Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 7
This is an archive of past discussions about Libyan civil war (2011). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Ras Lanuf in Rebel Hands.
AFP reports that Ras Lanuf is firmly in rebel hands. [1] Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Rebel plane shot down
I am considering a RFC for this because I think that the Rebel plane shoot down is notable yet it continues to get excluded and castrated in content.
I think it is notable because
- 1: lots of reliable sources reported on the event (also,the photo is also used often on TV News background imagery)[1][2][3][4][5]
- 2: its the only info for Readers disclosing that the Rebels have planes,
- 3: it is the only incident where REBELS are claimed to have violated the no fly zone;
Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is reported in several other articles, so it not being given greater prominence here isn't so much of an issue, but I would support your view in this. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's ok to give this incident it's own header in the article. It was just a passing event that didn't have any later implications. -- Rafy talk 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Rafy - Kim Sengupta , The Independents excellent journalist commented on it as a tragic example of the indiscipline and ineptitude of the rebels but in the broad sweep of events , it is just a passing, regrettable , loss. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is but one element in the conflict, a small one at that. Friendly fire is a frequent result in warfare, the only reason this got much attention is because of some absolutely fabulous photography of the incident. It being mentioned in the article via a one line statement is sufficient in my mind. It certainly doesn't need it's own section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, its only incident of using airplane after UN declaration of no-fly zone. Since that Galeb was destroyed on the ground. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- It should definitely be mentioned. Giving it an entirely different section is silly. SDY (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which section and/or sub-section do you think it should go in? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it should stay in the timeline. The picture is however spectacular and should be included in the main article as to show the amount of confusion and lack of coordination on the rebel's side. -- Rafy talk 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which section and/or sub-section do you think it should go in? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've incorporated the rebel aircraft downing into the timeline text, deleting the section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- ok, that is a reasonable way to do it. It fits in pretty well now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just spent quite awhile trying to figure out what happened to the image. Does anyone know? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- There was apparently a copyright issue with the image. It was removed from the commons earlier today.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Do you have any links to that discussion? I do not know how I can track it(the discussion) down. anyone? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- No discussion, speedy deletion.[6] --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have a look today and see if there is a version of the photo that is appropriate for wikipedia. There may be one from a resident and not a news agency.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- No discussion, speedy deletion.[6] --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Do you have any links to that discussion? I do not know how I can track it(the discussion) down. anyone? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- There was apparently a copyright issue with the image. It was removed from the commons earlier today.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I just spent quite awhile trying to figure out what happened to the image. Does anyone know? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Helpful Image and data
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usarmyafrica/4621394806/
- The image is under a creative commons attrib
- This link has an image of a US general with perhaps top Libyan Commanders - now obviosuly if we are able to match their faces,etc and their details and loyalties, it will help expand articles about various belligrent commanders,etc
- No Khamis Gaddafi in it though!
--Pranav (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
It's good stuff.Wipsenade (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Romania
In the main article text is lists Romania as a country opposed to the no-fly zone, but in the side panel Romania is recorded as a country supporting the aerial campaign. Which is correct? Saccerzd (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Romania is a co-belligerent and has contributed to international military operations off the Libyan coast. As far as I know, it has not yet committed to sending planes to the no-fly zone, but it didn't hold up the transfer of responsibility for the aerial campaign to NATO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I herd they had sent a patrole boat and a frigate, but no planes. Wipsenade (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Update map to show airtrikes/movements?
Rather than just recoloring the cities time and time again, which makes it difficult to track the exact course of progress - and completely excludes any representation of NATO / UN actions...shouldn't we consider adding icons to the map to display these things? 76.230.58.80 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
we cannot squeeze the entire timeline of the conflict in a thumbnailed map image. for details, as always, people need to read the actual article. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Counter terrorism category?
Why is there the category "Counter terrorism in Libya" in the article?. Nothing related seems to be mentioned in the article either. It isn't even clear whether the one who included intended to describe Gaddafi as a terrorist or the rebels or what. Munci (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Getting focus off Gaddafi tribe and back onto uprising/conflict
There should be evenly balanced concentration of references to the names of each the GSPLAJ and Jalil warlord groups.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- WP:KISS, Superb. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have simplified terminology of the nature 'pro-Gaddafi', 'anti-Gaddafi', to GSPLAJ and LJ. The three largest combatant groups are foreigners, pro-LJ Jalilist guerillas and Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya defence forces. Names of the warlord Mustafa Abdul Jalil and others from the multiple participants are still seen there in the military conflict infobox— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- I'm afraid this change violated WP:ORIGINAL and I have reverted it. I have seen absolutely no official use of the Gaddafist neologism "jamahiriya" (which does not translate to "republic" from Arabic) by the rebel government, nor has the conflict been defined by a consensus of sources as between loyalists of Jeleil and otherwise; it has, conversely, been defined as a conflict between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces, as in supporters and opponents of the guy who has created a personality cult that defined Libyan culture for 42 years. The acronyms are also WP:ORIGINAL; no media I have seen, and certainly not a consensus of reliable sources, have used "GSPLAJ" or "LJ". The inaccurate "Libyan Jamahiriya" label for your "warlord" faction is easily confused with "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", accepted international shorthand for the nation claimed by Gaddafi's regime, in addition to having no basis in factual reality. I think your change is ambitious and well-meaning, but it fails the criteria for defining style within this article. It's a potpourri of original research, factual inaccuracies, and misleading monikers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- re. above IP: It is this blocked users IP. noclador (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this change violated WP:ORIGINAL and I have reverted it. I have seen absolutely no official use of the Gaddafist neologism "jamahiriya" (which does not translate to "republic" from Arabic) by the rebel government, nor has the conflict been defined by a consensus of sources as between loyalists of Jeleil and otherwise; it has, conversely, been defined as a conflict between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces, as in supporters and opponents of the guy who has created a personality cult that defined Libyan culture for 42 years. The acronyms are also WP:ORIGINAL; no media I have seen, and certainly not a consensus of reliable sources, have used "GSPLAJ" or "LJ". The inaccurate "Libyan Jamahiriya" label for your "warlord" faction is easily confused with "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", accepted international shorthand for the nation claimed by Gaddafi's regime, in addition to having no basis in factual reality. I think your change is ambitious and well-meaning, but it fails the criteria for defining style within this article. It's a potpourri of original research, factual inaccuracies, and misleading monikers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have simplified terminology of the nature 'pro-Gaddafi', 'anti-Gaddafi', to GSPLAJ and LJ. The three largest combatant groups are foreigners, pro-LJ Jalilist guerillas and Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya defence forces. Names of the warlord Mustafa Abdul Jalil and others from the multiple participants are still seen there in the military conflict infobox— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Is he User:HanzoHattori under another name. User HanzoHattori screwed about on the Egyptian pages resently.Wipsenade (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
New page for Iman al-Obaidi - woman who claimed rape in front of Western journalists?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-woman-offers-glimpse-into-workings-of-gaddafi-government/2011/03/26/AFhBEbdB_story.html I'm thinking she is notable. For or against? Pär Larsson (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- : already done: Iman al-Obeidinoclador (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its a disturbing incident being widely reported. It should go in here somewhere because it all apparently happened because she is from Benghazi and was taken at a checkpoint; both being related to the conflict.
