This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tehwhirled (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 18 March 2011 (→Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:44, 18 March 2011 by Tehwhirled (talk | contribs) (→Criticism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Why would this article be flagged for deletion when there is obviously a need for it and a large amount of work being put into it. Please remove that flag or state your case clearly here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.69.226 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 March 2011
rough restructure
i've done a rough restructure to reduce the "newsy" aspect of the presentation style, while trying not to change the content except for minor cleanup.
One obvious problem after restructuring is that a huge portion of the article consists of criticism. i don't know if i want to do the work of trying to compress that without dropping "notable" criticisms. But in any case, for the WP:LEAD, in principle we should have a brief summary of that section. Summarising without giving cross-refs risks being weaselly "Significantly, however, there were reports that some criticised the NFZ." Maybe choosing one or two of the criticisms by people/organisations that are most notable might be the way to do this.
In any case, i wanted to get the restructure in place before people added more content too chaotically, making a cleanup more difficult. Boud (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
libyans want air intervention, don't want ground intervention
In this edit Template:Sec link auto, the WP:WEASEL wording and original research "though - in seeming contradiction" was added. If you look around for more sources, it should be easy to find the explanation: Libyans (and the Arab League) consider a no-fly zone to "not" be "military intervention". We need to cite a source before explaining this in the article, but we do not need a source to avoid weasel wording and original research. The contradiction is only a problem of not being careful enough in words.
For the moment i'm just completing the quote to a fuller quote. The reader can interpret this him/herself without Misplaced Pages interpreting that the protestor is being self-contradictory. Boud (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
notability discussion
A notability tag was added in this edit Template:Sec link auto and half an hour later a deletion proposal was made Template:Sec link auto by the same editor. Notability was not stated overtly as the reason for deletion, but i think that responses to the deletion proposal cover most of the notability question.
i propose that once the WP:AFD is closed (see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Proposed_Libyan_no-fly_zone) and if it results in keep, then we consider that to close the notability debate as well and remove the notability tag here. Boud (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No longer just a proposal
The UN security Council has just voted for the imposition for a no-fly zone: resolution 1973 is now in place Lynbarn (talk) 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. MLA (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously, you were unaware of the existing article International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising ??? The notability of this article has NOT just decreased. Do some research before you post. 118.208.53.181 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that Libyan no-fly zone could now become a sub-article of Libyan all-necessary-measures zone or something along those lines. Boud (talk) 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. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
links for the new UNSC resolution
Previous resolutions seem to have both[REDACTED] 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.
Boud (talk) 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 trade secret-protected, non-free 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: List of PDF software. The false part is "is required". There's also a misleading part, "for free", since it confuses zero-cost and political freedom. Rather self-contradictory for the UN to encourage the confusion... Boud (talk) 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! Lynbarn (talk) 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 there is a lot of non-Adobe software that can read pdf files, and the words "are free" are only misleading, not false. These are objective statements, they are not advocacy. Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Boud, I believe WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Lynbarn (talk) 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?
- Boud (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe just one more quick point: i provided a URL to what should be a reliable source. 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. Boud (talk) 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 open source - 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, Lynbarn (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 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.]
| Nation | United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote | Political Side |
|---|---|---|
 France ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Bosnia-Hercegovina ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Colombia ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Gabon ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Nigeria ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Lebanon ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 Portugal ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 South Africa ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 United Kingdom ] |
Yes | Rebels |
 United States ] |
A reluctant yes | Undecided |
 Brazil |
Abstain | Neutral |
 Germany |
A reluctant abstain | Pro-Gadhafi |
 India |
Abstain | Neutral |
 China |
Abstain | Neutral |
 Russia |
A reluctant abstain | Pro-Gadhafi |
Wipsenade (talk) 10:07, 18 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: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
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! noclador (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- So add the part of the quote you find relevant?? Don't just remove statements made by the Secretary of State because you disagree with them. Misplaced Pages is not your WP:SOAPBOX. 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.--Tehwhirled (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)