Talk:Libya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libya is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 8, 2006.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 20, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article (countries)

Libya is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Africa Portal

This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Libya which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to Libyan history, language and culture. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.

Libya Portal

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Libya, or visit the project page for more details.

FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Berber).

The flag was commented out by Tim Starling on Oct 7 along with the following message: "Oops -- Tim Starling 02:03, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)" I have restored the flag, and asked Tim Starling to state his reason for removing the flag of Libya from this article.

Perhaps the admins should reconsider their decision to make Tim Starling a sysop. Tjdw 19:31, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Update: Tim Starling apparently was experimenting with a fix he had made to a temporary problem, and says he's sorry for leaving the page as it is. (Read my user talk for his comments

I'd keep only the modern meaning on this page, and move the ancient meanings into Libya (disambiguation). --Shallot 14:26, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Independence

the info box said Independence (From Italy & Great Britain),
which was not true, so I deleted it.
Italy drove the Turks out in 1912.
Italy can be said to have lost control with the fall of Tripoli in 1943.
Libya was then under Allied administration.
Independence was the result of a UN vote --ClemMcGann 12:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

^In that case you might want to fix the article on Libya's flag. -- Spacewars

The infobox had independence being achieved from Italy. It is true that Italy was the main European colonial power in Libya in modern times, but Libya did not gain independence from Italy. Italy lost Libya in the 1947 peace treaty and from that point on (and from 1942-1944 effectively) Italy had ceased to govern Libya. Instead, Libya was administered on behalf of the UN by France and the United Kingdom. A similar situation arose in Somalia, wherein Italy initially was booted from Somalia (and then the area was run by the British), but later the UN allowed Italy back in to govern Somalia as a trust territory. Eritrea was also lost by Italy and then run by the British until union with Ethiopia.208.131.167.219 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt the fact that Libya gained its independence from France and the United Kingdom. All other Wikipedia editions (including the Arab one) list Italy as the country from which independence was achieved, so does the CIA World Factbook. The 1947 treaty in which Italy relinquished claims over Libya should be explained as an Italian agreement with Libyan independence in my opinion. It was by no means annexed by either France or the UK. The trusteeship of France and the UK didn't last long enough to regard them as the 'rulers of Libya'. Libya de jure remained Italian territory. East Timor is listed as having achieved independence from Portugal even though Indonesia ruled East Timor for 24 years and the UN for another 3 years. Because of the overwhelming amount of sources which state that Libya gained independence from Italy, I will change the country from which independence was gained from to Italy immediately. --84.26.109.69 15:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You may doubt it, but the fact is that Libya was not de jure Italian territory on December 23, 1951. The 1947 treaty cannot be "explained as an Italian agreement with Libyan independence" sicne the treaty quite clearly states that Italy renounces/relinquished its claims over all of its colonies. Besides, it would mean that the article (+ the other Wikipedia editions and the CIA World Factbook) is still wrong and that Libyan independence legally came about the day Italy signed the treaty in 1947. The other Wikipedia editions could simply be following this version or the CIA World Factbook. Now the CIA World Factbook may be informative, but it can have errors, just like Encyclopaedia Britannica can have errors (as a recent study comparing Britannica and Wikipedia has shown). And exactly how long does a trusteeship have to last for the UK and France to be regarded as the rulers of Libya? The entire point of a trusteeship is temporary administration in preparation for independence, which means that by the terms of the trusteeship, France and the UK were entrusted to rule Libya until it could gain independence. And it was the UK that installed the King of Libya. Putting a time limit for administration of Libya is pretty artificial and then it begs the question "What about other areas of the world?" What about Hong Kong which was ruled by the UK for 100+ years and has only been under the administration of the PRC for under a decade? Are we to consider that if Hong Kong gained independence tomorrow that it had gained independence from the UK even though the UK had turned over the administration to China? In point of fact I bet that nobody can provide the name of a single Italian administrator in Libya between 1947 and 1951, whereas for Italian Somalialand (Somalia) there were 4 between 1949 and 1960 when the area was an Italian trusteeship. In fact the Italian Somaliland article disproves the idea that Britain and France could not have been rulers of Libya since the article quite clearly mentions an "interlude of British rule" and notes that "the British continued to administer the area" throughout the 1940s. In fact the Italians did not have to get back Italian Somaliland, but were only allowed back by the United Nations because they had apparently administered the area fairly well and were expected to do so again if given the chance. The UN could just as easily have allowed the British to continue running the area. Also the fact that the Italians were granted the trusteeship of Somalia/Italian Somaliland shows that the trusteeship was not on behalf of Italy (as some might argue) since such an arrangement would be redundant. The situation with East Timor is entirely different. East Timor is listed as having gained independence from Portugal because Portugal never legally (de jure) gave the country independence (until 2002)...the Portuguese administrators simply packed up and left without any official ceremony or declaration (so in a way Portugal behaved like an absentee landlord) and shortly after they did so Indonesia came in and occupied the place and unilaterally annexed it. There was no treaty signed by Portugal relinquishing its claim on E. Timor and there was no international agreement (or even bilateral agreement between Portugal and Indonesia) that provided for Indonesia's governance of the territory. Portugal never even recognized the Indonesian annexation (which if they did would have amounted to a legal transfer from Portuguese to Indonesian authority), they just simply left and forgot about the area for 20+ years. Just check out http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/libya/libya31.html and it will show that Libya was only an "Italian possession administered by Britain and France" until it was decided not to return the colonies to Italy and Italy agreed to that decision in the peace treaty of 1947. And other Wikipedia editions and the CIA World Factbook do not amount to overwhelming amount of sources. Perhaps you should check Encyclopaedia Britannica (I don't have it, and the online version is no longer free, but when I get the time I'll check the library) 72.27.85.54 17:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

