Talk:US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the US domestic reactions 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.

Article policies

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

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Mid-importance).

International relations 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Balance needed

Thanks for making this article, but only including reactions from people who were opposed to the intervention seems a bit unbalanced. Please endeavor to add reactions from prominent supporters as well, because it's not like everyone who is anyone in the US opposed this action. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you are free to add supportive arguments. I just planted the seed, it is up for the community to grow the plant. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

should we say the reactions were mixed? Until support for the intervention can be found, should we mark the reactions as "mostly opposing"?167.6.247.204 (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a change to the article to better reflect a neutral PoV. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was described as "Tea Party Activist Marco Rubio," which I just changed to "Tea Party supported Senator Marco Rubio," which is a more accurate description of him, as he is no activist, but indeed a Senator. --129.119.173.77 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues off the bat

One is at the polls section where it talks about people believing Congress has the final authority. This is completely irrelevant as a poll does not affect who has the actual authority to continue our intervention, rather we have laws in place that do that. The law does not change because of a poll so its inclusion is silly. The other thing I have issue with is that video of Obama. The frame it is stopped on makes him look just plain weird. Is there any way to fix it so he doesn't look like he is on some sort of drug? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defections

In June Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who had previously introduced a resolution calling on the United States to recognize the National Transitional Council in April, withdrew his support in Doha.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Petey Parrot (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading article name

As near as I can tell, this isn't about reaction to the Intervention, so much as reaction to American involvement in the Intervention. I feel the article should either be renamed to reflect this, or be expanded to include more aspects of the American reaction. For example, America invented the term 'cheese eating surrender monkey'. How many, I wonder, realise that this time not only are the french not surrendering, but actually started this (to a large extent) and actually seem to have achieved their military objectives? Has the vast bulk of the american people even noticed? There is a lot missing that I would expect to find in such an article. And if citations for such material can't be found, I question the worth of this article. Wikipedia can be many things, but it shouldn't be used as a simple list of political opinion, irrespective of how notable the speakers are. Especially for a country that's playing a relatively minor role in this conflict. Tempted to nominate for deletion.ANTIcarrot (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "House Resolution Calls for Recognition of Libyan Transitional Council, Arming of Rebels", Project on Middle East Democracy. April 1, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011
^ "US Congressman withdraws Libya support", Ross Jackson. Gulf Times. June 9, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011
^ "Congressman pulls support for Libya rebels", Fazeena Saleem. June 10, 2010. Accessed June 9, 2010

CBS News Poll

Inclusion of a CBS News poll is just silly. While a news poll in collaboration with a research group can sometimes be considered a good scientific poll for certain purposes, one conducted solely by a news company is completely useless. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya

Cyberbot II has detected links on US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_stop_the_crackdown/
Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya

Cyberbot II has detected links on US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_stop_the_crackdown/
Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "House Resolution Calls for Recognition of Libyan Transitional Council, Arming of Rebels", Project on Middle East Democracy. April 1, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011

[2] "US Congressman withdraws Libya support", Ross Jackson. Gulf Times. June 9, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011

[3] "Congressman pulls support for Libya rebels", Fazeena Saleem. June 10, 2010. Accessed June 9, 2010

[1]

[2]

[3]