Talk:Operation Odyssey Dawn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

listing the 4 branches of the military

it was mentioned that not only the U.S Air Force and U.S Navy but also the Marine Corps is participating as well. should we make a split under the Strength? USMC harrier jets conducted some missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out! fixed that. noclador (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

comment

All U.S. strikes inside Libya to come from ships off coast, only missiles from subs and destroyers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifedania (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Recommend moving "Command" to above "Summary of Events" .. as the hour-by-hour summary is going to get very long. Rosetta1207 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked through some previous operations involving the United States and there is no sign of a "Command" section. Perhaps it can just be rolled into the overview portion as a one-liner instead. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Other countries

I've just removed all the countries other than the US and Libya from the infobox. This operation is the US component of the multi-national operation, so other countries are not participating in a 'Operation Odyssey Dawn'. I suspect that this article should be redirect to Libyan no-fly zone Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazing, god bless America, and god bless Wikipedia. This whole article is poppycock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.205.178 (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

use youtube videos

I propose the use of youtube videos for use on this article as reference from military accounts--Nrpf22pr (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Such sources are generally considered unreliable. What information do these videos offer that written articles don't? Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A moving visual of the thing. However, I think that it should be verified YouTube videos that be sources. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at some of the videos there that were uploaded by ABC and CBS news and I didn't see anything useful that wouldn't have probably appeared in written articles. For readers coming to Wikipedia looking for information, having to look through videos for it isn't very efficient. Sometimes a video might be useful, depending on the subject and assuming it doesn't infringe on copyright and is stable and won't get yanked. Maybe you can point out something specific that is worth viewing on a Youtube video about Odyssey Dawn? 75.47.129.131 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Photos and copyright

I see the copyright of the picture inserted in the article is disputed but the pictures are available form navy.mil, that makes them public.
http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=98686
http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.191.153 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, all photos by the US military are public domain. Which photos are being disputed? BurtAlert (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Nevermind, I replaced the infobox image with one from Commons that has a proper license tag. BurtAlert (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It doesnt make sense to have separate articles for US, UK and French operations in Libya, simply because they each have different code names. They are coordinated coalition operations against a single enemy. The articles should be unified under a new title, perhaps Coalition operations in Libya. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. You suggestion is essentially already a part of Libyan_no-fly_zone but each operation should indeed have its own page. There is no telling at this point how long each operation will last or how large they may become and should therefore remain on separate pages. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree We now have 4 separate stub pages detailing actions taken by various countries to enforce the Libya no-fly zone - Operation Mobile, Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn and Opération Harmattan. This is overkill, we should simply have separate sections on the Libyan no-fly zone page for each country's actions. If the Libya NFZ page gets too long or the operations continue for a substantial time we can separate them out then. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, these are 4 separate operations at the moment. i.e. the French Ground Strikes around Benghazi on March 19th were done without the coalitions command structure. Also until a central command is set up each nation operates a national operation, based on the requirements of the strategic command (US African Command) and then in the theater of operations are conducted under the tactical command of US Naval Forces Europe. noclador (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, Each can stand on their own at this time, as the stories are emerging and individual country's efforts are not yet being merged into a cohesive action. Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

All actions taken are covered on the 2011 military intervention in Libya page, the separate pages for each operation simply duplicate what is already on that page, which is pointless. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, since individual members of a coalition force adopt specific operational code names for their forces. It may be advisable to fold the actual operation summary into the no-fly zone article.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with saying what each country calls its operation, but the separate pages for each operation largely repeat what is already contained on the 2011 military intervention in Libya page and then parcel up the overall action country by country. It should all be covered in separate sections on the 2011 military intervention in Libya page. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See also

Per WP:SEEALSO, you generally don't include links to other articles in the body of the article and in the see also section. For now I put the French, Canadian, and British operations in the see also section so that they are easier to find. Thoughts? BurtAlert (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

What does Operation El Dorado Canyon have to do with Operation Odyssey Dawn, or the 2011 Libyan Civil War in general? --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was also a military operation that involved U.S. air-strikes against Libyan air defenses and other ground targets. It is partly deja vu all over again. 75.47.129.131 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how Operation El Dorado Canyon has anything to do with the current ongoing operation. TGM001 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it fits for historical context. The reasons for the air strikes against Ghadaffi's forces during Operation El Dorado Canyon were different, but it's a related historical point when Libyan airspace was penetrated to conduct air strikes to respond to crimes ordered by Ghadaffi. If nothing else, it's a previous example of US combat aircraft striking at Libyan targets from RAF Lakenheath on the US President's say-so. Some Pointyhead (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Operation El Dorado Canyon is valid since it was an example of previous military action against Libya, particularly since this article is about the American phase of the no-fly zone and Operation El Dorado Canyon was an American operation.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Did it lead to the 2011 Libyan Civil War? So should we add a link to the American Revolutionary War in the War of 1812 article(It doesn't have a link to it)? At least it lead to the war – well partly(but that is more than Operation El Dorado Canyon). --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SomeDudeWithAUserName, I disagree with your requirements for a "See also" link because they seem arbitrary and you have not shown that your requirements are based on normal Wikipedia practice. If you would like to see what types of links have been agreed on by Wikipedia editors for a similar article, look at the "See also" section of Bombing of Libya (1986) (aka Operation El Dorado Canyon) which has similar types of links, relative to that article, that you are disputing here. 75.47.132.62 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the editor who originally put the link to Operation El Dorado Canyon in the See also section. See also sections are for articles that are similar, not exactly the same, to the article's topic. They are meant to help people who are interested in Operation Odyssey Dawn find out more about other operations that are relevant. There are already links to current, more relevant topics within the article itself. BurtAlert (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The link is relevant and in line with our practise here on wikipedia. It is a previous US airstrike against Libya. This there are no arguments against the link based on wikipedia policy, I am removing the dubious tag. --Duncan (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Name "Odyssey Dawn" and its meaning

The launch of a Tomahawk missiles in the night. Please note the light produced and its ballistic trajectory who reproduce the sunrising.

Ciao to everyone from the hottest front of Italy, is it possible that the name of the operation "Odyssey Dawn" was taken due to the light produced in the night and the ballistic trajectory of the Tomahawk missiles wich, once launched, remember the sun rising? --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Watch the video! --Nicola Romani (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good guess. I was thinking that "dawn" indicated the first stage of the operation and it will be replaced by something else when the next stage comes, like Operation Desert Shield was followed by Operation Desert Storm. We'll have to wait to see if any of this shows up in a reliable source before it can be put into the article. 75.47.132.62 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the start of a decades long journey of course. (Just like the Odyssey.)Hcobb (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

From What’s in a Name? ‘Odyssey Dawn’ Is Pentagon-Crafted Nonsense:

"The U.S. military’s nickname for the no-fly zone in Libya sounds like the beginning of a long adventure. But Defense Department officials insist that there’s no hidden meaning behind “Operation Odyssey Dawn.” It’s just the product of the Pentagon’s semi-random name-generating system."