[7] [8] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- As unfortunate a situation it might be, I doubt it meets the notability guidelines. As mentioned for a number of issues, this is an overview article and not meant to capture every element. I don't see this as worthy for mention in the main article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Perhaps you could specify which part of the notability guidelines you doubt it meets? I can certainly provide dozens of RS articles and videos to show the notability so I believe the exclusion argument needs to be explained in more detail. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- If we included everything, relating to this conflict, that had a reliable source this article would be massive. It likely is notable enough for it's own page but we unfortunately have to pick and choose what content represents the conflict as a whole. I'm fine with the it being included as a symbol or example, which is how it's done now. But a line and a bit is certainly sufficient. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- ok, that sounds reasonable to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Perhaps you could specify which part of the notability guidelines you doubt it meets? I can certainly provide dozens of RS articles and videos to show the notability so I believe the exclusion argument needs to be explained in more detail. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sirte claimed by rebels.
Change to either "rebel held area" or "area of conflict"? Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132681812362552.html
- AFP reports -9.15 am London time - 'rebel advance halted 85 miles east of Sirte' -John Simpson said too that a journalist he spoke to driving round the town, says it is Gaddafi held still. Sayerslle (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You are right. So far as I am writing the rebels are still far from Sirte, so we don't need to change the color of the point right now. When (if) they will reach Sirte and there will be an ongoing conflict to take it, we can change to area of conflict. So far in the city there is not conflict yet.MaXiMiLiAnO 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)
Kadaffi has just kikied them out again [[9]]! Wipsenade (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
EuroNews is reporting that the city is now in rebel control and has video to prove it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16f_1301319596 128.227.12.67 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in that video that indicates that any of it was shot in Sirt. Alfons Åberg (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone confused it with as Sidr. 95.32.130.28 (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Fovezer, 29 March 2011
Edit protected Per the consensus reached above, I request al-Qaeda be removed from the infobox as a belligerent for the Libyan rebels. The sources provided in no way support al-Qaeda's inclusion as a group that is an active and significant belligerent. In fact, most evidence indicates there is no organized presence, see [10] The consensus was to move mention of al-Qaeda giving verbal support to the "International reaction" section, even though it is already covered in the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article.
estimates and statistics
is there an information about the percent of Libyan people opposing Gaddafi and percent of those supporting him. thanks. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't mean this to sound like what you're saying is silly, but I don't think anyone has been able to conduct polls about it among the Libyan people. Too much else is going on for them to think about doing such things. Also, I doubt most people would answer honestly for fear of being arrested by one side or the other anyway. Ahmed Q. Libyan: "Gadaffi is a pig" Caller: "Shukran, your opinion is valued." *a few minutes later soldiers show up* At least that is what many would think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi has only 10k to 12k troops?
How could editors build this article to such an extent while leaving this weird figure in the main infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't Know mate.Wipsenade (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: move to 2011 Libyan civil war. There are actually three questions here: whether to rename from "uprising" to "civil war," whether to capitalize "Civil War," and whether to keep "2011" at the front. I'll take them in turn. There is a large majority of !votes here for renaming to some form of "civil war." Some of the pro-"uprising" editors claim there are not reliable sources for the term "civil war," but CNN, the Red Cross, and President Obama have all used the term, and that's strong enough for me. What's not clear is whether this is locked into being a historical term like "French Revolution" or "Korean War." It sure doesn't seem to be. So while it looks like a Libyan civil war, it doesn't yet look like the Libyan Civil War. As for whether to keep "2011" at the front, I decided it needed to remain because the Libya article says "As Yusuf weakened, factions sprung up around his three sons; though Yusuf abdicated in 1832 in favor of his son Ali II, civil war soon resulted." While I doubt we'll see a 1832 Libyan civil war article soon, it is plausible that we could need to distinguish on this basis. So for now it stays. It's highly likely this article's name will change again, of course. That's a consequence of editing articles about current events.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Update. A few minutes after I closed this, another editor listed it for a move to 2011 Libyan conflict. A close is not an invitation for an immediate relist. The next logical step, if objections exist, is to take the discussion to WP:DRV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, this page wasn't deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanmaq (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested move discussion
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Requested move 1 -- to "Libyan Civil War"
2011 Libyan uprising → Libyan Civil War — Now that Gaddafi's forces have started to retake cities, it's clear that this will be a drawn-out conflict as both sides take and re-take cities. 70.244.234.128 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Comment to closing admin - please also be aware of the discussion at at a second requested move which I procedurally speedy closed (for reasons I give in that request). Dpmuk (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Survey
Possible manipulation of this survey. As you can see here, a bunch of unsigned and other "supports" have been thrown in near the top of this survey. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk)
-Support Every conflict is a war, is it not? (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC
Possible manipulation of this survey. As you can see here, a bunch of unsigned "supports" have been thrown in near the top of this survey. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Support: As UN,US,UK,France and many other countries have joined the war, military bases are destroyed by air strikes, this should be called a war.</n>
I didn't get that idea from above, I was the one who re-posted it from above because the old discussion got archived (too much **** getting moved around lol). My assessment of WP:COMMONNAME is my own, but as has been pointed out here the examples given on that page are largely irrelvant to this debate (my only intent was to get people to stop citing WP:COMMONNAME and to actually have a substanative discussion instead of slinging WP:COMMONNAME back and forth at eachother). As for the google hits, compare: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=426&q=libyan+civil+war&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=2f6b3bb843eff3dd to http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&biw=1024&bih=426&q=libyan+uprising&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=2f6b3bb843eff3dd I personally don't think google hits matter worth a ****, I was just again throwing that out there to end the slinging of google hits back and forth. My point about the current name is exactly what I said it was, no one is calling it the "2011 libyan uprising" and hence the name is inadequate (if people are allowed to say "no one is calling it a civil war" then its equally relevent to point out that no one is identifying it as the "2011 libyan uprising"). My point is the current name is inadequate either way. Its not as if this event happened yesterday and no one knows what it is. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
130.228.251.10 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment As it stands now: 29 support, 13 oppose, I think we need to establish some criteria here or else theres never gonna be any consensus and this is going to turn into an endurance match. The rebels losing streak and the no-fly zone are potential game changers, so I say we archive this talk and leave it for 4 weeks and see what happens. If the rebels have a come back then I think its safe to say that this is going to be a back and forth conflict and not some short burst of fighting that dies out (that would end part of the debate for both sides). Similarly, if the no fly-zone does or does not end the fighting then I think that would give us another strong indication of where things are going. I think we should all recognize that definitions of civil war, google hits, and WP:COMMONNAME are not gonna solve this issue. Media sources can go either way on this, so I also think that we should all recognize that no consensus will come from there either. So, as I say, lets leave it for 4 weeks and let these unknowns be answered before we proceed. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
--Wipsenade (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Water14 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Right now the latest news reports call it "unrest" and "conflict"; not a "civil war" in sight. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(in this point Huandy618 --Sarurah is 100% right) Plz be patient and read until the end to fully understand my intention plz plz plz -What happened in Wikipedia during past events in other Arab countries is naming those events protests at first, then uprising if there were clahes and deaths, and revolution at the end if oppositin movement successed in overthrowing the roling regime .and this is a big mistake Because: 1- many of world events,has been called revolution even after they have failed, and without taking into account the length of turbulant time (for Example the Russian revolution failed in 1905 and was short period.) On the other side french revolution succeeded was long . 2011 Tunisian revolution succeeded and it was short revolution .all have been named revolution. 2-Civil war is a fight between two (or more) factions of population, each faction have own militia(s) who are fighting each other. in the case of revolution, militia(s) are fighting against the regime/army only + demonstration are directed against poling regime/dictator ,not againt particular population group 3-in case of The 1789 French Revolution for example there has been clashes with the Louis 16 and later clashes between rhe new republican regime and monarchist forces, nonetheless it called Revolution Because it is between two forces and not between groups of comunity (notice for example: conflict Fatah- Hamas conflict) 4- one another example : Lebanese civil war : why it is civil war?becaue it occurred between various militias fighting each other upon different religious and ethnic topics but in the Libyan case, there is no justification for calling it civil war (no one says that fighting is on the basis of religious or ethnic or even separatist ground) 5-most important of all (( Libyan civil war)) is promoting by Libyan stete media and regime trying to prove that there are two peoples ,two wills :one with him and the other against . even though there is no (pro gaddafi militia) that opposing ( against Gaddafi militia) .it is just his army and prepaid mercenaries and special forces of his own children 6-most of media coverage for events is in Arab media networks, and not in western one ,becaue events are located in there own region .a prove is 24 hours arab interest in topic coverage that u notice in streets ,and search resault about( Libyan revolution) in Arabic, there is 30 million article search result for libyan revolution in arabic
