice part of a future article on the International response to the 2011 conflict in Libya. The resolution calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone and this is just one small part of a far bigger whole now. ] (]) 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Seriously, you were unaware of the existing article ] ??? The notability of this article has NOT just decreased. Do some research before you post. ] (]) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I hope the events unfolding right now help whoever this anonymous editor is to see what I was talking about. Sarkozy in his post-G8 speech explicitly described much more than a No Fly Zone as is the case with the UN resolution. The No Flying bit of the intervention is not itself specifically notable because it is not the most notable part of the international intervention led by France that is happening right now. The UNSC resolution clearly calls for much more than just a No Fly Zone but the No Fly is part of what is happening in the Zone. The anonymous editor might want to do some research before posting on issues they aren't familiar with. ] (]) 15:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

== links for the new UNSC resolution ==

Previous resolutions seem to have both wikipedia articles and wikisource sources - some people who know the style will presumably do this soon for resolution 1972(?):
* ]
** ]
If the following links are red right now 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) but for someone reading later will probably be blue:
* ]
** ]

* ]
** ]

Meanwhile:
* UN press release: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37800&Cr=libya&Cr1=
The press release says "MORE LATER", so a link to e.g. a pdf of the full resolution will presumably come soon.

] (]) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it's
* ]
** ]
not 1972.

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

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

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

:], I believe ] applies here. ] (]) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::No. Let's cite from WP:SOAPBOX: ''"Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."''.
::You are welcome to add a claim that the webmaster's statement is true. In fact, you sort-of did, but not quite.
::How about you stop putting delete tags and deleting text and we end this discussion, since it's now NPOV'd?
::] (]) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

==The ] ] 1973''' vote of March 18==
Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Nation!! ] ] 1973''' Vote!! Political Side
|-
|{{flagicon|France}} ]] ]|| Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|Bosnia}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
|{{flagicon|Colombia}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|Gabon}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
|{{flagicon|Nigeria}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|Lebanon}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|Portugal}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|South Africa}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|UK}} ]] ] || Yes || Rebels
|-
| {{flagicon|USA}} ]] ] || A reluctant yes || Undecided
|-
| {{flagicon|Brazil}} ]] || Abstain || Neutral
|-
| {{flagicon|Germany}} ]] || A reluctant abstain || Pro-Gadhafi
|-
| {{flagicon|India}} ]]|| Abstain || Neutral
|-
| {{flagicon|China}} ]] || Abstain || Neutral
|-
| {{flagicon|Russia}} ]] || A reluctant abstain || Pro-Gadhafi
|-
|}

] (]) 10:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:For information, according to the at 15:36 today: ''German Chancellor Angela Merkel says her country will not take part in military intervention, but adds: "We unreservedly share the aims of this resolution. Our abstention should not be confused with neutrality."''. Regards, ] (]) 16:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::Indeed, I have no idea why Germany is being listed as being "pro-Gadhafi" ] (]) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

:The US was not a reluctant yes, the co-sponsered it with the UK, France, and Lebanon <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Criticism ==