75.47.156.128 (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What a pity! calling an operation without a non "romantic" sense it's a first "propaganda" mistake to gain consensus (see the part about Desert Shield and Desert Storm) ...the French won! anyway if Wired cited Pentagon sources, probably there are first hand suorces. Thank you! --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I put it in the article as a footnote.[1] And then tweaked it a couple of times. 75.47.156.128 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Most US military operations are selected randomly from pairs of code word lists. In recent years we have become used to names like Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Provide Comfort, etc which were political choices (effectively propaganda) replacing the random words generated by the military. Odyssey Dawn is just going back to the way things were. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Lybian state media is not a reliable source. Wait for some independent reports first.--Terrillja _talk 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed LIBYA STATE TV is NOT a reliable source, they have been known to spread misinformation, please change Libya casualties figures to unknown until an independent source can be cited Andalus7 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think. We have no evidence that Libya state TV is not reliable, no evidence. Stating unknown seems as if people are not certain. But media have aired footage from the hospital which shows that at least there were wounded people. We report both rebel and western claims of massacrs and tanks destroyed. We need to report government claims as well so to stay neutral. We already noted that the numbers are a government claim, that is enough. Let people make their own conclusions, that's not our job. Our job is to writte claims of both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Really, because the french jet they shot down, 100% sure, they didn't according to the french air force, which would probably know if they were missing a 100mil euro plane. And yes, we still have policies here. Time of war doesn't mean all policies go to the wind. Libya clearly isn't reliable.--Terrillja _talk 04:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tossed an inline disputed tag on the figure, I agree that the 'official' figures from the Libyan government should be reported, but it should also be brought to the attention of the reader that many feel the figures are unreliable, as a reader may not know that. I don't think just mentioning they are government figures (potentially ambiguous as to what government) is sufficient. Monty₈₄₅ 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan rebels have also made claims that have not been confirmed as true. For instance, they said the plane shot down this morning was Gaddafi's and later it turned out it was one of their own. The rebel's also claimed that there have been thousands of civilian deaths in massacers, however no independent group has confirmed this still. In fact, now it seems no more than 1,000 people have died, and more than half of those have been combatants. Nevertheless we report rebel claims. So we also report government claims. In any case, they didn't show any footage of a french plain shot down but HAVE shown footage of people wounded and dead in the hospital along with Gaddafi ministers.EkoGraf (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

People are already aware the numbers could be just propaganda, however nevertheless our duty and job is to report the official government claim on the number of dead, like we report the official French government claim on the four tanks destroyed. And that is what it is, an official government claim. EkoGraf (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More on the matter here (I know I'm guilty too, but let's try to place all comments here on the talk for Operation Odyssey Dawn from now on). I see good points on both sides, but have to say I believe a change to "unknown" is the best option for now. The Libyan Government and the associated national tv have a clear history of providing misinformation (it was only yesterday they announced ceasefire... only to move ~150 km and attack Benghazi). In addition to WP:RS where the Libyan Government is questionable at best, please also see WP:GEVAL and WP:Balance (quote: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence"). I'm not convinced the prominence of a claim by a proven unreliable source is high enough to justify its placement in the infobox. But I'm off to bed, so I'll leave it here for now. RN1970 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gun cameras don't lie. And Wikipedia's duty is to provide a neutral, reliably sourced account. Which there isn't at this time. No one has reported casualties independently or said how they were hurt. The red cross or some other NGO will in time.--Terrillja _talk 05:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Found neutral wording. Noting with an asterix that the numbers have not been independently confirmed. Is this ok? EkoGraf (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The plane they shot down was proven to be a rebel plane, not a French plane. Off topic, but proving a point, the rebels shot down their own plane. The Libyan State run news service has proven to be unreliable time after time, (ie saying every rebel was drugged) so their claim of massive civilian deaths can be pure propaganda for all we know. On the BBC today there was an interview with a man who lived 800 meters away from an army base in Tripoli who was saying all of the missiles were incredibly accurate, and that the coalition forces were doing a good job. Furthermore we don't know where this 'footage' of wounded people is actually coming out of and or how they were wounded in the first place. Wounded civilians from Benghazi might have been trucked into Tripoli. Quite simply we don't know. I understand that we must report any 'government' claim, but then (I know this is clearly Godwin's law; I try to avoid it when I can) under that justification it was published under Nazi state news that nothing was being done against the Jews. The weight of the French government is much more than the weight of the Libyan government in reliability, and in that perspective, who would you listen to legal advice from, a lawyer or a person who has taken 1 business law class? johnsmithy678 —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Saying again. Found neutral wording. Noteing with an asterix that the numbers have not been independently confrimed. Ok? EkoGraf (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's still unknown if it's propaganda. I mean there is obviously some element of it, but moving casualties from one hosputal to another to sensationalize it isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Or the people were victims of other fighting. Not like the international strikes are all that is going on in the country and everywhere else they are just kickin it happy as can be.--Terrillja _talk 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By noteing that it's not indepedently confirmed it leaves the possibility it's maybe propaganda. We said it's a government claim and we said it has not been independently confirmed, that is enough. But again it is not up to us to say if it's propaganda or not. In any case we HAVE TO tell the other sides story and not just writte it one-sidedly or we are breaking the NPOV rule. EkoGraf (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV says telling both sides based on reliable sources. Which there are not. So the neutral statement is to say unknown. Not none, but unknown how many. Could be 2, could be 2k. No reliable source knows.--Terrillja _talk 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

talk on the BBC website of pro-Gaddafi forces moving bodies of people they killed to missile-strike spots and reporting them as casualties of allied attacks... definitely incorrect to use Libyan TV figures. 213.249.173.118 (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) No no no no no. The Libyan government is the absolute and utter antithesis of a reliable source right now. Come on, we want independent, third party sources, not claims from one of the belligerents! This could, in fact, be a blatant lie! Does anyone truly think that the Libyan propaganda machine is giving accurate counts of casualties? No information may not be ideal, but wrong information is worse. Worse still is disinformation, which is what Wikipedia propagates by using the Libyan government claim. I fully support whoever removed it. Swarm ^X 05:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Than how about this. We put in the note section after the asterix No independent confirmation on the number of dead. Possibility the provided number to be a propaganda claim. EkoGraf (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Why bother to list formation that the media clearly is taking to be made up (google it). Consensus is that Libyan media is not reliable. So including that the numbers were likely chosen at random as a PR stunt doesn't make it any better that you are including unreliable and likely partially made up casualties.--Terrillja _talk 06:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Best course of action is to ignore the Libyan number. Swarm ^X 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And in response to "We have no evidence that Libya state TV is not reliable," that's kind of the point of WP:IAR. If it comes down to using common sense to omit a source, we can do that. Swarm ^X 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please show me evidence where it says the media is clearly taking the information to be made up, in those exact words. And please, your opinion that the numbers are a PR stunt is a non-neutral point of view and may be even original research since you don't have evidence. I don't deny the possibility the numbers may be propaganda, but that doesn't mean we don't include them. The numbers weren't given by the Libyan state televion, they were only broadcasted by state tv. The number was an official number given by the government military. Our opinion on weather we think they are liares, butchers, rapists or whatever DOESN'T COUNT. Every mayor news media is now reporting the number given by the government. EVERY major news media, that makes the number at the very least notable since it is being brodcast by everyone. If the media thought like you that just because the number may be unreliable they wouldn't even mention it. However they did mention it, because the major news media is sticking to a neutral point of view and so should WE (Wikipedia). And WP: IAR is just an excuse to ignore the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality) and if that rule is used than that makes Wikipedia a hypocrite. EkoGraf (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The government's propaganda machine has been using state television and texting through mobile phone networks to spread its triumphalist declarations. Enough for you? Took me two fucking seconds to find. Swarm ^X 06:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

First of the triumphalist declarations made in those text messages have now been proven as true since Zawiyah was taken the day before as said and troops had taken Ra's Lanuf that day. So I don't see any lying there. Second you are in violation of Wikipedia's civility rule by saying the word fuck so please show some respect and watch your language. EkoGraf (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNCENSORED. Sometimes you just have to read the policies.--Terrillja _talk 06:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know that rule you pointed out applies for text in articles, not in talking between editors. There is a rule that editiors need to be civil. So please read that policie. The langue Swarm used was highly offensive to me. EkoGraf (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it was offensive to you, it still isn't against policies. For example, fuck you is uncivil. fuck's sake is not.--Terrillja _talk 07:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We have confirmation that the Libyan state press is part of the government propaganda machine. Every shred of common sense should tell you that propaganda machines don't constitute reliable sources. If there's nothing else, let's move along. Swarm ^X 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe from where you come from Terrillja ***'s sake is not uncivil. But where I come from we are taught to watch our language. And actully you just told me that I am pissing you of, and that was directed toward me, so that was even under Wikipedia rules offensive. In any case Swarm has appologised so we can move on. EkoGraf (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know where I come from. So back off.--Terrillja _talk 07:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a preaty good idea but nevermind, like I said, moving on. EkoGraf (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should avoid the government number altogether. It might be disinformation. Wrong information is acceptable. Disinformation is not. Swarm ^X 07:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