8- the word conflict is very unspecific, u can understand it like Armed or unarmed conflict ,even Just tension. 9-libyans ,Egyptians and other feel it gave more French revolution-oriented meaning to call their actions revolution than calling it riot,clah,civil war or even violenct actions. the one and the excat name for this article should be 2011 libyan revolution Please support the ( 2011 libyan revolution) naming if u agreed with my view point .if not reply why Sorry for my bad English, because my native language is Arabic And Plz ,focus more on the content . human lover
Strongly Support: Its a war, this is because other countries are involved. Like with the Spanish civil war other nations got involved. With this though its the French. They want NATO to take over, but that means U.S. troops. So to be truthful send in the French. All they do is talk big and brag about how America is scum. So, lets see them lose thousands of men instead of us for once. Now this is my opinion and mine only. But to be truthful, we have saved France now twice, and we are the only ones in the world to stand up for whats right and do the dirty work. So lets see dem Frenchies fighting! Strong Support I did a google search for Libyan Civil War and received 19 million hits I then did a google search for Libyan Uprising and received 10 million hits. I do believe that we could change the title to Libyan Civil War and we would support common consensus about what the name should be.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how it is that the article hasn't been renamed yet. A rough count of this survey shows 80+ "supports" to around 25-35 "opposes". Doesn't that amount to a consensus? Or does it require the survey to be closed first?72.27.0.38 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support There are political parties involved in the uprising, a foreign power has intervened, there are other conflicts that only lasted several months and they are labeled a civil war, see Finnish Civil War, the Dominican Civil War and the 1994 civil war in Yemen. This is a civil war, as is defined here on Wikipedia as "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic." This definitely meets those specifications. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Strong support. Many reliable sources now refer to the conflict as a civil war, which was not the case during my last vote against changing the name of the article. Also, as the situation on the ground has become more clear over time, at present I believe that "civil war" is actually a significantly more neutral name than "uprising." That is, the title "Libyan uprising" now, with more data available, appears potentially POV in that it could been interpreted as implying that the situation in Benghazi, surely a popular uprising in that regional context, characterizes the armed conflict in the entire country of Libya, when the reality is much more complicated. Credible reports indicate that Gaddafi does retain significant support in western Libya, especially in Tripoli. A regional, tribal, and religious conflict between different groups in the same country may include "uprisings" within it, but it is surely not accurate to portray the situation in its entirety as an "uprising." Contrary to my vote several weeks ago, I believe it is now appropriate to move the article, immediately. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I think we should close the survey, its been open too long and we have more than enough answers --Gimelthedog (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Support. Right now it's a civil war, no doubt about it, two factions within one state each claiming sovereignty, and at war with each other. Right now it's a civil war, but after the rebels win it will become a revolution. Certainly not an "uprising" Rab777hp (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Close Discussion there is an overwhelming majority of people who support the move now.Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Comment - As far as neutral, I think the word 'conflict' is more neutral than the choice of either uprising or civil war. When Western powers are throwing more armament into the fight than anyone else, and when they are freezing assets and looking to redistribute them to people willing to overthrow the long-time leader, it isn't a civil war, it is a ten-foot-pole invasion. (in other words they don't want it to look like what it might be). The only new title I would support at this time is '2011 Libyan conflict', but I'm in no hurry. -- Avanu (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Among many other sources, Gen. Wesley Clark also now calls it a "civil war".[20] Esn (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the intention of the Libyans is to overthrow the current government, this makes the situation an uprising or a rebellion. Civil war generally applies to situations where existing geopolitical factions are trying to secede. This fight has all the characteristics of an uprising: untrained volunteer forces, new councils that are inclusive, and a well-armed government that is not willing to relinquish power. In case of a victory by the rebels, the events would be considered a revolution and not the end of a civil war. The difference is huge. The Western media is less comfortable with armed uprisings. They want to show people waving flowers as they're beaten down by government forces. The Libyan situation is no different than Egypt or Tunisia, it's just taking a longer time and they have had to resort to armed rebellion because Gadaffi is committed to staying in power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.175.239 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's still too early to call it a war. It's been going on for a few weeks, and if crushed quickly nobody will look back in history and call it a war. Also I have issue with the fact that it isn't being fought between two organised armies in the way that characterised the American or English civil wars. I know that experts have been quoted as saying it's a war, as have newspapers, and surely there will also be many which haven't, and disagree. I really don't think that quoting one general or one lecturer implies that mainstream expert opinion is calling it a war. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that a fair amount of opposition to the terminology "civil war" is that it hasn't been going on for that long. Who said a civil war had to drag on for months or years? An ordinary, interstate war doesn't have to last very long to be considered such (a very notable one lasted only six days); why does a civil war have to be any different? After all, "civil war" merely means that the conflict is restricted to people from one country. Since at least a few notable and reliable sources are calling it a civil war, it is not synthesis, let alone OR, to term it as such. Get a move on. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Civil war? let history decide its been about a month, its all about time, people are simple if its short is an uprising if takes a while its a civil war, lets leave well enough alone for now...--168.105.124.132 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't heard an 'official type sources' call it a civil war, just concerns about it descending into a civil war. iow, we're not there yet - and with any luck, we won't get there, either. Flatterworld (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It was and still is a civil war between two seperate groups in a country. But now that the UN is involved it is neither a civil war or uprising. I think "Libyan War" would fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.194.126 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a civil war, however, some civil wars don't need to be called that esp. separatist ones. The debate is about if there is another title that deserves the be labeled for this war. Just remember that. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh, why is the article called "2011 Libyan civil war" instead of "2011 Libyan Civil War"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.133.196.14 (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 2011 Libyan Civil War or Libyan Civil WarLibya is not America. It probably had more then one civil war -- and there is a debate about if the Civil War was even a civil war(but leaving that aside). Thus, it would be much better to call it the "2011 Libyan Civil War" instead of the Libyan Civil War. However, please change it from the 2011 Libyan uprising to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Is this the first time Wikipedia has named a war? Also, I will be in favour(I don't like my Britsh-biased spell-checker) of calling it the 2011 Libyan Revolutionary War
Support Per above Baseball Watcher 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory': Lybian National Transitional Council control part of the country. The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory: Lybian National Transitional Council has overthown loyalists authorities (mayors for example)in their cities and have replaced them with rebel-elected authorities. The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent: Lybian National Transitional Council not only enjoy recognition as belligerent but official recognition as Government by France, Arab League, Portugal, United Kingdom and Italy. The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military: Gadaffi, since the beginning of the conflict, has used Lybian Army to crush the rebels and to fight against National Transitional Council. The number of casualties in the conflict must be over 1,000.: Since the beginning of the conflict, the death toll has reached more than 8,000 dead. These were my arguments on behalf to call this conflict as Lybian Civil War. Thanks. S.V.B.E.E.V. (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
An uprising, to me anyway, seems to be more so a coup d'etat in which there is no real conflict other than a quick regime change (like the French did in the opening phase of the French Revolution). In this case both sides have vowed to fight a long and bloody war so I think Libyan Civil War (2011) is how it should read (2011 does not need to be in front of the Libyan whatever you want to call it). Out of all the news reports I have read about this conflict, none of them call it an uprising and all of them call it a war, because it is not a foreign conflict (at least initially) it is a civil war so calling it a civil war is not misleading, it's simply calling it what it is. Yes wiki does not name conflicts but the name of an article should reflect what the article is about. The war in Libya was an uprising initially but it has clearly expanded to a full scale military conflict.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a conflict or uprising or civil war…, It is a revolution .Human lover (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Do it alreadyThe article already calls it a civil war so could some admin move it, Wikipedians are being patient but are losing it. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Support As a person who makes a study of History, the actual term for what is going on in Libya is Revolutionary War. Popular revolts come in phases of increasing severity which can succeed or be crushed at any point. These phases are roughly described as
2. Popular Uprising- The crowds get angry, start torching things, throwing rocks, and otherwise violently demanding an end to the regime 3. Civil division- The foundations of the state and government crack, with various factions forming. This happens when the ruling power fails to gain control of the situation or else bow to popular demands.