Criticism to the no-fly zone and also the UN resolution enforcing it, contained person that are fervently ''for'' a no-fly zone and actively worked to have it implemented - i.e. Alain Juppé, Hillary Clinton, etc. This has been corrected by me. Also regarding Clinton the quote says: "The tough issues about how and whether there would be any intervention to assist those who are opposing Libya is very controversial within Libya and within the Arab community.", and then continues to say that "So we are working closely with our partners and allies to try to see what we can do and we are engaged in very active consideration of all the different options that are available." To take only half the quote is a mis-quotation and not acceptable! As quoted it seems Clinton is against a no-fly zone, however with the full quote it becomes clear she is working to impose one! Misquotations of this sort are unacceptable! ] (]) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:So add the part of the quote you find relevant?? Don't just remove statements made by the ] because you disagree with them. Misplaced Pages is not your ]. And whether or not Hillary Clinton is in favor is entirely irrelevant - she made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community and that's the end of it.--] (]) 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: Please watch your tone! now to the facts: I do not disagree with Clintons comment I disagree with a pattern in this section of partial quotations, which contradict the actual opinions and actions of officials! An example: Richard Lugar is in the section "An act of war" and he is quoted to make it seem like he is criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war! When in fact he says: "Obama Administration Must Also Get Congress to Declare War" so, he is not criticizing the no-fly zone as an act of war, but wants a congress declaration of war against Libya! If you want to have him in the criticism section, then take , in which he actually really does directly criticize the no-fly zone: "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya." but still- also here he is not saying: no-fly zone= act of war! so: please quote correctly - that is all I ask for! ] (]) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::: You are the one acting up like a kid in the edit comments and throwing around exclamation marks as if something is wrong. If you disagree with a viewpoint represented on Misplaced Pages, then add your own ''with ] sources''. Don't just remove parts of the subject matter to slant it to your liking.--] (]) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::: re: Hillary Clinton - as you just said! "She made statements before a senate committee about skepticism in the Arab community", but you put into the criticism of the no-fly zone section. Why that? if she only made a statement about the skepticism in the Arab community on March 3rd, and on March 12th the Arab League called for no-fly zone - doesn't that mean that the skepticism she mentioned has been overcome? ] (]) 15:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::: Please read up on some basic information about civil society or take a civics class. The Arab League is an organization of the current ruling autocrats of the Arab countries. They do not represent the Arab community, they represent governments.--] (]) 15:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::::: again: please stop behaving in a condescending manner and argue for what reason the Clinton quote needs to be in the criticism section, when it has been superseded by events in the last 2 weeks. ] (]) 16:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::: If you have ] indicating that the skepticism in the Arab community that the Secratary of State related to the senate committee has been superceeded, you are welcome to add them here or to the article. But merely citing the fact that the league of 22 Arab autocrats approve of the proposal does not justify the claim that the entire ] of several hundred million people does.--] (]) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages adheres to a neutral point of view. Your negative attitude to the heads of state of the Arab League is not acceptable, as it makes it seem that you are not neutral in your editing. Please adhere to a neutral point of view in all your editing on wikipedia! ] (]) 16:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:We are disputing that most of the members of the Arab League are autocrats now? Do you have a ] to back up that claim?--] (]) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
:: We're not debating Arab autocrats here, but possible criticism of the no-fly zone in Libya. ] (]) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::: Then don't dispute the neutrality of the assessment that the members of the Arab League are autocrats.--] (]) 17:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::::You cant have a list of individuals critical statements without a similar list individuals of favorable statements. It's one sided and POV. Further, many (if not most) of those who voiced these concerns have since changed their positions based on developments since they were made. It's highly POV to have this type of list. ] (]) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I also agree, there appears to be undue weight given to criticism. ] (]) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Oy vey, the level of personal attacks. While POV against Gaddafi cannot be helped, POV against our intervention can be as no every RS would take the view. ] ] 16:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

: Someone changed it, thanks --]&nbsp;] 04:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

==France==
According to various TV news channels, France has started implementing the no-fly zone with reconnaissance flights... does anyone have a name for the military operation for France? As we have ] for UK, an article for France and Canada would be in order, since apparently France, UK and Canada will be the first to implement the no-fly interdiction. Though Canadian government disputes that they will be ready in time to be first in with France and UK. ] (]) 14:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 21:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== this is not a no fly zone ==

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said in a press confrence and we have being hearing about this for a while in the media that they will not only forbid planes flying but that they will also bomb tanks and troops that is attacking the people. A so called 'no drive zone'. This goes beyond a no fly zone but this is a (tactical) bombing campaign. Perhabs change the title of the article to The bombing of Libya. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: No, we wait until the official name of the operation is known and will move the article then there, like ], ], ]. ] (]) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== an act of war ==

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

I may just be bold and do it anyway!

Regards, ] (]) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Please maintain at least the Lugar quote as well as the refs to the others. There has been no effort to misquote but there may have been one to forget the criticism of this intervention.--] (]) 17:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

==Operation Odyssey Dawn==
This is apparently the name given to the operation by the US DoD, afaik it isn't the name assigned to the entire libyan no fly zone and at this stage may well only refer to the phase of operations when the US takes over co-ordination from the french. As such can editors (particularly US ones...) please refrain from labelling the entire NFZ operation as what the US DoD calls it. Similarly Operation Ellamy shouldn't be used as the name given to the entire NFZ.] (]) 20:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Ok im writing this as Obama is giving his radio address, it seems the US will contribute to the 'front end' ie SEAD operations but 'coalition partners' will take over the actual enforcement of the NFZ; as such id suggest Odyssey Dawn is the name given to the SEAD phase] (]) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::Don't insert that catchy rosy flowery sunny name like it is like a picnic in a sunny day like Operation Wild Rose, Operation New Beginning, Operation New Birth, Operation God is Coming, Operation Glorious Mountain. Keep those simple and childish names out basically. ] (]) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::The operation name should not be the title unless it becomes the ] like ]. ] ] 16:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

:I've already listed David Cameron and Barack Obama in the commanders section of the article template as British and American forces have already begun engaging in combat against Libyan forces. An IP had tried to remove David Cameron and Barack Obama from the commanders section of the template. ] (]) 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::That was done because only France took the risk to send planes into Libyan territory. At this moment, USA/UK sent tomahawk missiles and other measures. A no-fly requires airplanes to work. No planes, no no-fly zone. So far only Sarkozy is a no-fly commander, because only France launched airplanes. Other commanders can be named only after they start contributing planes to the no-fly. It is better to wait than to be inaccurate.
:::What utter rubbish. What do you think the British and American missiles were fired at? Sandcastles? A no fly zone is more than just jets whizzing overhead. ] (]) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Also, read the actual Resolution: it's a lot more than just a no-fly zone. ] (]) 22:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::::So what is it? Can you help come up with a better title? ] (]) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Yes! Propose to '''move''' this to ''']''', ASAP. This is going to end way fast, dare I say in a regime change. Flatterworld and Quite vivid blur are both right, the resolution is more than a no-fly zone, when it says "Any Means Necessary". US/UK tomahawk missiles attacks can go on forever, until Gaddafi is defeated completely. He will lose his will to fight and have to surrender. Counting the number of warplanes won't help. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

