Contents

Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:46, 1 November 2022

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving 2011 military intervention in Libya was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: 19 March 2011 25 March 2011

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Africa: Libya B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Top-importance). Arab world B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Aviation Start‑class This 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Canada: Military B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force France B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. International relations B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Italy B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / African / British / Canadian / European / French / Italian / North America / United States / Post-Cold War B‑class This 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force African military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) North American military history task force United States military history task force Post-Cold War task force United Kingdom B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Military history B‑class Mid‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

This 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 Wikipedia. Hail to the swarm.

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

The timeline section is very messy, and doesnt really contain anything between march 2011 to october 2011, yet this is probably the most active part of the intervention. If its supposed to be about just the no-fly zone, it contains a lot of excess

Baboogie (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article presents the operation as a success. Of course from a purely military point of view, it was a success - when a coalition of 14 rich countries (including the #1, #7 and #8 militarily most powerful in the world) wages war against a third-world country, the result is not going to be in any doubt. But the result has been a complete disaster and a human catastrophe; not just for Libya, but for much of North Africa and for much of Europe. The NATO attacks seem to have destroyed the civilian infrastructure, including water supplies needed for agriculture, resulting in a flood of desperate refugees that has been overwhelming the capacity - and willingness - of southern European countries to absorb them. The UN High Commission for Refugees currently (January 2022, eleven years after this "successful" military operation) estimates that there are over 800,000 people in Libya needing humanitarian assistance. (Before the war, the country was basically feeding its people.) Negative evaluations are presented as an afterthought in a section "Criticism", way down in the article after a page of pictures and statistical information by which time most casual readers will have decided they've read enough. Doesn't any Wikipedia editor think that the overall outcome of the operation ought to be front and centre? Sayitclearly (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article requires improvement; it was largely created based on 2011 news stories and hasn't really been reshaped since. However, it will be tricky. The resulting article needs to maintain NPOV, so reliable sources are required both for the points about damage and for the claims about the ongoing impact of that damage. It will be difficult to find sources that are able to separate the NATO intervention from the wider civil war and the second civil war (for example, clearly people were displaced by the NATO intervention, but the idea that it created the flood of refugees is wrong, since people were already talking about a refugee crisis at the beginning of March 2011, before the NATO intervention, with estimates of 300,000 Libran refugees at that time.^[1] After the intervention started it is clearly difficult to separate them - asking a refugee on 1 April whether they were fleeing the civil war or the NATO intervention wouldn't really have been a reasonable question). The article's current response to that difficulty seems to be focussing tightly on the military dimension, but, as you say, that is unsatisfactory.

In the end, I don't think wikipedia can offer an "objective overview," since one doesn't exist. The 'criticism' (or 'assessments') section is the right place for the main presentation of these issues, since there it is possible to present a range of assessments there. Currently, the 'criticism' section contains some discussion of these issues (but it is mostly a discussion of legality and far too Americo-centric). So, I think step one is to work out how to improve that (which would need to be done in a way that maintains links to First_Libyan_Civil_War#Impact. Then, the lead can include a paragraph that summarises those assessments.

Side-note: An article that has been almost totally neglected since about 2011 is Refugees of Libya, which deals only with the 2011 wave. Furius (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that 2011 military intervention in Libyaberenamed and movedto2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya. Abot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• I agree. It should renamed. Quellenbrunnen (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• Support NATO was the main contributor and every single source mentions NATO significantly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NATO was the main belligerent in this conflict. Merely stating "military" is not enough. desmay (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  if 2011 was removed for brevity, would that be more a preferable option? DJ (XTheBedrockX) (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 ^(chat) 22:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]