4. War- This happens when the ruling powers fail to gain control, meet popular demands, but still retain a level of support in the country. We are at the final phase. In history its been referred to by various titles. Revolutionary War, Rebellion, and Civil War. Civil War however, denotes a fight between existing power structures, not an effort to change the system totally. It is why the American Civil War was called such, and not the Second American Revolutionary War. Of course, what the layman calls something and what it actually is is often very different. However, this is most definitely a war. Calling it a Civil War like everything else would be much more accurate then just "Uprising". We are well past that. In the case of simply calling it a Revolution, I would refer everyone to Wikipedia's own articles on the American Revolutionary War, which make a distinction between the political developments (the revolution) and the War (the military developments). It might be wiser to have two different articles. One for the military fighting (the war) and one for the political results (the revolution) as is the case with the American Revolution ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Strongly Oppose "Libyan Uprising" is a perfect name for the article - it fits both the military and peaceful protest aspects of the events. Also, a civil war is between two factions in one country, however, foreign mercenaries as well as coalition forces have entered the battle. So I think Libyan Uprising is suitable. Civil war does not make sense at all and calling it a war means you'll be ignoring the peaceful protest aspects of the uprising. Thanks. Andalus7 (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not a civil warEditors are proposing a move to civil war but can it still be called a civil war with UN involvement as by definition a civil war is a war within a country? Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Support this has gone beyond the realm of uprising, which is usually used in terms of an upswelling of public sentiment/action/etc, and into the realm of a potentially protracted military engagement between two factions, both ostensibly having organized political structures (regardless of the relative complexity thereof). Even with the external military intervention, this is already turned into a struggle between two organized and armed factions for control of the country. Initial outbreak of rebel activity has been countered and now the two sides are hunkered in for the duration. This is, militarily, a civil war situation. Politically, both sides have at least the framework of an organized body politic, and are expressly competing for control of the country. If it was merely crowds of residents storming Qaddafi's palace and beheading him, it would be one thing. That's not the situation. This is not a loosely organized mass, these are two organized fighting forces and political bodies. It's a civil War. Whether there's fighting in Tripoli is irrelevant. Jbower47 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC) The Situation Has Changed So Much Since The Discussion Was OpenedI am looking through all the comments of this discussion and I don't really see no consensus to move the article. However the event going on is still current and the situation changed, for one thing more countries got involved with the conflict and it's hard to say what it is going on, also making early comments in the discussion invalid, probally requiring a realist of the discussion or a no consensus close. I think the question is right now is: Is this still considered an Uprising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.94 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Let's move it alreadyCounting the opinions above, I find 92 people in support, of which 33 'strongly' or 'absolutely', of moving the article to Libyan Civil War, and 28 people opposing, of which 4 'strongly'. There is thus overwhelming support for the move. Let's do it already. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
10 days since this RM began. Since 10 days ago, a consensus to move the article has emerged and now we are just engaging in endless discussion that is going nowhere. What is taking so long? An admin should be BOLD and move the article already. --Tocino 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Support, for the 800th time This has seriously become a joke, the vast majority of people who have commented here have wanted to rename this, a number which has only increased since the UN intervention. The majority of news sources have referred to this as a civil war, it is a civil war by all definitions. This is by far the most retarded debate over a name that I have ever seen on wikipedia, and it is being continued by a select few people who were opposed to it in the begining and continue to comment and argue with the people who do support it simply because THEIR chosen source has never referred to it as such or they're holding out for some elusive common name which for political reasons is never going to occur in the lifetime of the conflict. Pull your head out of your ass people. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be a Civil War Right Now Without International Intervention?Not likely, it would, according to the Reliable Sources, be all over with Benghazi having been retaken by Gaddafi. Hence, 1+1 equalling 2, to call it a civil war right now one must somehow perform some doublespeak gymnastics to somehow include an international community in the civil war. This is all in response to the various arguments above, but the real important point made by another Editor above is : Wikipedians do not get to decide whether it is a civil war ! and when we do a google news search for "Libya" [22] we get few usages of the term "civil war". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment 1)"Libyan Civil War" outnumbers "Libyan Uprising" on google hits 2) Every intra-state conflict post 1945 has in some way involved a 3rd party or international intervention, whats your point? 3) It doesn't matter if it would be over right now, the point is its not. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC) This entire survey is Editors' Opinions drivenIt is not in any way being driven by the content of Reliable Sources. At this point, 2011 libyan uprising is better than civil war although 2011 libyan conflict would be better and much less biased. I am still waiting for someone to tell me how you can have a civil war when the most powerful and likely the determining participant is an outside "community". The civil war argument is DOA in terms of logic and definition and more importantly the Reliable Sources are not using it in anywhere near enough frequency to necessitate its usage in an encyclopedia. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Requested move 2 -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"
The result of the move request was: speedy procedural close. RM bot can only list one move request per bot at a time so this won't be listed at WP:RM. That makes perfect sense as what would happen if the two discussion reached different conlusions on what the article title should be. Please comment in the above requested move instead. I will leave a note there pointing at this. Dpmuk (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Survey
Discussion
I'd support this when it becomes the most common term. Last I checked it was being used more frequently than civil war. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The word 'conflict' can mean a gazillion things. Armed conflict, unarmed conflict, political conflict, financial conflict, ... Very unspecific. Not useful as an article title. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In here declaring this matter closed I issue findings next to be implemented that:
Tentative compromise: Libyan Revolutionary War (or some variant thereof)It's an odd name, but considering that it's a war (there can be no question about that) and deals with a revolution (or at least an attempted one), it certainly is fitting. I still believe that "civil war" more accurately describes the situation, but considering the virtual ink spilled above, it might be a better option. I recognize this runs into issues with SYNTH, but hey. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The dispute over naming isn't likely to be resolved by introducing another name, the people who oppose "libyan civil war" oppose it because its not a common name, and it is has not been referred to as such through the media. If they think thats true of libyan civil war, then they'll think its even more true of some name pulled out of a hat.174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous. Seriously, "revolutionary war"? That sounds like the propaganda used by the likes of Fidel Castro, Stalin etc. It has no place in a serious description of the events in Libya. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Title challengeI'm just going to go ahead and say it. Everyone else have already put "conflict" and "war' when referring to Libya. Why is Wikipedia still using the term Libyan uprising? What's the point of a discussion to change the name when it's March 26, 2011.. So many people already support it. No change.--24.192.70.167 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Move requestPlease move this article to Libyan civil war. It is not capitalised. CNN has long said it's a civil war.Wipsenade (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) "Libyan conflict" is commoner in news reportsTo follow Dbachmann's methodology from five days ago: "Libyan conflict," as inane as it is, beats the current title, and is probably more strictly accurate. (I'd like "armed conflict" better, but I'm trying to insert an unobjectionable fact here, not an opinion.) Wareh (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Civil War in the pressTelegraph: "Libya's civil war" here, Globe and Mail, here, CNN, here, there's plenty more these are just a few. Let's move the article please. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Note the following (all are from 28 March unless otherwise noted):
At this point, Wikipedia is making a conscious decision not to call it a civil war when most news outlets are calling it a civil war. --TimothyDexter (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC) You're all nucking futsWhy is this such a big deal? Sindragosa (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Grogan?86.25.48.94 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Gadhafi bias