From WP:Civility "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing profane and offensive language at other users." And it is not NPOV to omit Libyan government figures. We should not be approving or disapproving one side or the other's accounts of the conflict. If reliable sources are reporting the Libyan casualty figures, they would seem to be notable, whether or not they are true. I remember some government leader telling us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq a few years ago, so any government's claims are suspect. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the Libyan claim again, with a note that the numbers are unverified. Hopefully that works. Bart133 ^{t c @} 17:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is some strong bullshit, IMO. First of all, is there any confirmation that the civilian casualties even came from the US operation? I don't see this in the other operations on wiki. If it isn't included on those operations than it shouldn't be included in this one. This should be taken down because:

1) There is no reliable source for such a claim. 2) There is no evidence that it was even from the US operation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that this isn't paintball where each team has their own color and multiple armies are using the same munitions, ignoring the obvious lack of reliable independent sources, there is basically no way to say who supposedly killed people. I don't claim to be an expert on SAM munitions and AAA fire, but basic physics says what goes up comes down. Not inconceivable that some deaths could be caused by some of the defensive fire coming back to earth as that certainly isn't precision guided on its way down.--Terrillja _talk 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof that the US operation was the cause of these supposed civilians deaths. If you happened to forget, this page is for the US operation, not the coalition. That alone merits it to be taken down. This is a thing that should be posted in the 2011 Libyan uprising. Wikipedia is spreading false information on this page.

Incidentally, I don't buy the argument that "Lybian state media is not a reliable source". Reliability of a source *strongly* depends on context. Including the numbers given by Libyan media can serve as a counterpoint in an article. It seems biased and irresponsible to simply declare "because I don't like them" to say that it is not fit for use at all. That's simple censorship. Consider your own bias before you summarily strike something out. -- Avanu (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So why is this even added to the US operation when there is no evidence that the US caused it? If it is added to the US operation than it should be added to all of them because it is spreading false perceptions that the US is responsible when it may not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Most sources in war are unreliable, for example why would we believe in rebel sources? I suggest we use according to LSTV phrase and use information from LSTv. Kavas (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm making. THERE IS NO PROOF THAT US FORCES, OUT OF ALL THE COALITION, CAUSED THE "SUPPOSED CIVILIAN CAUSALITIES." This page is dedicated to the US operation of the intervention.

Bingo. Removing based on that. The source doesn't support the claim. The propaganda issue aside, the source doesn't specify that the deaths were part of Odyssey Dawn. Swarm ^X 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your kidding right? 124 Tomahawks fired, of which probably more than half by the U.S. and you saying they ment all of those supposed dead were due to the French and British? Hillarious. In any case, obviously I wasn't the only one of the oppinion that the government claim should be added also. Ghostofnemo, Bart133, Avanu, Kavanas, have expressed their support that the numbers should be included. But for the sake of good faith and compromise, the numbers of this american part of the intervention will not say the total number of deaths claimed by the government, but better to say a few dozen killed claimed, since others may have been killed by the British or French. Also, so it would still be that the real number is Unknown in the infobox, the government claim will be mentioned as a sidenote in the box along with the possibility of it being propaganda and the US denial. EkoGraf (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note, Reuters published photographs of the funerals of people reportedly killed in the air strikes last night in Tripoli. So this confirms that at least partialy the government was telling the truth. There were at least some civilian casualties. You going to say Reuters is also lying now? Link here[2] The current form of the infobox, with the casualties3 section stating that the number of civilians is unknown but with a sidenote of government claims of a few dead civilians highly appropriate in terms of neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2nd Note, Al Arabiya is now reporting 90 civilians killed, citing medical sources. Al Arabiya is not a Gaddafi run media outlet. Also the number they are reporting is even larger than the one Gaddafi is claiming. Source here [3]. EkoGraf (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bro, you're awfully quick to blame the US. First of all, who were the 90 people? Were they mercs? Civilans? Rebels? And do you even know who they were killed by? Swarm's point still stand that these can not be attributed to the American operation until more details are revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.187.127 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not awfully quick on blaming anyone. Please show good faith. I said that at least a part of those allegedly killed would have been killed by the US, because they also fired dozens of rockets, not just the British and the French. The source clearly states the medical sources stated 90 people were killed in the strikes. And we haven't attributed all of the 90 deaths to the Americans, we only stated a few dozen deaths claimed. Because, like I said it's hilarious to think, all of those alleged killed were killed exclusivly by the British and French. You know, the Americans have showed more than once they know how to miss a target. Also, Ghostofnemo's, Bart133's, Avanu's and Kavanas's points also all stand. I didn't deny Swarm's statement that the source doesn't state how much of those kileld were killed by the Americans. I agree with him. However, if these numbers are true than at least some of them were killed by the Americans. EkoGraf (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I think the accurate targeting of the missiles is more reliable than a government on a propaganda mission to keep its leader in power. 2. There are now reports (big surprise) that Gadhafi forces are collecting bodies killed in previous fights to say that they were killed in bombing. Also CNN reports that people in Benghazi were happy with the bombings, and support the coalition saying that no civilians are being killed by them. Read the CNN article here. On top of all that, as previously said, it cannot be said that if civilians were killed, they were 100% killed by bombs dropped by the United States, so listing casualties on the US Operations page would be posting information that is known to be not accurate; doing so is academic travesty. A solution to this would be to merge all of the operations articles into one page, which would allow for more fluent discussion of coalition casualties, ect. Just link the operations page to auto-connect to the other page. (johnsmithy678) March 20, 2011 20:25 EST

First of, the reports of people being happy with the bombings in Benghazi is nothing strange since they are the rebels, of course they are happy. Second, I saw those reports of loyalist forces collecting bodies in previous fights to say they were killed in bombing. And most of those reports are coming from the rebels themselves. Furthermore calling it accurate targeting is funny since it's been shown the US hit dozens of civilian targets causing civilian deaths numereous times in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, etc. Also, just because the coalition says no civilians were killed means nothing. They also said in Afghanistan they didn't kill any civilians in that one air strike last year, but an Afghan government commision (US ally) found they killed dozens of civilians. In any case, you are going of point now. Obviously half of the editors want the information to be included and half want it to be excluded. But for the sake of neutrality we can not have our personal oppinions influence our editing. The current form of saying the number of civilians killed is unknown, but libyan government claiming 64 killed and medical sources claiming 90 killed as a SIDENOTE is a real compromise. So please, everyone just cool of, and we will talk about this in a few more days when the situation clears more. EkoGraf (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, the cnn article you linked for me to read. It says the Russians also have reports of their own confirming civilian casualties. So are you going to say the Gaddafi media is lying now, the Al Arabiya (non-Gaddafi media) is lying now, the Reuters photograps are lying now and the Russians are lying now? EkoGraf (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Cool off, leave it at unknown and wait for independent reports to come back. They will in time. No rush.--Terrillja _talk 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If there was confusion what point I was trying to convey, I'm trying to say there is no way to conclusively say that any of the casualties were directly from American bombs. There are too many conflicting reports coming from too many biases and from too many people who have something directly at stake. Simply there is no way to definitely say what is actually going on there. For one thing, the Russian reference was vague and to fails to mention any source (Report from Reuters here where they call on France, US and Britain to stop: not just the US). Reuters is reporting the dead and pictures of the dead, as a forwarding of what the Libyan government has said. Every Reuters article I've read has been a forwarding of Libyan government reports. (Here is what you're talking about. Not sure where I went off topic; bottom line is I'm not saying people aren't being killed, but you can't justify the claims as actually being killed by the United States operation. Johnsmithy678 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you also have to keep in mind that the coalition/allies/UN/whatever isn't the only one there. There is that other thing about the rebels having bombs, artillery, tanks, etc, so they could be responsible for some of the supposed deaths as well. Forget US killed, we can't even say conclusively that all deaths were the result of UN action. There are simply too many parties involved and there is too much going on to make a statement as such.--Terrillja _talk 01:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing once again in the notes section, for a further compromise, putting in the infobox of this specific operation of the no fly zone the following - Changing from The Libyan government claims a few dozen civilians killed, however this information has not been independently confirmed and Libyan government figures have been shown as unreliable or misinformation. to The Libyan government claims an undetermined number of civilians killed, however this information has not been independently confirmed and Libyan government figures have been shown as unreliable or misinformation. EkoGraf (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that just isn't true. They claim to know how many people have been killed. There is just no way of saying when and by whom. You're implying that to govt has no clue how many people have been killed. Far from the truth.--Terrillja _talk 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They do know the number of dead for the whole no-fly zone intervention, 64-90, but the number for this specific US operation is undetermined. That was the point of my discussion with the anonymous user. The number stated is for the whole intervention. For the US portion of the intervention, this article, the number is undetermined. However, for the sake of further compromise changing to The Libyan government claims a number of civilians have been killed. EkoGraf (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