:::2011 Intervention in the Libyan Uprising until a common name is established. Police action is a POV and not used by any reliable source. ] ] 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Move to ]?? ==

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

"Operation Odyssey Dawn" refers only to US involvement. Ellamy is UK involvement, and names for other countries' involvement are yet to be announced. ]<sup>]/]</sup> 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:No. The current name is wrong, but whatever we choose it must mention Libya. ] (]) 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::Why? ] (]) 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It does not seem that their would be a joint operation name, every country participating has its own name for the operation. So let us call it ''Coalition military operation against Libyan government forces''. It is definitly more now than just "No-fly zone".
] (]) 00:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::Oh, no. Not "''coalition''" again. That seems to have been dragged out in every conflict involving the USA since Vietnam. It seems to mean "''The USA plus whoever else is on its side''". In Iraq it facetiously became "''The coalition of the lying''" because of the absent WMDs. It's not at all formally defined. We have to do better than that. ] (]) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

== targets ==

i think it would be a really good idea to list what is hit, by what and when. i just read that RAF struck tripoli <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
RAF struck Tripoli - citation? ]<sup>]/]</sup> 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

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

== Timeline ==

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

== USS Barry image ==
How do we know it was one of the ships that launched the missiles?] (]) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

::: I doubt this one is stretching them much ] (]) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:* Ship reference: {{cite news
|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42164455/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
|title=U.S. launches missile strikes against Libya
|date=19 March 2011|accessdate=19 March 2011
|publisher=]}} - ] ]<sup>]</sup> 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== Strenght ==

Its needed in the battlebox a streght ondicator of teh opossing force...at lest indicating how many US ships have taken part or how many planes gadhafi poses over libya , etc. {{unsignedip|190.118.9.11|23:14, 19 March 2011}}

== brainwash? (was: effectiveness?) ==
Is speculation, by individuals politically posturing, days and weeks prior to the UN resolution, and prior to any specific knowledge of the operation, based on only public domain (read: incomplete) information really appropriate to have in this article? it appears that some are desperately trying to include some form of dissension on this campaign, regardless if it is relevant or appropriate. ] (]) 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
: This content was from before the UN resolution. If you understood the subject and weren't merely judging it from whatever happens to be in front of eyes on the TV at the moment, you would know that there was a great deal of skepticism from most members of UN up until the last day or so before the vote on the resolution. Thanks to people like you, this skepticism is now being forgotten in the article in favor of the brainwash being sent out of by the coalition behind the intervention. --] (]) 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

==Casulties==

Are we now really taking Libyan state TV as credible source for casulties list? --] (]) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
* I put it with a note stating that.--] (]) 12:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

== Libyan State TV ==

Can the Libyan State TVs reports of Civilian casualties be seen as coming from a reliable source?? All the reports of Libyan State TV have been so far lies ("Al Qaeda gave the youths drugs!"), propaganda ("Al Qaeda has broken the ceasefire!") or plain ridiculous ("We could never shoot our own people.") - therefore my question: Is it ok to put the Libyan State TV numbers about casualties into the article? Or should we wait for a neutral source?? i.e. ] or UN? ] (]) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Hardly a neutral source. ] (]) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::The discussion at ] may help with not repeating the same arguments.--]] 05:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what we think. We report both rebel and western claims of massacrs and tanks destroyed. We need to report government claims as well so to stay neutral. We already noted that the numbers are a government claim, that is enough. Let people make their own conclusions, that's not our job. Our job is to writte claims of both sides. Libyan rebels have also made claims that have not been confirmed as true. For instance, they said the plane shot down this morning was Gaddafi's and later it turned out it was one of their own. The rebel's also claimed that there have been thousands of civilian deaths in massacers, however no independent group has confirmed this still. In fact, now it seems no more than 1,000 people have died, and more than half of those have been combatants. Nevertheless we report rebel claims. So we also report government claims. People are already aware the numbers could be just propaganda, however nevertheless our duty and job is to report the official government claim on the number of dead, like we report the official French government claim on the four tanks destroyed. And that is what it is, an official government claim. ] (]) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Think about all the claims from state T.V. and the fact that it is run by Gaddafi loyalists, do they sound formal and definitive? You be the judge as to whether they are true or not. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Move to ] ==
{{Requested move/dated|Coalition intervention in Libya}}