== facts about libya 8==D

Libya is a country that suffers under the rule of the most dangerous dictator [Moammer al Qaddafi] for more than 36 years of executions, imprisonments, Corruption and total absence of all types of liberties and justice, the Libyan Regime prohibits the citizens to practice political liberty, there are no elections In Libya, no decision making is attributed to the people or any other establishment In the country. All decisions are made by one man that is [Qaddafi]. Political opposition is crashed without mercy. No liberty of opinion in Libya. All the media/press is owned by the government, No services are provided by the state To its citizens, once you get inside the country, you will notice that it’s sinking in a Strange kind of oblivion, people can hardly laugh. Their faces are grim, because of the Death and torture, inflicted by the one-man authority that kills and jails freely Without a single opposing word. The super international powers are supporting The notorious Qaddafi regime because of the great advantage they are taking From the dictator, it’s the Libyan oil that Qaddafi pumps through pipes To the so called free world. American oil companies were present in Libya Even during the 80’s, where the relations were in a very poor condition To the eye of the beholder. But in fact, oil was sold at very cheap prices to The American, British and other western companies. It’s really intriguing why The human organizations are hushed by the terrorist regime. Is the world so Black and ugly to this point. Why nobody is speaking about us and all the Injustice that is present in our country? No voice can scream the truth about This place called Libya. All of those who tried were violently killed and tortured By the Libyan secret police. The most feared organization in Libya. It’s Qaddafi’s Bloodstained hand that eliminate all of those who try to ask for a better life for themselves and their families, the Libyan secret police is actually structured in A very strange way: there is no organic system in this police apparatus unlike Any other police agency in the world. However there are two active departments In this time. The foreign security department and the {mukhabarat}={the intelligence}. Those two departments practice their activities outside the country. Inside the country, it’s usually the interior security along with the foreign Security department that practices all of those sick behaviors inside the country. It’s apparent that the foreign security department is really the most active department In the country. To understand how those systems work and to have an idea About their modus opperandi. We should know that every one of those Departments are composed of so many different branches. Every branch has its Own specific domain, but none of those will strictly adhere to the rules that Organizes it’s work. For example in the mid 90’s during the clashes between Some Islamic rebels in cyrenaeca region. The foreign security agents were Fighting side by side with the interior security, the intelligence the Revolutionary committee agents and the popular police agents. Thus when you Try to take a look at the security system in Libya; you’ll notice that there are More than a hundred police agency in the country. All to serve the dictator. The revolutionary committee role is marginalized in the late 80’s in libya. After so many crimes committed abroad by the death squads of the revolutionary Committees. The regime is always renewing it’s self, one of the most Significant features that can help understand why Qaddafi is still there. The regime kills those who served it for a very long time in order to get rid Of any potential danger that might be posed by those who know so much. And have their relations in the different governmental establishments like [bakkar] and [al zaddmaa] who were killed in some very strange mysterious Circumstances. One died in a car accident, and the other is allegedly said to Have fallen from a horse, while in fact those guys were physically liquidated Because they knew some important information that can prove the direct Involvement of the Libyan de facto leader in the pan am case and other Terrorist acts sponsored by Qaddafi. Some of the most important figures In the totalitarian Libyan regime is {moussa kossa} the head of the Libyan intelligence service. And once the head of the foreign security department. This man was present In the Libyan popular bureau {embassy} in England when the British police woman Were killed by a bullet coming from one the Libyan embassy’s windows when The killers inside were trying to dissipate a manifestation against Qaddafi the killer.