--I think that stating "the Libyan government claims..." is a good compromise and leaves the ultimate decision of trusting the government source up to the reader. I'm not sure if you all have seen this New York Times article but it casts serious aspersions on the validity of the Libyan state television (which, if you recall, is the same outlet that claims the rebellion was caused by Al Queda giving ecstasy to the rebels).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21libya.html?pagewanted=2&ref=libya

"Libyan officials and state television have said that dozens of Libyan civilians were killed in the air attacks. But an Indonesian newscaster, Andini Effendi, reported Sunday that she was able to visit two Tripoli hospitals after the airstrikes early on Sunday and found no influx of casualties, only empty ambulances. State television did not show any scenes of destruction, and Libyan officials declined to show any to visiting journalists either.

Instead, they promised Sunday to bring foreign journalists to a funeral for civilians killed in the attacks. But the funeral turned out to be more of a pro-Qaddafi political rally, and the true number of dead remained a mystery.

On the way to the funeral a bus full of journalists was parked waiting for about 25 minutes near a waterfront cemetery, until the arrival of several truckloads of hundreds of Qaddafi supporters waving green flags and wearing green headscarves. Then, when journalists entered the cemetery amid gunfire in the air and pro-Qaddafi chants, they found three freshly covered graves and 24 empty cinderblock holes.

One of the recent burials was said to have died of causes unrelated to the attacks. Another was said to belong to a 3-month-old baby girl, Siham Atabeeb, who was said to have been killed when a bomb hit her home. But neither of her parents nor any siblings were there, and people who said they were more distant relatives told conflicting stories about whether her mother was also wounded and whether she had any siblings.

People around the other fresh grave also said they were relatives, but people gave conflicting descriptions of the deceased — he was 25 or 29; he was killed in his home, driving by a military base, or walking in a neighborhood near the Qaddafi compound; he was a taxi driver, unemployed, or in some other profession. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpmui99 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

U2

There is no evidence that the U2 spy plane has been utilised. The reference link is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Custaro (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Image #18 clearly shows a U2, and was taken at RAF Arkotiri, Cypress on 3/20/10. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/03/air-strikes-on-libya/100031/

Not good enoughOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Secretary Gates' command role

The Secretary of Defense is in the operational chain of command unless the President expressly directs otherwise, see Title 10 United States Code Section 162 (b) [4]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not in the operational chain of command, he merely assists the President and/or the Secretary in exercising their command functions. RicJac (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

if that is so, the wiki articles for all US Operations are inaccurateOther dictionaries are better (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the nature of the Wiki - there's always work in progress... RicJac (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph on one of the airman

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-if-he-approached-friend-or-foe.htmlOther dictionaries are better (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence not supported by source

Lead sentence:

"Operation Odyssey Dawn is the code name for the United States military's participation in enforcement of the 2011 Military intervention in Libya.[7][Note 1]"

[7] "News Article: Coalition Launches Operation Odyssey Dawn". Defense.gov. 2011-03-19. Retrieved 2011-03-19.

Excerpts from the source:

"Coalition forces launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” today to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country’s ruler."

"U.S. military forces are on the leading edge of the coalition operation, taking out Libya’s integrated air and missile defense system, Defense Department officials said."

"The United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada already have announced that they are part of the coalition."

According to the source, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the coalition's operation, not just the US part. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, Odyssey Dawn, is "the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973." noclador (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is so confusing. Then where are the other countries operations considered individual contributions ie page on Operation Ellamy? See the MOD's version of Ellamy--"the UK's military action in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973." Are you saying Odyessy Dawn is top then Elammy is under Odessy Dawn?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From the main article: " The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." It does not say Odyssey Dawn is international name.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The "main article" 2011 military intervention in Libya is wrong. It misinterpreted its source on the topic. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This article therefore implies it is an American dominated intervention which so many politicians and people says it is not.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox commander flags

Is there any particular reason that Mr. Gates, General Ham, or Admiral Locklear have a flag other than the United States flag? Operation Enduring Freedom simply has the US flag next to the equivalent names; others have no flag at all Operation Taylor Common or no commanders listed Operation Sea Dragon (Vietnam War). Does anyone know the guidelines regarding this? Perhaps now is a good time to bring this to light so all the pages can be fixed. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen any written guidance on this matter one way or the other. If flags are to be used, IMHO it's clearly redunant, and of no use at all, to place additional national flags in front of listed persons if there are either positional colors or rankflags availible. As a heradlry-nut myself I would like to see them used where appropriate.

Then of course it would be even better, and more consistant, if there are corresponding Libyan flags on the Commons too:) RicJac (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of the tens of thousands of articles that use {{Infobox military conflict}}, there is overwhelming consensus not to add this type of clutter. (i.e. this was the only article on Wikipedia that had them, before I removed them). Only icons for national flags should be used in this way. Also see WP:Manual of Style (icons). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes

The Yes (band) article links to Odyssey Dawn, which redirects here. Interestingly, however, Yes discography does not list it, and a quick search on Google and a few online stores showed no such albums existing; just plenty of allusions to it in reference to this operation (e.g., quotes of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show). And there weren't an article about this album, whether it is real or not. So, not sure what would be the most appropriate here, a disambig-redirection notice, or removing the link from the Yes page? --88.141.100.39 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My impression from watching the Daily Show was that Jon was joking that the title *sounded* like a Yes album, nothing more. In looking at the page history, "Odyssey Dawn" was just added yesterday, so its pretty unlikely that it is real. -- Avanu (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

created criticism section

i created the criticism section. delete if not needed.Zyon788 (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

this page is being heavily vandalized

tried fixing them but its becoming diffucult to do...need to semiprotect or somthingZyon788 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

what vandalism??? noclador (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

sorry about that i wrote this when i misread the sentence about the threatening civilians.Zyon788 (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem. Please continue to contribute to wikipedia and this article. noclador (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article is being vandalized by clearly pro-Kadhafi editors with outrageously partisan sentences such as qualifying the no-fly-zone by the terms "no-life-zone". This article should be protected RIGHT NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.18.250 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or you can just revert the article like you do with all other cases of vandalism. Using ALL CAPS doesn't make your point any stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.14.102 (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be semi-protected. There have been more than a few accusations without cited sources and consist of one-sided biases (specifically pro-Gadhafi) sides of the operation. Constantly reverting back to previous posts is just inefficient, especially if someone edits after said vandalism without recognizing it. The maintenance factor would deter from adding cited and beneficial information actually pertaining to the article.johnsmithy678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

this page is constantly being vandalized — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyon788 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish forces