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

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

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

:No. Anything but "''Coalition''", please. "''Coalition of the willing''" was used by Dubya in Iraq, and quickly became "''Coalition of the'' '''lying'''" among those publicly wondering where the WMDs were. It seems that, with limited thought, people want to use "''coalition''" to describe any collection of America and some friends (different every time) who attack somebody else. Not saying this one's not justified, but let's be a little more creative. Please. ] (]) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::Is ''Allied'' any better?--] (]) 07:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::''UN'' would work for me. ] (]) 07:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::UN seems to me to be OK since "allied" forces are currently operating under a mandate very similar to ], which opened the way to escalating the ]. ] (]) 08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' this is about the no-fly zone, and the operations are in support of maintaining the no fly zone, or operations adjunct to that which are outlined in the UN resolution that declared the zone. Besides, the Arab League declared a no-fly zone as well. ] (]) 07:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
**Question: that could be argued about the 110+ missiles fired from ships and planes today. However, the first attacks by France at least 1 tank (and possibly 4), I cannot see as being solely about a no-fly zone since the tanks were not in any way an immediate thread to air forces. How is that part of a no-fly zone?--] (]) 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
***Your requested name still does not make sense, ] says it's the Libyan no-fly zone. ] (]) 12:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
****What you say would have been true if it had been Friday. However, as of Saturday, most sources are no longer calling it a no-fly zone. Almost all sources now refer to "attacks," "assault," or "airstrikes" in Libya. --] (]) 12:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*****Most sources i see still call it a no fly zone! which sources do you refer to?] (]) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ''No-Fly Zone'' can be a section of the article but should not be the entire article.--] (]) 13:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:yes. like ]--] (]) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' The proposed new name is not a widely used name, so doesn't qualify as a common name. It's rather ambiguous as a descriptive name; Qadafi still seems to have influence in organising a coalition called African Union, but that's not the coalition that this article is mainly about. The proposed title also can be seen as not NPOV enough for a descriptive name, as pointed out by 192.5.109.34: it has a strong political connotation with the present officially 50,000 or so non-combatant foreign fighters occupying Iraq. See the "Title etc." section below for an attempt to find a better name that has a chance of being accepted in a requested-move. ] (]) 19:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As per above] (]) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happened to consesus decisions on Misplaced Pages? Why has this article been moved when so few comments have so far been made, most of which (see above) are opposed to it, and it has hardly been discussed. I suggest whoever made the change should revert it until due dilligence has been pursued. Thank you. ] (]) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:I agree its appalling that this article was moved 'Coalition Intervention in Libya' is a nonsensical name that i can't see used anywhere else; Libyan No Fly Zone was far more descriptive, i won't move the article to avoid edit wars but this does need to be looked at] (]) 20:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''page move done''' by Ronnotel at 19:42, 20 March 2011 despite non-consensus and non-closure of the requested move discussion, see this edit: {{sec link auto|en|Libyan_no-fly_zone|query=oldid=419846097&diff=prev}} or {{sec link auto|en|Coalition_intervention_in_Libya|query=oldid=419846096&diff=prev}} for the move summary. ] (]) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Can someone move it back, at least until its been discussed more? despite wanting to avoid an edit war (as i said above) i would do it but im unsure how] (]) 20:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::Undoing a move is technically tricky AFAIK, since you need to be careful about talk pages, history page, etc. ] (]) 20:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, i think as per the '''Title etc''' discussion below we'll wait and see what the 'coalition' call themselves once the handover is complete and rename it from there. Its just annoying and frankly bad manners when editors take it upon themselves to make such changes without even listening to the concerns of other wiki contributors!] (]) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' What is happening is more then merely a no fly zone, article title should not restrict it to that. You don't attack tanks and other ground assets for a no-fly zone. (I realize the move has happened, but it should not be undone) ]<small><sub>]</sub></small> 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::::i put ], and after that i noticed that ] is an admin! So s/he should reverse the move him/herself. Admins do not have any special rights to override consensus. ] (]) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Admins need to respect consensus, but they also need to apply common sense, and remember its not a vote. While what the article should eventually be named is a good question, it really should not go back to being no fly zone. ]<small><sub>]</sub></small> 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Please note that this was not the only place this topic was being discussed and I attempted to determine consensus across all input. Also, consensus is not a vote. I based my decision to move on the persuasiveness of the arguments, the rapidly changing nature of the topic, and the incongruity of the article name with recent events. I should also mention that the article is now linked from the main page, which made the matter somewhat more time-sensitive. That said, if someone feels strongly enough that ] better describes the current situation than the current title I'm open to revert. ] (]) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:The move might have been discussed in other places, but people discussing here, in the obvious place, were not alerted to those other discussions. You haven't even tried to tell us now where those other discussions are. Since you felt urgency to override the normal process, please either revert to the previous name, or else change to the closest thing to a consensus, which is option '''(e)''' in the "Titles etc" section below: ]. i started adding a comment there suggesting that (e) was probably best, but i couldn't save it because of the move. Many people editing recent events related pages may feel that the names are "time-sensitive" - does that many that everybody should move the page because s/he feels it is urgent and there's no need to wait for consensus? Misplaced Pages is not Wikinews. There was an utter mess in page moves for the main "2010-2011 Arab world protests" article a month or so back - let's not get into the same mess with this article. ] (]) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:(BTW: HJ Micthell over at the admin noticeboard page kindly pointed out that ''"Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page back to where it came from, provided that that the only line in the history of the redirect is the move, which, in this case, it is."'' In this case, Ronnotel has turned up to talk abou this, so IMHO it would be best that s/he either revert the move, or else change to the closest thing we have to consensus below. Following that, a new move proposal could be made with less "urgency".) ] (]) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Infobox ==