[edit] Response

As a Libyan I was disgraced to read the above so called "facts about Libya". I wouldn't be surprise if the person who wrote it hasn't seen Libya in quite a while and perhaps is a little bitter. I however visit Libya every year and spend about a fifth of every year there. Firstly, Politics and Government play a very minor role in the lives of many libyans. For the large majority of Libyans the most important thing is wages and earning a good living. In this respect, the so called disgusting dictatorship government is implementing schemes to modernise the Libyan economy and create jobs for the average Joe. Security isn't paramount in Libya, a country which few foreigners know better than me. The people are not depressed and sad. The average adult thinks of what they'll do for Eid or what relative they have to visit. The average teenager thinks of Britney's latest song or the latest Julia Roberts film, an actress much admired by Libyan girls and boys alike. I have made it my duty to IMPROVE Libya related articles in Wikipedia. If you search any country you will get an overall review of that country, the history, culture, etc. Unfortunately articles on Libya, this one being a prime example is 70% antiquated Gadaffi related politics and 30% old views and statistics. What ever happened to Libya's rich history, it's beautiful cities, beaches, and people. If you are interested in the real Libya, i would advise you to visit two Libya articles I imporved Libya national football team, Libyan Arab Airlines and Tripoli International Airport. I hope to have improved many more Libya pages by the end of next year.

[edit] POV

This article seems very POV, particularly regarding US/Libyan relations in the 1980's, are there any credible sources that suggest Libya was not involved in the "Suicide Squads" in Germany? I seem to rember Quadafi threatening such action before hand, maybe I'm wrong...nonetheless article seems to sympathetic to Libya

foloowing the protests against the libya regime in london, all the shops and establishments were closed and people were coerced to go out in the streets to protest against the opposition. they turned our people into a rented mob who say what they are told and do what they're told to do. there are really no protests or manifestations in libya,since it's prohibited. they only occur when the qaddafi wants the others to believe that the libyans can express themselves.

[edit] Trial of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor in Libya

The Libyan Supreme Court is to rule on November 15th and, as Bulgaria is a member of NATO and even Russia is backing the nurses, it is possible that war could break out. As the article is so hard to find, I suggest we place it at the top of the article on Libya until the crisis passes - that's the logical place for readers to look. Simesa 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is funny ... It is mainly written by Bulgarian.

[edit] New Page

I've hacked the history section into a concise accurate portrayal. I took out much of the information which is already covered in the "history of libya" main page. I also added a was non-existent "Culture" section. - Jaw101ie

[edit] New Pics

I have found some Creative Commons pictures on the internet which I have inserted into the page. I think they were much needed and have made the page more informative. Jaw101ie 12:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Population

There's nothing here on Libyan Jews, that's why I'm linking to Jewish exodus from Arab lands which has a section on Libya (Spanglish 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

This is now addressed in the Religion section. -- (Mingus ah um 01:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Where this has been added: is "pogrom" really the word we want to use? That has such an Eastern European connotation. These were not Christians attacking, these were Muslims. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It’s the same basic mechanism, regardless of the perpetrators’ religion. ‘Pogrom’ is the most common English term for it, so we should use it. —xyzzy_n 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Afairs

There is nothing mentioning Libya's support to Iddi Amin during the Tanzania, Uganda war.

Has been included.

[edit] Jewish Population and Idi Amin

Information has been added regarding Libya's support to Iddi Amin and Libyan Jews.

[edit] Intro.

Minor edit to intro. A country or the people can be "led" but not "square kilometres". Kahuzi 21:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few thoughts...

First of all, we need to standardize the spelling of "Qadaffi" on the page. I don't care which version we use, but we can't use more than one in the same article (see the Religion section). Also, I object to the following bit, "Qadhafi himself is a devout Muslim". That strikes me as rather more an opinion than fact. How about something like 'Qadhafi claims to be a devout Muslim', although "claims" is obviously inappropriate as it could be taken to imply that the "claim" is baseless. Can anyone come up with a good NPOV way of stating that it is Qadhafi's assertion that he is a devout Muslim and not "fact"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your use of the word assertion is good. "Qadhadi asserts that he is a devout Muslim, and his government is taking somewhat of .."