Spanish forces contributing to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 have been placed under the command of AFRICOM, hence can be included as part of Odyssey Dawn.[5] 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

According to that article, Spanish aircraft have been placed under the control of the coalition of nations, commanded by US Gen. Ham. That is not the same as saying that they are part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, which is just the US part of the total operation. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Odyssey Dawn is the US part of the Operation and until a multi-national command has been set up Spanish (and other nations) assets come under direct US control, unless they have their own air-operations command (like the French and British). General Ham is commander of AFRICOM - a US unified combat command - and coalition forces are under this US command. Operation Odyssey Dawn includes the air operations by US commanded units - so i.e. the command can either send some US or some Italian planes on a SEAD mission - this is still all Operation Odyssey Dawn; as the name says Odyssey Dawn is about operations - not assets! noclador (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I still diagree. There is no indication from those countries that they placed their forces under US Command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From BBC News live:"Spain has voted overwhelmingly in favour of taking part in the coalition to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's request for formal approval of the move was adopted by 336 votes to 3, with one abstention. Spanish planes have already been patrolling Libyan airspace. Madrid has also sent a frigate and a submarine to join coalition forces." It does not say Spain places its forces under US Command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, You will need to supply a source for your conclusions.wp:nor All that the source said was that the aircraft were placed under coalition control, commanded by Gen. Ham.

Consider the case of a NATO or UN operation which is commanded by someone from a single country. One doesn't say that the operation is under the control of the country of the commander.

In any case, it looks like we may be having some problems with the title of this article and what it means. It's early and I expect they will be taken care of when they become more obvious. 75.47.154.52 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish ministry of Defense says: "Yesterday afternoon, the Commander of the Operations Command, Lt. Gen. Jaime Domínguez Buj, reported that the JEMAD (note: this is the Chief of the Defense Staff: Jefe del Estado Mayor de la Defensa) transferred command of one in-flight refueling aircraft and four F-18 to the command of the international coalition, that is being hold by General Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM, whose permanent headquarters is in Stuttgart."[6] Also the Italian Air Force says contributing to it's to Operation Odyssey Dawn "contributo nell’ambito dell’operazione “Odyssey Dawn”". Even if you disagree that does not change the fact that the command structure is as I described, with the Spanish Plans being under direct US command. noclador (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All countries are still under US Command--AFRICOM--technically. So I don't undertand your point.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the point is that between the planes and AFRICOM the British and French have an additional layer of national command. Which the other nations has chosen not to have! The only active commands guiding combat operations are currently a US, a British and a French command - with the American having overall command. All other nations have not set up their own command for the operations and fall under command of one of the three commands mentioned; as the USA has overall strategic command and tactical command in the theater of operation all coalition members without their own commands in place have placed their assets under the US command. noclador (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The news articles still do not say that explicitly. All forces still report up to AFRICOM for the moment. Adding non allied forces to a US Op without direct sources is not logical. I still contest.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 military intervention in Libya in the section forces committed--none of the links say the forces are directly under US command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

the point that you two do not understand is that Operation Odyssey Dawn is NOT the US contribution to the coalition; BUT the actually the operation currently being conducted by AFRICOM! From the Pentagon: "Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973." "the commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, which is the name of this operation, is Admiral Sam Locklear," [7]- this is like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, the only difference is that some nations as of now have chosen to have their OWN operations alongside the main operation! noclador (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A good example:

• Operation Desert Storm
  • Operation Granby were the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Opération Daguet were the French military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Operation FRICTION were the Canadian military operations during the Gulf War in 1991

and now:

• Operation Odyssey Dawn
  • Operation Ellamy are the British military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Opération Harmattan are the French military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Operation MOBILE are the Canadian military operations in the military intervention in Libya

and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller contingents are under direct command of the US main command. noclador (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One more time, the British, French, Canadians and others (non US) are responding individually to UNSCR 1973 and are not part of the American operation.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From Operation Granby "Operation Granby was the name given to the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991. It covered both deployments in defence of Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait. These two parts of the war were identified separately by the Americans as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm." GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Grame for making that point that. This article is Americanised.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I Thought the US doesnt want to take the lead

So why are those forces considered as under US command?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

well, the USA currently HAS command and directs all the other air forces and deployed assets - in the case of the French and British the orders go through their national command chain (but not for the RAF planes in Gioa del Colle - also under direct US command) and for the other nations planes the orders come directly from the US command, but the USA wants to hand over this command authority as soon as possible. Because of the rapid deployment of the intervention, the only commands in place were US commands and so the USA was forced to take the lead; but as soon as a command is set up (around a week) the US will hand over command to the new command. noclador (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a coordinated mission. Just because the other countries dont have a name for their forces doesnt mean they are all under US command. UK forces in a way are under US command--both US commanders outrank the UK's senior commander.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are under US command - the Canadians have a name, but also are under US command; the only nation that does a lot of it's own planning is France. As for Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain and the English planes in Goia del Colle - the are directly subordinated to AFRICOM. The French and British units (those that depart from England) have a national layer of command between AFRICOM and the actual combat assets. noclador (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As you wish - but the command structure is as follows:

• Africom
  • United States Naval Forces Europe
    • assets directly subordinated (US + coalition units)
  • French Air Defence and Air Operations Command
    • French assets
  • British Chief of Joint Operations
    • British assets

noclador (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

as for the future: the French want this structure:

• French or British national command
  • all assets

and Italy wants this structure (to which Turkey is massively opposed)

• multi-national NATO command
  • all assets

noclador (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC) No source!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From Whitehouse.gov (hopefully a reliable source for whether Obama thinks he is in charge)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/22/president-libya-we-have-already-saved-lives

Question: " ...Can you today still assure the American people that the U.S. will be in charge for only a matter of several -- a few more days? ..."

Answer: "... I have absolutely no doubt that we will be able to transfer control of this operation to an international coalition...."

So the United States is the one in control right now. -- Avanu (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesnt make non-British, French and Canadian forces under US OD!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn is Separate from all other operations!!

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." from 2011 military intervention in Libya From MOD: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/LibyaOperationEllamy.htm No where does it say that the British are subordinating their Ellamy Op under Odessy Dawn Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, once again - Ellamy and Harmattan are separate, the OTHER nations assets are under Odyssey Dawn. noclador (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing wrt to the main article 2011 military intervention in Libya and the British, French and Canadian ops which simply state and I quote "The United States' counterpart to this is Operation Odyssey Dawn" it does not says The United States' and other non British, French and Canandian counterpart to this is Operation Odyssey DawnOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Norways planes are under US command: [8] as are all other units except for the British and French assets. EOD. noclador (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Again you are misleading readers of the French, British and Canadian ops. If all allied-exlusing UK, France and Canada operations fall under the dominating role of US Command, why is your article lacking information of action by all allied-exlusing UK, France and Canada and only including US forces actions?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile by Canada and Operation Odyssey Dawn by the U.S." If you continue to insist that Odyssey Dawn is the whole military US dominated/led involved, then this setenence from the 2011 military intervention in Libya is out of place. Who is right?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 2011 military intervention in Libya is wrong. It misinterpreted its source on the topic. The Wikipedia article says,

"The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the UK; Operation Mobile for the Canadian particiaption and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the U.S. commanded operations Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn in the theater of operations.[15]"

[15] "Gunfire, explosions heard in Tripoli". CNN. Retrieved 20 March 2011.

The only mention of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the source [15] is,

"The salvo, in an operation dubbed 'Odyssey Dawn,' was meant 'to deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people,' said Gortney."

When it says "dubbed Odyssey Dawn" it is not clear whether Odyssey Dawn is the name for just the US part or for the operation of the coalition.