Actually the Libyan no-fly zone is not a military operation. The military operations are Operations Mobile, Harmattan, Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy that enforce the Libyan no-fly zone demand. I think the article should discern these two issues. The lead should be changed accordingly and the infobox probably should me moved to corresponding section about enforcement. Thoughts? --] ] 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Those are the names given by four of the many countries involved in the overall operation that is the no-fly zone. <b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 10:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to finde it soon.] (]) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:I doubt that the name of the general operation is Libyan No-Fly Zone. ] ] 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::It won't have a 'name', only 'names'. 'Libyan No-Fly Zone' sums up the event quite well. We don't need an overall name for the operation, as this article refers to a specific event, namely the no-fly zone. <b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Greece frigates name? ==
Can anybody find out which 2 frigtes Greece sent to Libya? Hydra or Elli? Or both? http://en.wikipedia.org/Hellenic_Navy <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== Name name name ==

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

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

: First source doesn't mention any plane shot down, second source says "Libya says", and the third says "France denies plane was shot down"- no mention everywhere of a Kub 2K12 too. ] (]) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::Is France covering it up. I clafifyed my 1st post that it was a plane not a Kub K212.11:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::: No, Libya just lies. ] (]) 12:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Truth is the first casualty of war. Certainly we shouldn't believe it just because France says so, but at the moment there is little reliable evidence to suggest a French plane was shot down - and I'd it would be quite hard for the French to cover up. At the moment the accusation is article-worthy, a statement of fact not. '''Grandiose''' <span style="color:gray">(], ], ]) </span> 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
: Is not a french, is a MiG-23 "Flogger" with Libyan markings. I do not know if he from Libya gov or the rebels.] (]) 03:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Merger proposal ==
{{discussion top|1=The result of this discussion was to keep articles separate ] (]) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)}}
Note: For the record, the issue was closed previously on the merger project page, after consensus was reached. I did not close that discussion. It seemed to be very confusing to still be discussing it here when the matter had been decided on the relevant merger project page. ] (]) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

* We now have 4 separate stub pages detailing actions taken by various countries to enforce the Libyan no-fly zone - ], ], ] and ]. This is overkill, we should simply have separate sections here on the Libyan NFZ page for each country's actions. If the Libyan NFZ page gets too long or the operations continue for a substantial time we can separate them out then. ] (]) 12:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
: '''Disagree''', these are 4 separate operations at the moment. i.e. the French Ground Strikes around Benghazi on March 19th were done without the coalitions command structure. Also until a central command is set up each nation operates a national operation, based on the requirements of the strategic command (US African Command) and then in the theater of operations are conducted under the tactical command of US Naval Forces Europe. ] (]) 12:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
: '''Agree with merger''', as argued on ]. ] (]) 13:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Disagree''', Each can stand on their own at this time, as the stories are emerging and individual country's efforts are not yet being merged into a cohesive action. ] (]) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose merger'''. ] (]) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose merger''', even though there are many countries supporting it, 3 countries are doing most of the damage over there and those countries operations are separate articles. Eventhough this is like UN resolution that everyone supported 100% three countries are attacking Libya and those countries significance shouldn't be diminished. This is three big operation by three big countries and those three big operations are specifically divided with specific info for each. Deleting these three operations article make it seem like these 3 countries are doing very little in fact they are doing 99-100% of the damage over there. ] (]) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Just wanted to weigh in with a bit of new information - according to BBC News, I quote (emphasis mine): ''The UK Chief of Defence Staff's strategic communications officer, Maj Gen John Lorimer, has said '''the operation is under the control of the US Africa Command''', "but the United Kingdom have officers and staff integrated and embedded at every level, from the highest levels right down to the lower levels so that we are absolutely co-ordinated with the US and our other allies."'' Thus, separate efforts Bzuk mentions have been merged into a cohesive action and they (no longer, at least, even though I doubt they ever did) constitute 4 separate operations, which is the argument Noclador used. ] (]) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I've said this too many times now but I'll say it again: Any operation deserves its own independance! There any many reasons on ] on its own merger proposal. When I first created Operation Ellamy I was expecting something small... well, I guess I was wrong there! ] (]) 13:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose merger''' One could easily end before the other. A military response is not the same thing as what lead up to it. They also did not begin at the same time. ] came after the ], for example. By that logic the ] should be merged into the ] page. If the no fly zone is lifted before the end of military operations, it will lead to confusion. ] (]) 14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Clearly both topics require different articles. ] (]) 15:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. The "operation" articles are no longer stubs. The main Libyan no-fly zone article is long enough as it is right now {{sec link auto|en|Libyan no-fly zone|query=oldid=419838640}} just a day or two after its implementation, and the individual "operation" articles are also long enough right now that any merger would just force extra editorial work in doing a ] in a couple of days' time. It also seems like the "criticism" section has been vastly reduced, so if the people who worked on that (or others) insist on its notability and rescue the most notable parts, then the length would certainly not be reduced. ] (]) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