Also, the use of the word "somewhat" twice in the religion section has been called vague in the FAC page. It needs to be tightened up --Jaw101ie 18:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the change to "assertion". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugh... the article on Qadhafi uses Gaddafi throughout... it's unprofessional for the Libya and the Muammar al-Gaddafi articles to use different standardized spellings. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the spelling to Gadaffi and standardised it throughout. --User:Jaw101ie 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you meant to write Gaddafi, not Gadaffi. Looks like you (or someone) got it right in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA status

I just opened up the page to do some edits when I saw the star. A big thank you to everyone who contributed, we got there in the end. Yipee --Jaw101ie 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just started looking at it tonight and saw the star, glad the copyedit issues were resolved. Congratulations! Walkerma 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you thought the copy-editing issues were resolved. I don't. Tony 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

One big gap in an otherwise very good article: more than a millennium of Libya's Islamic past is subsumed under:

The Arabs conquered Libya in the seventh century CE. In the following centuries, many of the indigenous peoples adopted Islam, the Arabic language and culture. The Ottoman Turks conquered the country in the mid-16th century, Libya remaining part of their empire, although at times virtually autonomous, until Italy invaded in 1911. In the face of years of resistance, Libya was made a colony.[10]

Surely a featured article should give a few more details than that - at least enough to be comparable with the coverage of the classical period? - Mustafaa 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Libya

A minor aesthetic note... I thought there was an image error on the front page FA box, showing nothing but green. I was surprised to know that it's simply the Libyan flag. I don't know if there's a policy for this, but maybe change the picture up front? A sat photo would look good, yeah? Just a thought. Experia 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

wow, it really is green? just pure green? Dang, somebody's lazy. Suppose that way everyone can draw it. --Anoma lee 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually kind of think it's cool. But yeah, the concern is warranted, however no other featured country has had anything but their flag on the front page. -- Zanimum 15:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised there is that much debate about the image I made, but hopefully, it should be solved soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just read about this flag on Carrie's blog on GameSpot. This is so awesome. I can't believe I missed it on the front page. --Optichan 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for deleting that comment

I was just about to delete it, bt someone beat me to it

[edit] Vandalism of excerpt on Main Page of Wikipedia

Libya article: - - "Libya is led by revolutionary Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West."

Main page excerpt: "Libya is led by revolutionary Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, one of the most infamous political figures of the 20th century."

Perhaps someone who has worked on this article can update the main page?

If you have better wording of this phrase, please feel free to update it. I don't believe it is vandalism.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation-State

I'm a bit confused by the frist paragraph which states that Libya is the 17th largest nation-state on earth. Does this truely mean there are 16 larger Nation-States on our planet or just 16 larger COUNTRIES? If it is in fact the 17th largest country, would there be a way to clearly state that while including that it happens to be a Nation-State?Gabenowicki 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed. -- Szvest 13:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

[edit] What the....

Are you sure you haven't just made this country up? I've never heard of it before now. :/

Brian, Iowa.

They don't teach geography in Iowa?--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What about history as well? -- Szvest 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Line Break

This might look a lot cleaner if there was a line break in the info box between the romanization of the long name and the translation. I didn't know how to effect that. Balonkey 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already a line break there. Do you mean something else? —xyzzy_n 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It just looks a bit jammed up on my screen bc the name is so long anyways. I was thinking like:

Arabic characters Romanization

English

Does that make sense? It's a minor issue, i'll give up if not editable User:Balonkey 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like i can't even get a break where i want it on the talk page. Is it my browser? Hell...

[edit] Native Libyans

"Native Libyans are primarily a mixture of Arabs and Berbers." Does this mean that the majority of natives are of mixed stock? Or that the majority are either Arab or Berber? I suspect it means the latter, but the way it is worded suggests the former. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Would removing "native" make sense? -- Szvest 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Native" doesn't seem to be the problem, it's "mixture". Are you saying that they are individually of mixed ancestry, or that the population is a mixture? - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that the population is a mixture. In other words, the population is composed by Berbers and Arabs not but mixed Berbers/Arabs. That would be true in Morocco and (Algeria w/ a lesser degree) where you got some population of a mixed Arab/Berber stock. That's not the rule in Libya due to its relative low size of its population and history. Szvest 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what the sentence means is that Libyans are, mostly, either of Arab or Berber descent. It is rare for Arabs and Berbers to intermarry therefore there are very few Libyans of mixed Arab Berber descent. Jaw101ie 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is rare, maybe today it is, but when Arabs first migrated and settled in what is Libya there must have been some intermarriage, as in almost every place Arabs settled (except in Malta) correct? Also, do Libyans who are of of mixed Arab and Berber ancestory, identify as just Arab? Or as Arab-Berber? I think it should be mentioned how Libyans, regardless of ancestory, identify themselves. --Inahet 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that you need to clearly define what a so-called arab or berber is, then people can get a better picture of the population. Only recently in Northwest Africa, the berber revolts have been making press so US media had to start inserting the berber thing what speaking of these countries. Berber and/or arab does not give you an idea of how the people actually LOOK. Berber, like arab is not a race. When you see how many clear-cut, visible to the eye black people are in lIbya, it would blow your mind. It is shocking to know how they had race riots over other Africans. I wondered how they were able to tell the difference between native Libyans and other Africans.?