Another source is more clear,[9]

"Coalition forces launched 'Operation Odyssey Dawn' ..."

"U.S. military forces are on the leading edge of the coalition operation..."

And from another source,[10]

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."

75.47.133.120 (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If non-UK, French and Canadian Forces are under US Command

This article does not depict the accurate Daily actions of those non-UK, French and Canadian Forces. Get it rightOther dictionaries are better (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, lets add these - I can take the Italian participation, which nations can you do? noclador (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Article preamble - all related operations

For the sake of following a good standard, is there a good reason why the three related operations (UK, France and Canada) all mention the other three related operations in their article preamble but the US does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisme (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents = United States?

Why is Belligerents = United States in the infobox? That's just not right. It's a bunch of nations, together. What's the difference who's operationally commanding the assembled forces? -- Y not? 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is just about the United States' contribution to the no fly zone. BurtAlert (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So why are there all these other countries who have contributed men and planes to the effort recited in the body? -- Y not? 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation names

Here are how the operation names are defined by the ministries of defense of the countries that originated the names.

U.S. Department of Defense

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."[11]

"Coalition forces launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” today to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country’s ruler."[12]

French Ministry of Defense

"Samedi 19 mars 2011, sur ordre du président de la République, le chef d’état-major des armées a lancé l’opération Harmattan , nom de la participation française à l’engagement militaire international d’opérations aériennes pour protéger la population libyenne contre les attaques des forces du colonel Kadhafi.[13]

Babelfish translation - "Saturday March 19, 2011, on order of the president of the Republic, the chief of staff of the armies launched the operation Harmattan, name of the French participation in the international military engagement of air operations to protect the Libyan population against the attacks from the forces of colonel Kadhafi.[14]

UK Ministry of Defence

"General Lorimer was speaking as he briefed the media earlier this afternoon on Operation ELLAMY, the name for the United Kingdom's military support to United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[15]

Canada Department of National Defense

"Operation MOBILE is the Canadian Forces’ participation in the multinational response to the continuing crisis in Libya."[16]

In summary, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the international coalition's operation, Operation Harmattan is the French participation, Operation Ellamy is the UK participation, and Operation Mobile is the Canadian participation. 75.47.133.120 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense this is taking words and mincing them up.When you note the Admiral briefing the reporters, he did not brief them on the coalition's involvement--he told them everything about the Tomahawk strikes (albeit including UK participation). He did not mention non UK, French or Canadian Forces--even in his subsequent briefings and the US AFRICOM pages DO NOT show reports of non-American activity. So while you all state that OD is on top and overall in command of non-UK, French and Canadian Forces, the US defence pages (I don't care I spell it this way) themselves do not acknowledge it so! They only talk about US military acitiviies and not non-UK, French and Canadian activities that you claim are under the OD.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This just in from the BBC: "Operations are being carried out under US control, says Mr Hague, but Britain wants to see a "transition to NATO command and control as quickly as possible"." noclador (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The full quote from Hague as per Al Jazeera "These coalition operations are currently under United States command, but we want them to transition to NATO command and control as quickly as possible." Al Jazeera Live Blog at 3:15pm noclador (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From BBC since you quoted from it [17]

"Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name. They haven't said why.

Greece is also giving "supportive assistance" and it has not given its operation a name either."

It therefore also says the other nations--non UK, French and Canadians--are involving themselves but NOT as part of OD. Unlike the other articles, you guys are pushing your point that OD leads all non-UK, French and Canadian forces.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The news media have been giving contradictory information about what the operation names apply to, so I went to the statements of the ministries of defense which are the origins of the operation names and thus authoritative, unless there is some disagreement between the ministries, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Note the interesting point made in the BBC ref mentioned above, "For a single country contribution one word is used...". Operation Dawn is obviously not a one word name, whereas Harmattan, Ellamy, and Mobile are. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is still only from one source which is not fully justifiedOther dictionaries are better (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

lead paragraph II

aaargh,... why always put errors in the lead paragraph :( "The US has attempted to hand over operational command of the operation to NATO (whilst keeping political and strategic command in the hands of a small group of nations), but these efforts have failed so far." The US has not attempted to do that, it wishes to hand over command as soon as possible and to any command that is ready to take over command. NATO, the French, a new command - whoever; also the idea with NATO having command of the operation and a small group of nations taking political command is an idea, but as yet not agreed upon or thought out. There is a summit about that on Tuesday in Paris, until then the US will command the operation. noclador (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead & codename

"Operation Odyssey Dawn is the code name for the international military operation in Libya." This simply isn't right, "Operation Odyssey Dawn" is the name for the US part of the operation. Some other countries might be using this name. But it's not a name for the whole operation, as there simply isn't an actual unified operation. Also, why the ugly note in the references section, why not simply create a small subsection for the name like we usually do?--Sloane (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1) Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name for the coalition operation, not just the US part. See the talk page section Operation names.

2) I think it's a nice note. The name topic doesn't seem that important, compared to other topics. You seemed to believe that there is usually a subsection for the name in articles like this. So to check that out, I looked at the See also links at the bottom of the article and I didn't see any Name subsections in those articles. 75.47.139.245 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources there - other than American ones, more ambiguously worded - are just saying that the respective nations are participating in the international intervention in Libya, not a word about operation Odyssey Dawn.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement from the U.S. Department of Defense is unambiguous.

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."

Statements from the other ministries of defense were quoted to clarify that their operation names were for their respective participations, rather than for the coalition.

In passing, I wouldn't be surprised if and when the coalition operation transitions to a phase commanded by someone other than the U.S., that the name of the operation will change. 75.47.138.154 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That is just one source from the US and you didnt sign you signatureOther dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? It deals only with the American point of view, and therefore, the American nomenclature only.

Yes, for their participations in the intervention, no relation to the 'Odyssey Dawn' mentioned.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The statements of the US, UK, French, and Canadian ministries of defense, who are the origins of the operation names, are authoritative, unless there is some disagreement between them, which doesn't seem to be the case. It appears that you dispute the correctness of the US Dept of Defense calling the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn, but none of the other ministries of defense dispute it. To conclude that they dispute it because it wasn't mentioned in their statements is a reach, especially since none of the ministries besides the US have offered any name for the coalition operation. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they are dealing with their participation in the international action, not in 'Odyssey Dawn'. What's so difficult to understand here? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The above note of Hon-3s-T is out of chronological order and it is well answered by the messages below that preceded it in time. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

After more consideration I think there is a middle ground that correctly reflects what is in the sources. As the US Dept of Defense said, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the coalition operation. However, we should add that it is the US name for the coalition operation. So far, strictly speaking, we haven't seen that the other ministries of defense have adopted it as the name for the coalition operation. So the lead sentence can be changed by adding "US" as a modifier of the term "code name" so that the relevant part of the lead sentence becomes "US code name". It is still the name for the coalition operation, not just the US participation, but is the name given to it by the US. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Again it is minicing things so that the egg is the key before the chicken can come about. If this is so, as based on your logic, then the French, UK and Canadians do not consider OD as what it is but simple their, and I emphasise their, operations which are merely their commitment to UNSCR 1973. Nothing related to a total US-led operation--which exist only in the detail structure cause of US Hegemonic dominance. Thne for the non-UK, French and Canadian forces, just because they have not (and it is not complusory) named any operation name doesnt necessary lead to them being under US Command see again this news report [18] and this specific line "Forces from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain and Qatar are also involved in the military action, but they have not given their operations a name."Furtheremore, This article merely talks about the operations of US forces. IF they (the non British, French, and Canadian forces) are considered under US Command, there should be evidence that the op directives are given out by US commanders. In the absence of this, the non British, French, and Canadian forces are merely fufilling the UNSCR 1973 and NOT led by US OD.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The simple truth is that the US Dept. of Defense (DOD) invented the name Operation Odyssey Dawn, and the DOD defines it as "the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973". To claim that it is only the US participation, contradicts the definition by the source of the name. Specifying that it is the "US code name" correctly reflects the situation and acknowledges that it is US nomenclature. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How thne does this line "The British' counterpart to this is Operation Ellamy, the Canadian counterpart is Operation MOBILE and the French counterpart is Opération Harmattan." be relevant. If it is a counterpart means they are parallel operations. Taking it as a US code name, how then are the other UK, French and Canadian operations "counterparts" or are they part of or is it under the US umbrella or is it I don't know what...

PS: Why aren't you using a Wiki account? Just wonderingOther dictionaries are better (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced statement of the lead that you are referring to has been replaced with the statement below that is supported by the respective ministries of defence sources.

"The British name for their military support of the coalition is Operation Ellamy, the Canadian participation is Operation MOBILE and the French participation is Opération Harmattan."

75.47.128.255 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is not backed by sources given, as they're mentioning their participation in the UN resolution 1973 enforcement, not in the coalition action. Unless you are apt for some original research.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Its fine. Not synth OR. It's a good accurate summary of the sources. Using the exact wording of sources is discouraged as plagiarism, unless you want to just give quotes, then that's poor form too. 75.47.128.255 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the formulation "American code name for the coalition action" is just fine; but the sources given clearly did not cover the subsumption of their respective national operations under "operation Odyssey Dawn".--Hon-3s-T (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• In the first part of your message, thnx for acknowledging that Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the coalition's operation. You might want to correct the misinterpretation in the corresponding articles elsewhere that you worked on that incorrectly indicate it is only the US part.
• In the second part of your message, you haven't shown that there is a problem and the remarks of my previous message, re summarizing and not reproducing text from the source in a verbatim way, still applies. However, if you can produce a better summary of the relevant material in those authoritative sources, please show it here. Thnx. For reference, the relevant material was shown in the first message of the section Operation names. 75.47.143.130 (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From UK MOD:

What is the chain of command?

This operation is currently under US command with high-profile French and UK involvement, as well as close co-ordination with a range of other countries including Arab states.
What is the name of the Operation?

The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].

All ground attacks are therefore under US command, including missions by UK, France and Canada (who have their own mission names). The FAQ suggests that "Odyssey Dawn" is specific to US forces only. That other countries are conducting missions under US command does not preclude them from having operational names different from OD. Kelvinc (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn is the coalition operation. As mentioned in your quote, the operation is under US command and the US is using Odyssey Dawn. It does not say that Odyssey Dawn is specific to US forces only. A statement that is more clear about what Operation Odyssey Dawn is, comes from the inventor of the name, the US Dept. of Defense,

"Admiral Gortney will update you on Operation Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973."[19]

That statement can be compared to the one from the UK Ministry of Defense which limits its operation name ELLAMY to just the UK's actions,

"General Lorimer was speaking as he briefed the media earlier this afternoon on Operation ELLAMY, the name for the United Kingdom's military support to United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[20]

75.47.143.130 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

question about the outcome section

should we only tell about the immediate outcome from the operation or should we add what has happened overall?Zyon788 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Whts code name for NATO mission?

Does anyone know what the code name will be for the the NATO coordinated action commanded by royal canadian air force lt gen Charles Bouchard (ie in additional to Operation Unified Protector)?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

According to a NATO fact sheet,

"As of 25 March 2011 NATO is leading the No-Fly Zone operation over Libya, as part of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR, the Alliance’s response to United Nations Security Resolution (UNSCR) 1973."[21]

As NATO gets more parts under its command, they will also become part of Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Unified Protector started as NATO enforcement of the arms embargo, but has now taken on the NFZ too. SACEUR explained it in his blog.[22] Extreme care will have to be taken in what is now added to this article and what is added to Operation Unified Protector. ShipFan (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

AC-130s and A-10s

Vice Admiral Gortney confirmed that AC-130s and A-10s were used "over the weekend" but no specifics.[23] ShipFan (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO command of NFZ

With NATO taking over enforcement of the NFZ, which US and coalition forces need to be noted as being transferred to Operation Unified Protector? ShipFan (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

covert support

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/u-s-official-obama-authorized-covert-support-for-libya-rebels-1.353122?localLinksEnabled=false

Will this be covered here or in a different article? Hcobb (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Op names: useful clarifying info from GlobalSecurity.org

The following from GlobalSecurity.org[24] seems to clear up some of the contradictions in the news media about operation names, and clarifies who some of the countries were that participated in Operation Odyssey Dawn.

"When operations relating to the enforcement of UN Resolution 1973 began on 19 March 2011, a number of operational nicknames were already in use. The United States referred to its participation as Operation Odyssey Dawn. Other nations used their own names to refer to forces deployed to the region. These included Canada (Operation Mobile), France (Opération Harmattan), and the United Kingdom (Operation Ellamy). Other coalition partners either referenced no name, or deployed forces stated to be operating as part of the Operation Odyssey Dawn coalition, effectively taking on that name."

"Operating under the authority provided by U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn against targets inside Libya and aimed at protecting civilians from attacks perpetrated by pro-Muammar Al-Qadhafi forces."

"The operation began with the dispatch of French air assets from France to Libya, composed of 8 Rafale, 2 Mirage 2000-5, 2 Mirage 2000D, 6 C-135FR air refueling tanker aicraft and one E-3F AWACS. As a result of the odenamed "Opération Harmattan", the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the French began setting up an exclusion zone around Benghazi, reportedly destroying in the process four Lybian government tanks."

So before the coalition formed, various countries had their own operational names. When the coalition formed, its operation was called Odyssey Dawn and included the US, France, UK, Italy and Canada and various countries, who kept the the operation names for each of their respective participations in the coalition operation Odyssey Dawn. For example, " 'Opération Harmattan', the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, ...".

For some info about GlobalSecurity.org, see the wikilinked article about it and also GlobalSecurity.org - About us and GlobalSecurity.org - Praise from others. 75.47.131.253 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it starts by saying "the United States referred to its participation as Operation Odyssey Dawn" (emphasis mine) and that some (not all) other forces later deployed to the region also took on that name. That is nowhere near the same as saying that the entire coalition operation is called Odyssey Dawn. It then provides absolutely no evidence for its assertion that OD is the overall title, especially given its previous reference to individual countries alternative names. Given the specific statements from the MoD at least (I haven't seen any specific denials from the French ministry but that have stated that Harmattan is a specific French operation) that Odyssey dawn is merely a US name for the US and others contribution, this doesn't prove anything. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The GlobalSecurity.org article doesn’t begin as you said but begins with, “Operating under the authority provided by U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn ...” .[25] Your excerpt about U.S. participation was taken out of context and does not apply to the time after the beginning of enforcement operations when the coalition was formed and the U.S. was given command of it. We have a similar transition situation now as various countries’ operations, including operations of U.S., UK, France, et al, come under command of NATO and become part of Operation Unified Protector. 75.47.153.132 (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote you gave. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thnx for clarifying. I put the first quote at the beginning because it had info about the time period before the other quotes. In the order of the article, it came after the other quotes. I thought the first quote was interesting because it showed that before the coalition was formed, each country had its own name for its own operation, and later the meaning of the U.S. code name became broader when Gen. Ham and Adm. Locklear of the U.S. were given command of the coalition operations and the coalition task force respectively. This was consistent with how the name Unified Protector for the NATO operation was at first limited to a smaller part of the operation, but became broader when it was handed more parts of the enforcement action. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The French Mininstry of Defense makes it very clear that Odyssey Dawn is a US operation and Harmattan is a separate but coordinated French operation. Admiral Locklear, as commander of "Joint Task Force US Odyssey Dawn", visited the Charles de Gaulle on March 21 as part of the "l’étroite coordination entre les forces de la coalition internationale" ("close coordination between the forces of the international coalition").[26] All French operations are given as part of Opération Harmattan, until 06:00 GMT on March 31 when NATO took command of "l’ensemble des opérations menées en Libye" ("all operations in Libya") and "Ces opérations sont désormais conduites sous le nom Unified Protector" ("These operations are now conducted under the name Unified Protector).[27] This does not support and indeed contradicts the GlobalSecurity.org claims. Only the French destroyer Forbin is part of OD, having been transferred to JTF Odyssey Dawn and AFRICOM command on March 28. The British Ministry of Defence states that "The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn]."[28] ShipFan (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article is terrible in comparison to the others.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. invented the name Operation Odyssey Dawn and is thus authoritative regarding its meaning. Also the UK, France, and Canada respectively invented the names Ellamy, Harmattan, and Mobile, and they are thus respectively authoritative regarding the meanings of those names. According to the U.S., UK, France, and Canada, who are respectively authorities for just the names that they each respectively invented, the coalition operation is Odyssey Dawn, UK's part is Ellamy, France's part is Harmattan, and Canada's is Mobile. See Operation names. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the MoD,

What is the name of the Operation? The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn].

— http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/MilitaryOperations/LibyaOperationEllamyQuestionsAndAnswers.htm

Odyssey Dawn is only the US codename for their operations i.e. they implicitly reject the use of Odyssey Dawn for any kind of overarching reference to UK operations. The French Ministry of Defence refers to Odyssey Dawn as well as merely the US participation (specifically the name of the task force).

Le 21 mars, l’amiral Samuel J. Locklear, commandant de la Joint Task Force US « Odyssey Dawn », [emphasis mine] s’est rendu à bord du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle . L’amiral Locklear dirige l’état-major embarqué à bord du bâtiment de commandement américain USS Mount Whitney en opérations au large de la Libye.

— http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/autres-operations/operation-harmattan-libye/actualites/task-force-473-visite-du-commandant-de-la-jtf-odyssey-dawn-a-bord-du-charles-de-gaulle

On the basis of both quotes it seems evident there's a conflict between the various different ministries/departments. To state anything more than that the US is using the name Odyssey Dawn for its operations (which we can verify) violates WP:NPOV as it implicitly involves us claiming that the MoD and MdlD are wrong. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, in my previous message I already addressed nearly all the points in your recent message when they were put forth by you previously. I can add that in the one instance that you mentioned of a UK MoD comment about Operation Odyssey Dawn, the wording of that statement does not rule out the possibility that Odyssey Dawn is also the US name for the coalition operation, as stated by the U.S. Dept. of Defense. Perhaps it would help if I directed you to another quote from the UK MoD FAQ source, "What is the chain of command? This operation is currently under US command...".[29] Remember, this is the UK's position. With this in mind, and from the specific statement from the additional source GlobalSecurity.com, the UK should be listed in the infobox as a belligerent in the coalition's Operation Odyssey Dawn. 75.47.147.68 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't addressed those points, you've made various arguments nearly all of which have involved placing unusual interpretations on fairly specific statements. Regarding the MoD quote, it may not rule out it being the name being used by the DoD for the coalition. It does rule out that UK forces are part of Odyssey Dawn (at least in the MoD's eyes) or that the UK recognises it as an overarching name quite explicitly (to paraphrase, 'our operation is called ELLAMY, their operation is called Odyssey Dawn' kind of implies (what with the seperate names and all) that they're seperate operations). Listing Canada, France and the UK under Odyssey Dawn violates our policy on neutral point of view - we're not qualified to say that the defence ministries of 3 seperate countries are wrong and don't know who is in command of their forces nor what the title of their operations are. When they say that ELLAMY/MOBILE/Harmattan are their contributions to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 (which they have and we can cite them doing so), we can use that to reference their being contributions to the enforcement of Resolution 1973 not Odyssey Dawn as that's not what they said. I'd also advise you to consider WP:SYNTH, which would also address your chain of command point (which also involves ignoring specific statements fromn the MoD (that operational authority is specifically in the hands of the PJHQ, not the US DoD) and the French MdlD (that there is no overall chain of command, instead co-ordinated actions involving numerous country-level command centres)). Taking a general quote "this operation is currently under US command" (which as I've pointed out is inherently contradicted in the specifics by quotes regarding command authority being vested in several RN/RAF commanders or there not being an overall chain of command) and interpreting it to mean "the US is unilaterally entitled to decide the name for the entire international coalitions' involvement and any specific statements from national ministries that inherently contradict this should be refomulated so that they fit in with a predetermined argument" is synthesis. - Chrism would like to hear from you 04:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments. There is no violation of WP:SYNTH because the UK as a belligerent in Odyssey Dawn is properly supported by the GlobalSecurity.org source I provided. (Also note that WP:SYNTH applies to the article page, not the talk page; furthermore, don't misquote me.) There is no violation of WP:NPOV because the UK does not contradict this and because the view of the UK MoD is that the US was in command of the operation, which was clearly stated. The problem is in your interpretation of the UK MoD source, going beyond what it says about Odyssey Dawn, and especially your interpretation that the UK statement “This operation is currently under US command..." means something other than the operation is under US command. Here’s another UK source regarding US command of UK operations: William Hague: 'Gaddafi regime in for a surprise' (March 25, 2011) BBC. At 00:40 - Interviewer, "...who has operational command of the various sorties we are currently seeing involving UK forces?" British Foreign Secretary Hague's response, "They are under a US command..." 75.47.159.190 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)

Firstly, I didn't misquote you, I paraphrased you. Secondly, yes SYNTH only applies to article pages. So if you add UK/France/Canada forces to the Odyssey Dawn article page, that is prohibited by our policy on synthesis. I'm glad you agree with my interpretation and won't be adding this conflicted claim to the article. And to claim that I'm taking statements and twisting them beyond their literal interpretation is mildly amusing. You're twisting "This operation is currently under US command..." into "this operation is called Odyssey Dawn" which is not what the MoD and MdlF says (a point you have repeatedly ignored).

This is apparently the first time London, Paris and Washington have failed to come up with a unified chain of command for the operation.
Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion."
This unprecedented, three-pronged command is reflected in the different names for the operation: The French are calling it Harmattan (the name of a hot wind that blows over the Sahara); in Britain, it is Operation Ellamy; and in the US, it is Odyssey Dawn.

[30] - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm becoming depressingly aware how apposite this cartoon is atm. Ho hum. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see any progress in your remarks, use of the sources, or interpretation of my remarks, to which you have added the false claim that I agree with you regarding your synth allegations. I stand by my previous remarks. Maybe you should reread them. The news media excerpt that you provided says that France and UK each had its own name for “the operation”, but their respective websites said that the names were for their participation. The part that says, “There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion.”, has been addressed in my previous message. 75.47.159.190 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point out exactly where you've addressed the explicit statement that their is no overall chain of command and how this doesn't contradict your claim there is an overall chain of command. Or indeed the numerous references showing the multiple operations are seperate from each other if co-ordinated to mean that they are not seperate from each other but that 3 are components of one larger. Regardless of the quote from globalsecurity.org. it conflicts with multiple statements from multiple reliable sources, and any attempt to 'interpret' them so as to be compatible is where we start heading into OR/SYNTH tertritory. Regardless, I fail to see the point in continuing to argue over this as it's quite clear from the responses from not just myself but several other users that there is no consensus for including particpants in ELLAMY/Harmattan/MOBILE under the Odyssey Dawn banner nor does it seem likely that any such consensus is likely given you're the only person who seems to be pushing this viewpoint. Chrism would like to hear from you 17:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I could respond to your points, but I think it would only prolong this very long discussion that is just between the two of us and is becoming acrimonius, instead of heading towards agreement. Maybe it's best to leave it to others who may want to pick up our discussion. How do you feel about that? 75.47.152.181 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On that, I can fully agree with you. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)