==Title etc==
I'd just like to sum up the discussion above into something more less confusing. I'd seem there does (?) exist a general consensus for name change, but not on what the new title should be. As I see it, these would be the possible names:
* '''(a)''' Libyan no-fly zone ''(Current name - probably the most recognizable, but does not fully represent the nature of this undertaking.)''
* '''(b)''' Coalition intervention in Libya ''(Does not make it clear who constitutes the coalition. As such, it does not provide any more information or recognizability than, say, 2011 military intervention in Libya.)''
* '''(c)''' Allied intervention in Libya ''(The same comments about Coalition intervention in Libya apply.)''
* '''(d)''' UN ''(possible variation: United Nations)'' intervention in Libya ''(While more information, again not the most precise name - UN doesn't have any of their own forces ("blue helmets") or missions currently in Libya, it merely gave permission for this intervention.)''

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

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

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

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

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

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


Anyway, hope the thing is a bit less confusing now. :) Personally, I'm in favor of '''(e)''', then '''(f)''', '''(k)''' and '''(d)'''. Sorry about editing. ] (]) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:wait for the unification of the coaltiton command to occur in Naples Italy, they will certainly make a new code-name. --] (]) 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::E seems good. If they do give it a single name, that would be nice. ] ] 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

==Intro 1st sentence alert==
Says:
:''The Libyan no-fly zone actually is brutal interference in Libyan local conflict.''
is a nonfactual POV stmt. Scribble? ] dixit. (]!) 15:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Was by anon 94.193.126.127. Fixed. ] dixit. (]!) 15:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== Italian president ==

hahaha put then QEII as the british commander--] (]) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Why, she's not a commander...<b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::what about irony <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I think this fellow was saying if you're going to put Heads of State as well as the requisite Heads of Government then you should put Queen Elizabeth II. ] ] 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this fellow was trolling. <b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 20:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Wanted to assume ], so I put a nice explanation (Don't think it counts as trolling, just a silly joke. The term trolling is so misused these days that the artform itself is not appreciated). :X ] ] 20:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::someone added Napolitano again. He is a ceremonial figure I wanted to say--] (]) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Well now you say it, but now you must regain ] or else die a death worse than death! (jk I really don't care =p) But yeah, ceremonial leaders, and people who're just heads of state shouldn't be included. ] ] 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

== Libya civil war and war against Libya ==

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

:Sources saying this please. ] ] 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== What about Med Sea civilian airline traffic now? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that there have been a concerted effort by fascist editors ], ] and others to suppress dissenting statements in the article in favour of propaganda send out by the coalition forces. This is why you will tend to not be able to find well-known criticism. Yesterday, they removed the statement sent out by ], for instance. --] (]) 07:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

==US leading==
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72J00M20110320

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

'But cautioned that "in the coming days we intend to transition it to a coalition command."' ] ] 18:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:: Well but the first strikes were lead by the US. So I thing we should mention this! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::You could put something about US missile strikes clearing the way for other coalition partners to begin their operations I guess. ] ] 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Except for the fact that said missiles were also fired by British submarines....<b>]</span><sup>]</sup></b> 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:Someone did mention two British missles, yeah, was wondering where they came from. ] ] 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In a press statement about half an hour ago, the US said they would pass over more controls to Europe over controlling the no-fly zone over timel. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:Don't suppose you have that in text somewhere, do you? ] ] 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 22:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Jolly good! ] ] 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Could a free graphic be created using this information? ==

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

:I'd recommend ], who is around here. ] ] 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

::I could have a go at this. The hardest part so far seems to be finding a blank map to start with, as European maps usually cut off most of Libya if not all of it. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 23:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

