Talk:Operation Odyssey Dawn

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

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

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Africa: Libya Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

UK forces restored to Deployed forces section according to policy WP:Verifiability

UK forces have been restored to the Deployed forces section per WP:V. It is supported by a reliable source[1] and removal would be a violation of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability which states,

”The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”

75.47.159.107 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Terrible article. Why not remove Operation Ellamy then? Perhaps the brits mispelled Odyssey Dawn as Ellamy (after all there is E and A in the spelling). This is pure American-biased. That is why I say other dictionaries are better.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your argument I have proposed a deletion for Operation Ellamy. That will satisfy you even more will it not?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:I started Operation Ellamy thirty minutes after it was announced on the news. It was the first of the Libyan Operations on Wikipedia (although that's not a strong point). Operation Ellamy is fully sourced and fully compatable with WP:Verifiability. I don't see why it needs deleting in my honest opinion. Jaguar (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was prodding them since therie are so fixed on saying British Forces are under US Command.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding your wrong material, answer first my questions above IP. THEN you my add any stuff you think you're one source knows better than the MOD and AFRICOM ecc. noclador (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to back keeping the British and French forces out of the US article, based on the multiple reasons given, I agree with the established consensus. I would say to 75.47 that their proposal has been defeated. Time to move on or seek mediation. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP continues to insist British Forces were under US command, I will keep him/her happy by proposing deleting Operation Ellamy and Mobile and Harmattan.IE: Get it right!Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I believe a better way to stop the IP on insisting librarians know military operations better then MOD, AFRICOM, DOD ecc. is a semi-protection of Operation Odyssey Dawn. noclador (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should also get an account instead of hide behind it.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 20

Hello source 20 (the Bloomberg news one) is used to buttress the following claim:

However, NATO's objectives do not include aiding the rebel forces' efforts to take control of territory currently held by Gaddafi.

I'm not sure if this is still up to date. Does anybody have a newer source that address this?--Dark Charles 06:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NATO and Germany

Command passed to NATO after the buildup. But in the listing of Nations and forces/ military equipment, it show NO direct participation by Germany. (some indirect and US forces through bases in German). Does any one have any ideas of why on this? Thanks in advance. Wfoj2 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No direct German participation is listed because there was no direct participation by Germany in either Odyssey Dawn (first and foremost a US operation anyways) or Unified Protector (the NATO mission). Germany abstained in the vote for military action at the United Nations and chose not to directly participate in military actions against Libya. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with previous commentators, this page is absolute rubbish and should be deleted. The Americans had little to do with this military operation and Obama and the US were made an international laughing stock by the reluctance to get involved - it was BRITISH and FRENCH-led. Now an article has been written by another hysterical Yank going "US Control", US Control" like an idiot. And writes the Main Players, Britain and France, from the conflict completely! This Wikipedia website is simply American propaganda-I hope it goes down. 31.108.28.195 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

The bulk of the criticism section does not relate any criticism from RS, but is original research attempting to contradict the WHPS's statements on regime change. I'm not going to remove it with an IP edit, but someone needs to. There's no need for OR when there are so many sources critical of every aspect of this topic. Perhaps this section should just gracefully point to the article full of criticisms regarding OD.50.147.26.108 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Establishing these conditions would pave the way for a genuine political transition – of which Qadhafi's departure is a critical component..." If, as it would appear, whole quote is pro-US, politically-driven and self-justifying, then why is it within the 'Criticism' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.144.66 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: Perhaps the section should be renamed, "In Defense of US Policy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.144.66 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Odyssey Dawn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/spanish-fighter-jets-complete-first-patrol-over-libya.html?cmpid=yhoo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Discussion on Talk:War on terror

There is a discussion at Talk:War on terror#2011 war in Libya about whether Operation Odyssey Dawn and the wider 2011 military intervention in Libya is part of the war on terror. Please join if you are interested. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]