This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Miniapolis, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 11 September 2021. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Notability concerns
How can you allow this article, which has been written by a single contributor whose only other contributions here seem to be about Aref Ali Nayed, to appear on Wikipedia without a thorough revision to correct its inherent bias? It reads like a propaganda announcement for the organisation and the cause of the Libyan rebels. This is not encyclopedic. I am not saying that because I am pro- or anti-, I'm merely concerned with the editorial impartiality of Wikipedia -- this is just the opposite of a neutral, balanced, dispassionate encyclopedic article and is a disgrace to Wikipedia. 85.211.62.194 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the typical example of why Wikipedia aint reliable on history or politics-related articles. The worst is that when people denounce this type of things, they are usually verbally attacked by this type of "pseudorevolutionary web partisans" as "pro-Gaddafi", "pro-dictatorship", etc... Thats what happens when WP is guided by lobbies instead of users.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