== Spelling ==

This article is written in British English and it should be kept consistently so unless a consensus leads to a change (and I don't see why that should happen). However, it should be noted for future edits that Robert Gates is not the "US Secretary of Defence" and the United States defense agency is not called the "US Department of Defence." The US has ''a'' defence department, you might say, but its ''name'' is the "Department of Defense," spelled the way they spell it. Likewise, Robert Gates could attend to a meeting of ''defence secretaries'' of NATO countries, yet he would be addressed as "Mr. Secretary of Defense." In other words, when "secretary of defence" or "department of defence" are used as a common noun, they should be subject to whatever style is being used for the article as a whole, but when they are used as a ] (i.e., when they refer specifically to Robert Gates, not to any defense secretaries in general, or when they refer specifically to the department he controls, not to any defense agency in general) they must retain original spelling. That's why the New York Times still refers to Gordon Brown's party as the Labour Party and not the Labor Party.--] (]) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:For more details, see ]. ] (]) 21:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
::With such a heavily edited article, one way to prevent the change in speling might be to put hidden comments by words, which constantly get targeted for spelling changes. '''<font color="#00824A">]</font> <font color="#2A5FFF">]</font> <font color="#00824A">]</font>''' 22:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Good idea, I've done this with UK date format in lede and infobox. ] (]) 23:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

== SEAD ==
We need to be clear who are the participants for SEAD. The correct list is US, UK, France, Italy, and Canada, according to Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, when questioned in TV. Any one who can cite other sources? Is this correct?
:Never mind, the five are correct, problem solved, see article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Title very bias, needs changing ==

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

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

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

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

So, my proposal is

UN Resolution 1973

or Air strikes in Libya.

Invasion of Libya is also possible though it's only an air invasion. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

== Name ==

Is there a reason We have it simply named Coalition and not specifying which "Coalition?" Like "UN coalition" or United Nations intervention in Libya? ] (] / ]) 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, there is a reason. The reason is that we don't know what to call the coalition yet. Therefore, we are waiting until this coalition calls themselves something so that we can give this article a more appropriate name later.--] (]) 03:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

== Move ==

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


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


This is the only modern war I'm aware of where the British monarch is included amongst the military leaders, either of the UK or Canada. As the head of state of those countries has no political control of whether those states go to war, it seems absurd to include them. ] (]) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Second of all, what if I'm stupid and I shouldn't have done this? Needless to say, if anybody deems this page move unnecessary or plain wrong, please, Ronnotel or anybody else, do move the page (back) to an appropriate place. I will, of course, not engage in any page move wars and will not engage in any futher moves. There also may be issues with capitalization of the word Military in the title - as I'm no expert, please feel free to change that. I apologize if this was too bold a move. Thanks. ] (]) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
:BOLD is great, but moving this page around is unhelpful. A couple of days with the "wrong" name (e.g. the cap "M" in "Military") is not the end of the world. Just wait for a bit of consensus. ] (]) 06:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


== Source 31 ==
::Theres no reason for leaving the "M" capitalized. I think that ] is a little more precise. -] (]) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Source 31 is no longer a working link that directs you so the source therefore should be removed. ] (]) 03:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
:Do please change the capitalization if it is incorrect - I apologize. I do not see "coalition intervention" as any more precise than "military intervention", for the reasons I mentioned above. Would you like to give some arguments why it is? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking if you could explain it a bit. :) ] (]) 07:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:55, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 military intervention in Libya article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
In the newsA news item involving 2011 military intervention in Libya was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAfrica: Libya Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAviation
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
WikiProject iconCanada: Military Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force
WikiProject iconFrance Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconItaly Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / African / British / Canadian / European / French / Italian / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
Canadian military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Military history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
WikiProject icon2010s Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "Rapid Fire: 2011-03-22". Defense Industry Daily. 2011-03-22. Retrieved 2011-03-30. One of the best places for an overview of the allied operations in Libya can actually be found on Misplaced Pages. Hail to the swarm.

Strength

Its needed in the battlebox a streght ondicator of teh opossing force...at lest indicating how many US ships have taken part or how many planes gadhafi poses over libya , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011

Title

2011 military intervention by who? This should be renamed to 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya, for two reasons. One, to specify who is intervening, and two, to remove the unnecessary word "military" from the title, as it is redundant. I will probably make a move request in a few days when I have time, or somebody else can move the page. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:B532:8FDB:8C6D:90E6 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that 2011 military intervention in Libya be renamed and moved to 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya.

result:
No consensus. See no agreement below either to keep the current title or to accept this proposal, so the status quo ante remains. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  06:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}
result:
No consensus. See no agreement below either to keep the current title or to accept this proposal, so the status quo ante remains. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can discover new arguments, strengthen old ones and try again in a few months to garner consensus for a title change. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  06:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

2011 military intervention in Libya → 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya – per WP:PRECISION, as NATO is by far the biggest contributor to the intervention forces, and the role NATO played in Libya is a major point of focus, both the Misplaced Pages page itself and the news sources that talk about this. Alternatively, if 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya is too wordy / over-disambiguated, simply NATO-led intervention in Libya could be used, or you can opt to keep the title if that’s more preferable. DJ (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The intervention is the consequence of a UN resolution. Multiple countries that are not part of NATO were involved. NATO itself was not part of the intervention at its beginning but only join after a while. So limiting the name of the article to NATO alone would be misleading. --McSly (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    I get where you're coming from here, but NATO is still a major, consequential (arguably, the most consequential) participant of the intervention. So much to the point that NATO themselves acknowledge that their actions (either knowingly or unknowingly) may have contributed to Ghaddafi being killed. Per the Misplaced Pages page on his death:

    According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO later learned "from open sources and Allied intelligence" that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike was likely to have contributed to his capture and therefore his death.