My point, this berber/arab nonsense does not give the reader any info at all. In certain African countries, the non-controversial parts of Africa(not North Africa), they break it down by tribes. Other countries, they don't mention tribes or race. Still with others, "black" might come up. With the history if Libya and Roman occupation, "left-over Italians for ages ago" are never mentioned in North Africa. Despite many claims, you can see it in some people. Just because one invader comes in and takes over, that does not mean that the old one just left! If you can, can you try to be more sepcific than just "arab/berber?" There is a lot more to it than this term to get your minds off of actual Africans(that is clearly black) in North Africa.--71.235.81.39 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

Is anyone able to provide a reference for the motto Freedom, Socialism, Unity? I did a Google search, and the only websites which list that motto are Wikipedia in various languages (and some mirrors) and the FIFA website. I couldn't find anything official. Pruneau^talk 21:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian speaking country?

Is it really correct to have Libya in this category? Quite missleading in my opinion.

[edit] Foreign Relations

Guys, Foreign Relations needs to be CLEANED UP. The article is already too long! I think in future we should concentrate on UPDATING not increasing; the article is too long as it is! Because this article is now FA, everybody has to be careful what they add and make sure that it is not to the detrement of the article. The Foreign relations section has become way too long and it seems that everybody wants to add their part to it. The original Foreign Relations section which brought the article to FA had a little bit on the Kingdom a bit on the 70's (Nasserism Era) and 80's (terrorist actions). It then had a paragraph on the present and future (Western Detente). The current Foreign Relations has irrelevant material from as far a field as Chad, Idi Amin, the Polisario, LN 114, the list goes on... Whoever wants to begin clean up feel free

Jaw101ie 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright I've done it, and I've also re-organised the page so that it conforms to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Jaw101ie 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Head of State

Eventhough I don't agree on calling this position "Head of State" , I will continue on working on the "heads of state of Libya section" . Anyway my point is the current head of state is not "Zentani M. az-Zentani" but "Zenati M. az-Zenati" . So im changing it .
Libyan 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Nation to gain independence

The article states "When Libya declared its independence on December 24, 1951, it was the first country to achieve independence through the UN..." with a reference. I recently saw the same claim on tv although WP may well have been the source. How can this claim be true when Israel was created as a result of resolution 181 some 3 years before Libya became independent. Both Israel and Libya declared independence. So is this an error or is there some distinction in the way Israel and Libya became nations that makes the statement technically valid? No comments about the legitimacy of Israel please. Robert Brockway 03:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think misunderstanding may arise from the wording of the phrase. The facts however are indeed correct. This article states that Libya was the first "country to achieve independence through the UN". The nation of Israel, as you've written above, was "created as a result of res. 181".
Libya was a country, whose people were actively seeking independence while in their homeland, under the control of another nation. It is thus a more accepted definition of the term 'achieving independence'. I think that is the reason why it is internationally accepted, that Libya was in fact the first nation to achieve 'independence' (as per my defintion of the word above), through the UN. Jaw101ie 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jaw101ie. Thanks, I think your explanation does indeed make sense. There was no State of Israel before May 14 1948 but it sounds reasonable that there was a State of Libya before Libyian independence as it was already a recognised nation that was dominated by another. Robert Brockway 23:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated vandalism

With all the vandalism on this page's recent history, could we have a semi-protect? Nyttend 05:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An admin has to emailed for protection to be put onto an article --Jackacon 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. For immediate intervention, always refer to WP:RFPP. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highly Political Page

I am beginning to become slightly concerned over the highly charged political language devoloping in the page. The foreign relations section has again become bloated. The HIV trial, in my opinion, deserved two to three lines not a whole sub-section.

The reason I began editing the page months ago to featured standard was to give a balanced view of Libya and to reduce the weight of Politics on the page. I think the Politics section should be the same length as any other, agreed?

Also, this is not a news page. It is an encyclopedia. It does not mean that everytime a news article pops up about Libya it has to be added as four to five new sentences, UNLESS the news article in question is indeed RELEVENT to the page. Jaw101ie 16:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/Talk%7ELibya_8732.html"