I am concerned by the bias concerning Col’ Gadhafi himself! I agree that he is a human rights abuser and tyrant, but he has had some achievements like his water pipeline. I added to the history section and his personal page a note on women’s rights, his 2006 water pipeline, child poverty in Tripolitania and urban literacy last month. It was deleted from this article, but not his personal article shortly afterwards. I did not condone his nasty ideology, just listed a few achievements. It is unfair to portray all tyrants as intrinsic losers and flops. I even had sources for the water pipeline and poverty levels. Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[28]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dictator. | Nation. | Achievement. |
---|---|---|
Saddam Hussien | Iraq | Roads, woman's rights, less poverty and literacy campaigns. |
Kim Il-sung | N. Korea | Roads, Women's rights, less poverty and literacy campaigns. |
Major General Muhammad Siad Barre | Somalia | Literacy campaigns. |
José Daniel Ortega Saavedra | Nicaragua | Literacy campaigns. |
General Manuel Noriega | Panama | Literacy campaigns. |
General Augusto Pinochet | Chile | Pensions and literacy campaigns. |
General Prosper Avril | Haiti | Tackeled the Voodoo cultists and literacy campaigns. |
Colonel Moammar Ghadaffi | Libya | Woman's rights, |
I don't want it make an obvious violation of WP:NPA.Wipsenade (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- note the article title "2011 Libyan uprising", it is not about his achievements, rule, life, ecc. so, these aspects belong into their respective articles, this article is about the Libyan uprising. noclador (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I noted your note on my comment, but the Ghadaffi bit was just a posative note on this article, not a section.Wipsenade (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then we shall remove also 90% of the History section bashing him. As it stands, the "historical context" is a list of cherry-picked negatives.Ihosama (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oof, there's an evil term, cherry-picking (it comes up a lot in archaeology when you're debunking someone's ridiculous theories about Atlantis being in Ireland etc). If they don't actually add anything to the article, then sure. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not ours to judge - what are the mainstream media and scientific reports saying? Do they mention Mr. Gaddafis achievements? If we cannot read about that elsewhere, we cannot do it here. Otherwise, why not. --Edoe (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the bashing seems to have base in reality. So I see no problem with it per se. But selectively removing positive background while keeping the negative stuff reeks with PR warfare.Ihosama (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, it does. So just make use of good 'ole WP:COMMONSENSE in dealing with it then. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exsactly! :-).Wipsenade (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm re-adding my water pipline bit soon.Wipsenade (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it makes sense to give the reasons for the anger of the libyan rebels. The historical background section isn't meant to be a balanced academic appraisal of Gaddafi's rule, it's meant to explain why people would revolt. 99.251.196.72 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is not. Wikipedia is NOT the publishing house of Tripoli gov nor the Benghazi-based NTC. There were multiple points made about how "poor" Libyans were which is simply not true as far as material wealth goes. The article shall be fully protected to avoid further PR warfare which your comment is a nice example of.Ihosama (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Surely it makes sense to give the reasons for the anger of the libyan rebels. The historical background section isn't meant to be a balanced academic appraisal of Gaddafi's rule, it's meant to explain why people would revolt. 99.251.196.72 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The article is about the 2011 Libyan uprising! Do the people riot because Gaddafi built some water pipeline? Of course not! Please add only material that is relevant to the current events. noclador (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The article is actually about the 2011 Libyan civil war. Zanmaq (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The pipe and poverty clams appear to be a propaganda hoax unlike the literacy and women's rights and thus can't be added.Wipsenade (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler: Anti smoking campaigns, healthy living initiatives, patron of the arts. Just because a guy does a couple of good things for a country, doesn't balance out the odd genocide. Did all the people who vanished under those dictators benefit from those 'literacy campaigns'? Czolgolz (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to add mass famine for Kim-Il sung108.69.160.87 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
O'KWipsenade (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Local support
Support- International missile strikes and air strikes are a major factor, unreasonable to call this a pure civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.115.36 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wha...? Support? O_O Alright, let's put it this way. This article is just about stuff relating specifically to the conflict in Libya, not stuff before it unless it was a direct cause of the conflict (or indirect if there is a good link). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Exsacty what I was thinking to, Flinders!Wipsenade (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Mr Boson, fetch the pumps!86.25.48.94 (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Facts about Gadhafi Dictatorship
Hey, not that I am choosing sides here, but I have came across some interesting facts about Libya (should be checked though). Pretty interesting stuff in my opinion, if its true anyway (well somethings definetly is from what we can find on Wiki itself).
- GDP per capita: 14,192$ (highest in mainland Africa)
- State support for unemployed: 730$
- Hospital nurse salary: 1,000$
- For every newborn the state pays 7,000$ to the familiy
- When a man and a woman get maried for the first time they get 64,000$ of state funds for place to live in (house/appartment)
- When a citizen founds his own private company he receives a capital of 20,000 from the state
- Educational system is free for everyone
- The food prices are simbolic
- Electric energy in housing area is free
- Bank credits for new houses/appartments and/or cars are intrest free
- When you buy a car the state pays for half (50%) of the cars value (soldiers get 65%) - I guess now it makes sense that you see Lybians driving better cars then some European countries:)
- Fuel price is: 0,14$/liter
- Avarage wage in Libya: 1,300$ per month
etc.
- Tell me, how is this related to this civil war in anyway? If you found new information, then either edit the Libya page, or post in the Talk:Libya page.69.141.37.208 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- What the IP means to say is that this probably is not the best article for this information to be put in and yes, you should probably put it in the Libya article and maybe some under the article about the Jamahiriyah or talk about it in their respective talk pages. With proper sourcing of course. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, this article emphasise on all the bad things from Colonel Gaddafi, yet there are clearly things that his government has done well and Libyans can be atributed on better standard of living than some European (including members of the EU) countries. Especially the Rebels and the Western media (+ Western leaders offcourse) with them are bashing him all the time, saying how he destroyed Libyan economy, how people are living in poverty, corruption and so on. Dont know if the stats above are genuine and correct but that would, at least in a small part, explain why he never lost support of his followers and parts of the country. I personally wont change anything in the article itself, nor am I willing to find references, as I am a mere bystander in this topic.Ratipok (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was said in another area that it's because the bad things are the cause of the current conflict rather than good things he has done, we're also just going by what the sources say and so we can't help it if they're biased against him and saying all that stuff (as long as they aren't opinion pieces), it ain't our problem. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV is about ensuring articles are as-objective-as-possible. It is not about ensuring articles conform to the general mass media moods.Ihosama (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to be honest, this article emphasise on all the bad things from Colonel Gaddafi, yet there are clearly things that his government has done well and Libyans can be atributed on better standard of living than some European (including members of the EU) countries. Especially the Rebels and the Western media (+ Western leaders offcourse) with them are bashing him all the time, saying how he destroyed Libyan economy, how people are living in poverty, corruption and so on. Dont know if the stats above are genuine and correct but that would, at least in a small part, explain why he never lost support of his followers and parts of the country. I personally wont change anything in the article itself, nor am I willing to find references, as I am a mere bystander in this topic.Ratipok (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- What the IP means to say is that this probably is not the best article for this information to be put in and yes, you should probably put it in the Libya article and maybe some under the article about the Jamahiriyah or talk about it in their respective talk pages. With proper sourcing of course. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Col. Gadhafi’s regime also built a trans-Sahara water pipeline from a major aquifers to both a network of reservoirs and the towns of Tripoli, Siurt and Bengazi in 2006-2007, ending the city’s water shortages, caused by the rising urban population[[29]].Wipsenade (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
An 'Interesting' news article, if you love bezzar Islamist propaganda read this: President Yoweri Museveni on Col. Gadhafi![30]Wipsenade (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, what's so 'islamist' in current Ugandan president or his words? And what happened to the talk page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.61.182 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Gabon is fairly wealthy to95.32.61.182.
Note this!
Is the above relevant?Wipsenade (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda and Nato are co-beligrents?!
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
I have just saw the battlebox and acordint to it, there is an alleged involvement of Al-qaeda alongside the rebels and the NATO. Does this makes them cobeligrents? it sound crazy. Isn it?--190.118.9.11 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's BS. Al-Qaeda is 0 involved in this conflict, but an IP from Voronezh keeps adding this all the time. There is a lengthy discussion above (Al-Qaeda, LIFG and mercenaries), but he just goes on and on to put it back in. noclador (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Treat it like any other force. Unless we have confirmed al-Qaeda fighters present, don't include them. If they WERE there though, and if they're not fighting our guys, then it's like the USSR, we don't like them, but they're fighting on the same side as us for the time being against the same enemy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to me there was enough proof that al-Qaeda fighters were allegedly (yeah, just like Egypt) PRESENT. Otherwise they could not "pillage" anything of course))) 85.25.120.163 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources or no dice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Easy to find, [31] or [32] for example. Are these [33] [34] given about Egypt (both based on some anonymous source and nothing more) really any better? 85.25.120.163 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't know about Chad's President and that al-Hasidi fellow, I'd prefer an independent reliable source confirming al Qaeda presence over people that hate Gadaffi. I miss anything important in those? (I skimmed, I won't lie.) Though it is in al Qaeda's best interests to be there in my opinon (if I were thinking how they do, wanting to get more possible recruits). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- My point was: ARE THE SOURCES TALKING ABOUT EGYPTIAN COVERT OPS IN LIBYA REALLY ANY BETTER? Is it ok to remove Egypt from the infobox on the same grounds then? 85.25.120.163 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please do shout a bit more as it will help get your point across much better. Well if you feel that way then contest the Egypt one. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, I don't know about Chad's President and that al-Hasidi fellow, I'd prefer an independent reliable source confirming al Qaeda presence over people that hate Gadaffi. I miss anything important in those? (I skimmed, I won't lie.) Though it is in al Qaeda's best interests to be there in my opinon (if I were thinking how they do, wanting to get more possible recruits). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Easy to find, [31] or [32] for example. Are these [33] [34] given about Egypt (both based on some anonymous source and nothing more) really any better? 85.25.120.163 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable sources or no dice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to me there was enough proof that al-Qaeda fighters were allegedly (yeah, just like Egypt) PRESENT. Otherwise they could not "pillage" anything of course))) 85.25.120.163 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Having got my impressions mostly from BBC News 24, the specialists seem to say, in so far as a religious term could be used to describe the religious spirit behind the rebels, it would be 'moderate Islam.' Sayerslle (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Others think otherwise: [35] 95.32.159.219 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Treat it like any other force. Unless we have confirmed al-Qaeda fighters present, don't include them. If they WERE there though, and if they're not fighting our guys, then it's like the USSR, we don't like them, but they're fighting on the same side as us for the time being against the same enemy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Telegraph had confirmed, that Libyan rebel has al-Qaeda links[36].83.181.93.81 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- no, it says "his fighters have al-Qaeda links" in the headline, a claim which is then NOT back up in the article. see the lengthy discussion at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda.2C_LIFG_and_mercenaries, why this claim is wrong and will not be added to article. noclador (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's the same, unless you are the commander of al-Qaeda and declare that you haven't send any fighter of al-Qaeda to joint the anti-Gaddafi group. 83.189.94.84 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is definitely not the same. I'm with noclador on this one, the article doesn't claim that Al-Qaeda is involved and it's not the article's place to make that stretch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should prove, that those fighters came from the Al-Qaeda have no connection with Al-Qaeda any more. Don't forget, that Al-Qaeda is a "multinational, stateless" group. That source shows the rebel knows about it and works with them, and Al-Qaeda has also claimed they support the anti-Gaddafi movement[37]. 213.101.230.37 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what if they expressed support? Chavez and Ortega have expressed support for the Gaddafi regime, but we aren't adding Venezuela and Nicaragua as belligerents on Gaddafi's side, are we? Even if a handful of rebels do have some ties to al-Qaeda, that is not enough to add al-Qaeda as a supporting belligerent. Where is the evidence that al-Qaeda as a group is actively supplying men and weapons to the fight? 64.1.120.166 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is, if Chavez & co. do really send their force or guys to support Libya Government, then you could & should add it, that's easy. But they didn't do that yet, this makes the difference, until now. 83.189.90.131 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Al-Qaeda did not send anyone too; so why add it? noclador (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you represent the Al-Qaeda to make this statement formally, Sir? 90.128.116.236 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- And you have no evidence that al-Qaeda is actually involved. Provide evidence that al-Qaeda is supplying weapons and men in support of the rebels, and then you'll have a case. Until then, you have nothing. Your own article doesn't even support it. It states only "a few" of the 25 fighters he recruited to fight in Afghanistan are fighting in Libya. The guy himself belongs to LIFG, as the article states, and they severed their affiliation with al-Qaeda in 2009. See [38] You do not have consensus to keep adding them, see WP:CON. 64.1.120.166 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. One source shows that Al Qaeda expresses support and another shows that ~25 rebels fought in Iraq against the America-led coalition. Definitely not the same as Al Qaeda sending people in themselves. Munci (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Al-Qaeda did not send anyone too; so why add it? noclador (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion is, if Chavez & co. do really send their force or guys to support Libya Government, then you could & should add it, that's easy. But they didn't do that yet, this makes the difference, until now. 83.189.90.131 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what if they expressed support? Chavez and Ortega have expressed support for the Gaddafi regime, but we aren't adding Venezuela and Nicaragua as belligerents on Gaddafi's side, are we? Even if a handful of rebels do have some ties to al-Qaeda, that is not enough to add al-Qaeda as a supporting belligerent. Where is the evidence that al-Qaeda as a group is actively supplying men and weapons to the fight? 64.1.120.166 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should prove, that those fighters came from the Al-Qaeda have no connection with Al-Qaeda any more. Don't forget, that Al-Qaeda is a "multinational, stateless" group. That source shows the rebel knows about it and works with them, and Al-Qaeda has also claimed they support the anti-Gaddafi movement[37]. 213.101.230.37 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is definitely not the same. I'm with noclador on this one, the article doesn't claim that Al-Qaeda is involved and it's not the article's place to make that stretch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's the same, unless you are the commander of al-Qaeda and declare that you haven't send any fighter of al-Qaeda to joint the anti-Gaddafi group. 83.189.94.84 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
\
Extended content
|
---|
actually it is only you, who can not read. and hoping between IPs all the times just makes obvious that you're not here to edit, but to disrupt. noclador (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- I suggest some form of dispute resolution is used here, the consensus here doesn't look that cut and dried and its not clear that all the IP editors here are the same person. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- As the connection looks a bit grey I would suggest not including it in the infobox, but adding some prose explaining it somewhere suitable in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Another option would be to move al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section, or that section could be removed completely and along with al-Qaeda discussed with some prose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can accept this option to move Al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section. BTW, Al-Qaeda is not a firmly central-organized group as we know, they are distributed very loosely and only the radical ideology connects them to each other, they call them self freedom fighter. We can't say, Al-Qaeda sends or not its member to joint into anti-Gaddafi group. But when its member involved the issue obviously, then they are right there. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer that its discussed with prose, as limited/alleged doesn't give enough to discuss the matter fully but I'm not too fussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It could obliviously be discussed in an extended section or any where else, anyway the inforbox is not the right place to do that. But just like the foreign mercenaries and Egypt, Al-Qaeda should be added in the infobox, there are enough the valid sources about the matter.90.128.116.236 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If we remove Egypt from the infobox, which I suggest we do, I don't think there is enough to include it - at best their involvement is a couple of dozen fighters and the Telegraph article isn't black and white - there is a reasonable amount of grey there. The foreign mercenaries are in a different boat, there are a lot of sources talking about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Egypt and Al-Qaeda are also totally different case. Egypt is a country, only the central Government can order its Army force to this to do that. But, Al-Qaeda is a loosely organized and widely distributed international extremist group, its member can be any where any time when they want, they doesn't need a firmed leader to order them to do anything, what they need is a simple ideology. The member of Al-Qaeda is a little bit similar to the foreign mercenaries, sure they are for money, the Al-Qaeda is for their religion. That's the reason why even the most powerful country like U.S. has enormous difficulties to fight against Al-Qaeda. Just like wikipedia or any open platform, we don't need any order comes from e.g. Wikimedia.org or Facebook.com etc. to edit the articles or write something. So long we have the ideology of the free editing, then We can realize it any where in the Internet. So some one could say, that's the Microsoft hire me to do that, but no one can say, we write the articles in Wikipedia, only because Wikimedia send us to do it. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- If we remove Egypt from the infobox, which I suggest we do, I don't think there is enough to include it - at best their involvement is a couple of dozen fighters and the Telegraph article isn't black and white - there is a reasonable amount of grey there. The foreign mercenaries are in a different boat, there are a lot of sources talking about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- It could obliviously be discussed in an extended section or any where else, anyway the inforbox is not the right place to do that. But just like the foreign mercenaries and Egypt, Al-Qaeda should be added in the infobox, there are enough the valid sources about the matter.90.128.116.236 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer that its discussed with prose, as limited/alleged doesn't give enough to discuss the matter fully but I'm not too fussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can accept this option to move Al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section. BTW, Al-Qaeda is not a firmly central-organized group as we know, they are distributed very loosely and only the radical ideology connects them to each other, they call them self freedom fighter. We can't say, Al-Qaeda sends or not its member to joint into anti-Gaddafi group. But when its member involved the issue obviously, then they are right there. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Another option would be to move al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section, or that section could be removed completely and along with al-Qaeda discussed with some prose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- As the connection looks a bit grey I would suggest not including it in the infobox, but adding some prose explaining it somewhere suitable in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think moving it to "Limited/Alleged" is a good idea because no WP:RS has alleged al-Qaeda involvement at all and there is no evidence that they, as a group, are actively engaged in the conflict as a force. Nothing, at least, that supports putting them in the infobox. I would support moving it to the "International reactions" and discussed alongside Chavez and Ortega. (BTW, 64.1.120.166 is me. I was at a different computer and forgot to log in.) Fovezer (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that sounds like the best option. As the other member of the edit war has decided to withdraw, I suggest we wait a few hours for any further comments and then unprotect the page and make this change - I do suggest we move Egypt as well to the 'international reactions' section as well - especially as its only backed up by one reliable source, which puts it in a similar boat to the al-qaeda claims here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good on both points. And, just for the record, al-Qaeda is already discussed on the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising page. Fovezer (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've had to very rapidly get up to speed on this one :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I think everyone agrees that al-Qaeda types don't like Gaddafi and some are involved in the opposition to him. But we can't put it in the infobox until we have some RS on the Qaeda Chums. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, hate to bandwagon, but I think limited/alleged is good. No RS has said they involved yet, but it has been said by the rebel leader and the Chadian president, and yeah that should probably be in the body of the article to elaborate upon the whole thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that Telegraph article is poorly written with an even worse headline. The guy is hardly a rebel "leader" seeing as there is a very limited sense of leadership amongst the rebels right now. Most people seem to view the TNC as the "leaders" for the time being. Also, the article only says a handful of rebels fought in Afghanistan, but doesn't specifically identify the men as al-Qaeda members and it never says the group itself is active. In fact, the US intelligence community says that there is no organized presence. [39] The so-called "rebel leader" from the article is actually said to be from the LIFG, which severed any affiliation with al-Qaeda in 2009. As for the Chadian president, he is a Gaddafi ally and there is no evidence to support his assertion. We can't go adding every accused group/nation to the infobox with no reliable source. Fovezer (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, hate to bandwagon, but I think limited/alleged is good. No RS has said they involved yet, but it has been said by the rebel leader and the Chadian president, and yeah that should probably be in the body of the article to elaborate upon the whole thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, well I suppose that's what happens when you edit while playing Red Dead Redemption. Bound to miss things, heh. So the article is junk then? The Chadian president is his ally? I thought they disliked each other as a remnant from the Toyota War. I could have sworn it was still the case. Ah well, no RS, no addition to the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, I've heard good things about that game. The article headline is just incredibly misleading as to what is actually in the article, and people have kneejerk reactions without reading the article. And Habré was the President of Chad during the Toyota Wars. The current Chadian President is Idriss Déby, and he is quite close to Gaddafi. Fovezer (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is the only game greater than Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood /end of off-topic stuff. I have mostly been absorbing info from the stuff posted here on this talk page to be honest (one of the reasons I have not contributed anything of value to the actual article itself). I figure the article will be much tidier when this is finally over. Oh, I was thinking that restoring relations with Libya wouldn't have been on the current Chadian administration's priority list, but that's what I get for not reading the article on their president. I think I will probably take a read through the whole thing on Wednesday just to see where it stands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually current chadian president Idriss Deby was a general in Toyota War who inflicted most humiliating defeats on Gaddafi troops. And now he's Gaddafi's friend? Makes you think if old Muammar is really such a mad vindictive monster intent on annihilating anybody opposing him, according to jazeera and western media))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.189.249 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure money played some role in that. Is there an article documenting their relationship? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, here is one. [40] Déby was supported by Libya during his successful attempt to overthrow Hebré. Fovezer (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. Well that does help explain some things. Appears to me that he turned Tchad into an illiberal democracy like some call Russia. Looks like Gadaffi also might have used him to get back at his predecessor. I don't suppose some of the stuff from that article could be used here, now could it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is the only game greater than Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood /end of off-topic stuff. I have mostly been absorbing info from the stuff posted here on this talk page to be honest (one of the reasons I have not contributed anything of value to the actual article itself). I figure the article will be much tidier when this is finally over. Oh, I was thinking that restoring relations with Libya wouldn't have been on the current Chadian administration's priority list, but that's what I get for not reading the article on their president. I think I will probably take a read through the whole thing on Wednesday just to see where it stands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, I've heard good things about that game. The article headline is just incredibly misleading as to what is actually in the article, and people have kneejerk reactions without reading the article. And Habré was the President of Chad during the Toyota Wars. The current Chadian President is Idriss Déby, and he is quite close to Gaddafi. Fovezer (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good on both points. And, just for the record, al-Qaeda is already discussed on the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising page. Fovezer (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that sounds like the best option. As the other member of the edit war has decided to withdraw, I suggest we wait a few hours for any further comments and then unprotect the page and make this change - I do suggest we move Egypt as well to the 'international reactions' section as well - especially as its only backed up by one reliable source, which puts it in a similar boat to the al-qaeda claims here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think moving it to "Limited/Alleged" is a good idea because no WP:RS has alleged al-Qaeda involvement at all and there is no evidence that they, as a group, are actively engaged in the conflict as a force. Nothing, at least, that supports putting them in the infobox. I would support moving it to the "International reactions" and discussed alongside Chavez and Ortega. (BTW, 64.1.120.166 is me. I was at a different computer and forgot to log in.) Fovezer (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack
|
---|
|
WP:CivilWipsenade (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, in the last two sentences you unnecessarily crossed the line and made a very offensive personal attack. Please criticise the argument only. Do not attack the editor as it makes people ignore the actual substance of your argument. It is also quite rude to say the least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- What's so wrong in killing the real scum and traitors? Now it's YOU who's calling ALL Benghazi inhabitants the scum! Do you know that thousands of them came greeting Libyan army tanks when they were close? Do you know there were firefights for several days after when the peaceful democracy-loving rebels indeed hunted all the local government supporters and black-skinned men? Do you know that these protests started when police dispersed a mob commemorating two criminals killed during robbing attempt few years earlier, not any human rights bul*sh*t? Do you know that Eastern Libya was a den of radical islamists for many years? Btw i'm not in Moscow and i'm not even an ethnic russian. I'm avar and proud muslim, but i hate these islamist scum who ruined everything they touched here. Yet the recent things make me hoping that al-Qaeda starts shooting down your airliners with these stolen missiles as soon as possible - maybe THIS will kick some sense into the arrogant heads of brainwashed europeans and americans who don't know a little bit about the countries they're messing with. 77.45.151.95 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright my friend, let's pull back a bit. When we are editing we have to try and not put our emotions into what we are saying and we have to try to keep a cool head so that we can edit properly. =) We must remember that regardless of our own feelings about what is happening, we just repeat what our reliable sources are saying. We cannot help it if we don't like what they are saying or we feel the major sources are propaganda, because those are what we have to go on. What counts as a reliable source is also based on concensus I believe (there is a page for it somewhere) and so we work with those. We do realise though that all sources have some form of bias or another, but it isn't our job to interpret them. We just find what's relevant, put it in and move on. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- BBC radio 4 has just announced that US intelligence has established that Al-qaeda is indeed present among the rebels. Egg carton (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- very selective - the words were 'flickers of al qaeda' presence - and the U.S intelligence guy went on to say he believed it was not significant. Your selective cutting off of the U.S intelligence words just reveals again that we all have ou biases. The outburst from the ip is revealing in another way - in the end I don't resepect that 'you don't understand what you're dealing with' very much - a peaceful march being gunned down by thugs in yellow helmets in Benghazi in 2011, is no different to understanding that event if it happened in croydon in 2011. Sayerslle (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please, do not read anything into my comment above, I was only reporting what I'd just heard on the radio. Nothing more. Egg carton (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here [41] is a Telegraph article about this. A quote: "'But at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence,' Admiral Stavridis added." So this is an issue worth watching to see if any evidence of an organized al-Qaeda presence emerges, but right now the person saying there are "flickers" of al-Qaeda admits that he doesn't have enough evidence to say one way or another. Fovezer (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please, do not read anything into my comment above, I was only reporting what I'd just heard on the radio. Nothing more. Egg carton (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
42 year rule necessary?
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Just wondering. If Generimerica were to invade Normalia, with the leader Normalar Normalfi, who has been in office for two years, would the article say.
"The 2011 Normalian invasion is an ongoing armed conflict in the East Mundanian state of Normalia against Normalar Normalfi's 2-year rule"
No it wouldn't, so why should this article do the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.34.1 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you serious? A 42-year rule is much more unusual than a 2-year rule, in fact Ghaddafi is the longest-ruling person in any country in the world now, AFAIK. And articles naturally mention unusual things rather than usual things. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think Queen Elizabeth II has ruled for longer - since 1952 in fact - but 42 years is exceptional and notable, Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- So has the incumbant Thai King.Wipsenade (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to not have in the article afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comparing the length of time a stable monarchy has ruled a country is different than how long a 'self-made' ruler has ruled. England has had a monarch since before AD 927 (with a short interruption under Oliver Cromwell in 1649-1660). So the fact that Queen Elizabeth II has ruled a long time is still remarkable, but not the same feat that Gaddafi has pulled off. -- Avanu (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Afaik Gaddafi holds no official post since 1979, therefore calling him active ruler of Libya is a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.127.126 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- So by that logic you have to be given a title in order to lead. Not true. -- Avanu (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- So by YOUR logic you can name any public person as a "ruler". Stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.218.245 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ghaddafi is the de facto ruler, even if he holds no title (just as Kim Jong-il is the de facto ruler in North Korea, although his dead father is the de jure president.). It's not POV, it's a fact. PS. Keep your comments civil - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is correct, to mention Kim Jong-il.
- Clay Henry was a goat, elected mayor of Lajitas, Texas. The goat probably didn't lead much, but held the title of mayor. Joan of Arc lead the French in several military victories, but held no title (as far as I can tell). The point is, leadership is simply about leading, not about what people call you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kim holds several official posts, leading is not ruling, and there was no other official titleholder in the case of the goat :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.159.219 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a case of using good old WP:COMMONSENSE, just like everyone knows that the USSR was really Russia, Gadaffi is really the leader. Besides, the sources call him the leader, and if you don't like that then you should write a letter to each and everyone of them about it and keep doing so until they determine someone else to be it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Gadaffi has actively headed the governing body overseeing Libya's activities, has held and exercised power and authority over this body and Libya, and has been doing such for the past 42 years. Therefore, regardless of official titles or POV, he has been "ruling" for 42 years.--Dalaru (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Kim holds several official posts, leading is not ruling, and there was no other official titleholder in the case of the goat :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.159.219 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Clay Henry was a goat, elected mayor of Lajitas, Texas. The goat probably didn't lead much, but held the title of mayor. Joan of Arc lead the French in several military victories, but held no title (as far as I can tell). The point is, leadership is simply about leading, not about what people call you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Archived by me. Wipsenade (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a different article that has day to day what is going on on the ground in Libya?
I know that this article used to have a more of a timeline to it before the coalition intervention but it doesn't have it anymore. Did it get moved somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.116.177 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- a link -
- is provided under article's section heading "==Battles between Gaddafi and opposition==". not, to me, the most intuitive location.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't remember if there was a discussion about it, but why not put a section, the link up top and then a very brief summary? As you said it's not the first place one would go to look. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Musrata in Guddafi control.
This Lebanese link
http://www.elnashra.com/news-1-545147.html say guddafi forces controled all Musrata at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.174.224 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Gaddafis TV says this every day for 2 weeks now... lets see if anyone confirms this. noclador (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- See also Comical Ali etc. Sindragosa (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If it were true more reliable sources would have reported about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Several media reports that Misrata has fallen to Gaddafi's troops. CNN as well made a story in the city itself where it was clear that Loyalist troops have control of the city and move freely there and that the rebels (might) are in control only of couple of small districts (allegedly). Al Arabiya, AFP and Buisness Insider all have reports that Gaddafi's troops "sweept through Misrata" or "are in control of Misrata".Ratipok (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)