    And it's true they weren't the only participants, yes, but that's also why I specified the change to be "NATO-led intervention," not just simply "NATO intervention." DJ (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support NATO was the main contributor and every single source mentions NATO significantly. Aman Kumar Goel 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support NATO was the main belligerent in this conflict. Merely stating "military" is not enough. desmay (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment copied from WP:RMTR:
    @Mellohi!: I don't agree with this move. Adding "NATO-led" is unnecessary as it was the only such intervention and WP:CONCISE favours the current title. Saying "NATO-led" is not even entirely accurate given the UN mandate, as was pointed out by an "Oppose" !voter at the discussion, which you don't seem to have mentioned in your close. Please could you reopen the discussion?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
After the above comment by Amakuru, an initial WP:RMNAC RM closure by Mellohi! describing the action simply as "moved." was reverted by XTheBedrockX, saying "per admin request". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I Oppose this move request, for the reasons given. The present title is both more accurate and better.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I was asleep, sorry for the lack of response. The forced reopening was unacceptable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CONCISE. This is a clear case of over disambiguation. Was there more than 1 military intervention in Libya in 2011? Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    There was not, no. Then again, it could still be WP:CONCISE if it was titled "NATO-led intervention in Libya." It would also be WP:CONSISTENT with other intervention titles on this site like: Turkish military intervention in the Second Libyan Civil War, Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, Chadian intervention in northern Mali, ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia, etc.
    I think the question of who, in particular, is doing the intervening is still important information in my opinion (and I say this as someone who has no real love for Gaddafi). DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
    Support "NATO-led intervention in Libya" for the above reasons. The original suggestion is too much of a mouthful. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose current proposal 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya as overly disambiguated, as pointed out by others. Other proposals may have more justification. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    if 2011 was removed for brevity, would that be more a preferable option? DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I like 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya better than the backup, because it fits WP:NCEVENTS (which is primarily about consistency rather than disambiguation). If that fails, oppose NATO-led intervention in Libya, as I believe it a downgrade from the current title due to the naming convention. Pilaz (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Operation Unified Protector is already the article for the NATO specific component of the intervention, and IMO a large chunk of the details here should be moved there. Calling this article NATO-led.. means it becomes almost a dup of "Operation Unified Protector". There is room for a broader article about NATO plus non-NATO intervention within the broader topic of First Libyan Civil War, and thus it should be Foreign military intervention in First Libyan Civil War or maybe 2011 foreign intervention in Libya if we want to shorten it a bit, but IMO that looses the important context of it occurring during a civil war. Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya is an article which should mention NATO in the title given its strict scope. John Vandenberg 22:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    Well that's the issue, isn't it? Even though it wasn't just exclusively NATO, NATO has such a prominent role that its almost inevitable that they come up. NATO is mentioned (through Misplaced Pages's find-and-replace visual editor) a total of 92 times in the article text, and even the very first line begins with "On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya." "France" / "French" is mentioned 44 times total. "United Kingdom" / " UK" / "British" is mentioned 37 times total. "United States" / " US " / "U.S." / "American" is mentioned 50 times total. All three of these countries are part of NATO, and NATO itself is listed as a belligerent. The only non-NATO member to be mentioned prominently here is Qatar, which is mentioned 12 times. There's even an "Actions by other states" subsection in Enforcement to distinguish between NATO and non-NATO contributions to the intervention
    So I guess it just seems strange that, out of nearly every conflict I've seen with "intervention/military intervention" in the title (even manually searching for pages containing "intervention" in the title), this is one of the only ones that doesn't mention who the intervening parties are. Maybe some info here can be moved to Operation Unified Protector, but I don't know. Non-NATO participation shouldn't be ignored, obviously, but it also just feels a little silly to not mention NATO very clear role in the title, all things considered. XTheBedrockX (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure why we are talking about WP:CONCISE; it's the same length. It's helpfully more specific as a descriptive title and also isn't longer, which is an improvement to me. I considered the possibility that in some cases "X-led intervention in Y" without "military" could be vague about what kind of intervention it is, but when X is the name of a military organization, it seems clear by implication. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

inclusion of Queen Elizabeth II as a military leader

This is the only modern war I'm aware of where the British monarch is included amongst the military leaders, either of the UK or Canada. As the head of state of those countries has no political control of whether those states go to war, it seems absurd to include them. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Source 31

Source 31 is no longer a working link that directs you so the source therefore should be removed. 185.219.9.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Categories: