Talk:Gaddafi loyalism

Sources

The page definitely needs a lot more sources, especially given some of the claims (e.g. that large swathes of territory are controlled by the group). Also Gadaffi's Third International Theory isn't secular, instead it's more based on Islamic socialism. Given the heavy use by the legal system of Sharia, and the attempts made to bring the legal system more in line with Sharia during the Jamahiriya, I really don't think it can be termed secular. MrPenguin20 (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me like both sides of this conflict have an interest in secrecy and obfuscation, which may explain the difficulty in finding reliable information. Western journalists by their own admission have little idea of what's going on in Libya, either. Is the new government's primary enemy the Green Resistance (as the Green Resistance claims) or Al-Qaeda-tied groups (as the government and its Western backers claim)? Or if it's both, why are there not conflicts between the Green Resistance and Al-Qaeda, since they have such opposite ideologies? And how exactly can Gaddafi's sons be leading the movement when both of them are under arrest? There's a lot here that is not adding up, but at least creating a Wikipedia article about it might help to collect the different claims in one place. Esn (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, but it's exactly because of the murkiness in this conflict that we have to be very careful with the claims put on this page, and we need to make sure they are sourced. It certainly doesn't help that many militia's often accuse opposing groups of being Gaddafi loyalists in order to delegitimize them. MrPenguin20 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning sources, I've been finding it difficult to find official mouthpieces for the movement. The political party (Libyan Popular National Movement, though it's often known as "Libyan National People's Movement" instead) doesn't have a website, but there are a number of English-language "Green Resistance" blogs if one does a search ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and they sometimes post messages claiming to be from that party. Yet I haven't seen any media organizations pick them up. Esn (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think the big problems with a lot of the current sources are that

A - There's another problem in that it's sometimes hard to tell where facts end and confabulation begins, and

B - they mostly seem to come from left wing sources which seem to be trying to understand the ideology of the movement through a left wing prism, thereby giving a skewed version of the groups ideology. I mean as an example, if the group really is left-wing secular socialists, it seems strange that the LPNM calls for Sharia to be the source of legislation, and to warn that they'll wage jihad if ignored. On the capitalism issue, if they want a return of the economic system as operated under Gaddafi, then that would undoubtedly include capitalism. So this issue arises of they can be traditional socialists (as opposed to Islamic socialists) or they can be Gaddafi supporters, but they can't really be both. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the page

It is certainly difficult to judge a contemporary movement. It's enemies control most of the Libyan media, the country is hard to move around in, and dangerous. Western media now rarely report on it. It is often unclear who is resisting the new government and its NATO supporters, since such resisters are often called Islamists, Gaddafi loyalists, militias, or tribes feuding with other tribes, but there are those who insist that often it is Green Resistance that is the perpetrator. The movement is out of power at present, and so we can only judge its program by what it tells us. It is not clear that most attempts to understand the ideology come from left wing sources, or that a left wing ideological stance would necessarily distort our understanding of what the movement claims as its objectives, since everyone brings certain prejudices and opinions to whatever they read. We can only strive to be as objective as possible. The movement claims, according to The Libyan Popular National Movement, as reported on the Wikipedia page of the same name, to intend to "maintain the territorial integrity of Libya" and to build the instutions for a state"on the basis of peaceful democracy based on citizenship, without discrimination of ethnic or sectarian, regional or political belief." The Quran will be part of "the reference of legislation in Libya" but the state and the political system will be chosen by "full participation of the Libyan citizens, exercising their right to political decision making", which is certainly not strict Sharia law, and state legislation will reference Sharia "away from extremism and fanaticism". I interpret the above to mean that the LPNM envisages a state based on the wishes of its citizens, but taking some account of traditional Sharia teachings. That does not constitute a plan to make Sharia "the source of legislation." Nor is it clear that they plan the total expulsion of Capitalism from Libya. They write of a "reconstruction process of public and private property" and certainly private property and private enterprise existed under Gaddafi. He spoke of his system as an Islamic version of Socialism. There is no one traditional socialist system. Socialism usually includes an element of capitalism. Mao, Castro, Lenin, Attlee have all interpreted socialism according to the situation as they saw it, and LPNM is clearly doing the same. On the issue of Jihad, the movement "declared also their exclusive use of peaceful ways to accomplish their goals." Jihad and armed struggle were seen as means of last resort " for the defence of Libya and its citizens" if the conditions to which they objected were not stopped. It can of course be objected that the aims as stated might not be implemented if the group gained power, but that is true of any political program of any political party seeking power. For the present, we need to report what the movement is purporting to be its program.Red and black partisan (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, there's an assumption that the LPNM is the political wing of the Green Resistance. This is an assumption, not fact. It implies some kind of structure within these groups, when instead it appears that the Green Resistance is a term that is applied across a range of groups with a range of different ideologies and desires. To take some examples, in Bani Walid the town elders themselves claim the battle there was for local autonomy, as opposed to trying to bring back the Jamahiriya. However, we seem to accept Brigade 93 as fighting for the ideological goals of the LPNM? Or in the case of the Tripoli Airport clashes we're to assume that a brigade who had so recently been fighting against the Jamahiriya is now fighting for its reinstatement? It's not clear what, if any, link the LPNM has with the numerous groups that are claimed to compose the Green Resistance. Therefore we can't assume that LPNM policies are representative of the Green Resistance. They may have similar sympathies, but that doesn't mean they have the same vision for Libya.

Secondly, once again on the issue of ideology, the Third International Theory is an Islamic socialist theory distinctive from either capitalism or socialism, although makes use of both. Therefore, if we're trying to describe the ideology of the group, we should simply put Third International Theory, and let people interpret that as they may. Conventional understandings of Democratic Socialism and Revolutionary socialism don't really apply to the Green Resistance. For example, do we even know if they're attempting a social revolution? Or is that just what some blogger somewhere understands the situation as? You're right about reliable information being scarce on the group, and that's why we shouldn't make claims we can't back up. Some people will claim it was the Green Resistance responsible, but we can't cite the opinions of every blogger as fact. We need to stay as objective as possible. It's possible this will mean we don't have that much information on it, but at least what we will have will be accurate. MrPenguin20 (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am confused about 1 thing. You have commented that the Resistance cannot be traditional, democratic, secular, socialists because the LPNM supports Sharia. After I pointed out that this is taken out of context, you have now changed your argument to asserting that there is no evidence that the group represents the Resistance. You assert, without providing evidence, that the Green Resistance is only a term covering different scattered groups with no common purpose. Neither you nor I can know if that is true or not.For all we know, the Green Resistance could be a large and proficient guerrilla army.The fact is, we can only draw inferences based on evidence provided by both sides of the conflict, and by outside observers, in light of our own political views. I am not aware of any political group that has contested LPNM 's claim to represent the resistance, or the truth of the aims as presented on their Wikipedia page.You speak of a range of groups with varying ideologies, but then you imply that the Third International theory is common to them. From my point of view, the rebellion's ideology is obviously left wing and patriotic as well as revolutionary socialist based on the simple facts that their program clearly has strong socialist elements, and they are fighting to achieve a revolution against the current government. FOCO is stated to be part of their ideology; FOCO being the principle of protracted guerrilla war to achieve a revolution. My point is that you cannot claim there is no evidence for them wanting revolution and yet keep in the claim that they use FOCO. The point should be made that the Resistance does not want a simple restoration of all Gaddafi's policies. I interpret their aims as taking some of Gaddafi's system, especially the socialist elements, and combining them with a mixture of Peoples Democracy and Representative Democracy. Third International Theory is a form of socialism adapted to meet the conditions of the Islamic world, but you admit it draws on both capitalism and western socialism, and it calls for the introduction of democratic socialism at the grass roots level and a series of checks and balances on the power of the Head of State. I find little support for a simple restoration of the Gaddafi regime; there is widespread acceptance that he is dead, and no obvious family successor. It could be claimed that some Gaddafi loyalists want a regime with a Gaddafi family member as dictator, but it is unclear which member might be chosen, and there is, as far as I am aware, no public call for such a family restoration. I agree on the need for objectivity, but I do not merely accept as fact anything I read on a blog. Rather, I give my source or sources and state whether or not their information is contested. In the case of the Bani Walid fighting, I reported claims that green symbols were seen, but that this was contested. The elders of Bani Walid, faced with superior force, then said what seemed the least dangerous explanation for the town's actions, but we cannot know if they were telling the truth or not.Remember that the new government was hunting down supporters of the previous regime. I did not suppress the claims about green symbols because all sides of a story should be presented. Both sides called the Bani Walid uprising an action by Gaddafi loyalists.Red and black partisan (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not taken out of context - what it's saying, like you said, is that policies will be interpreted in light of Islamic Sharia. Therefore, it's Islamic socialism. It's a blending of the two. It's therefore not secularism, which is the removal of religion from the public sphere. It might be moderate Islamic socialism, but it's Islamic socialism never-the-less. I used the LPNM to show that even if you accept the LPNM as representing the Green Resistance, then clearly it's not a traditional secular socialist ideology. This doesn't mean they're Islamists, just that the socialism is understood within an Islamic context. Still though, it's different from Western secular socialism. On the issue of Foco, I left it because I thought it helped give an understanding of the groups tactics (not its ideology). Of course this might be misleading, in which case we should remove it.

On the subject of contesting representation, the example of the Bani Walid elders is a clear example of a group that claim not to be represented by the LPNM. Or in the example of the Tripoli airport clashes there is no mention anywhere of the LPNM. Does the LPNM claim to represent all Gaddafi loyalist groups? Does the LPNM issue statements claiming responsibility for each act? Given the low key nature of the LPNM, and the very low level (if any) of attention that's given to it in the Libyan press suggests that the LPNM is very low profile. As such, the lack of a clear denial that the LPNM doesn't stand for a group doesn't thereby mean that the LPNM does start for that group. Afterall, when a group conducts an attack, they often don't clearly specify on whose behalf it was conducted. However, if the LPNM did claim responsibility, or responsibility was attributed to it by a mainstream source, then we could report that, and that at least would give some idea of an ideological narrative. Also on the subject of Bani Walid, there was no mention of the contestation of Brigade 93's loyalty in the text until I changed it.

The question is what does it mean to be a Gaddafi loyalist? Gaddafi himself held numerous political beliefs, and so it's not clear what, if any, beliefs these groups share. The only description we often have of these groups is that they're Gaddafi loyalists (which is itself often unclear). Therefore, the best way to describe them, given the lack of reliable information, is to ascribe to them the ideology Gaddafi himself created. Alternatively a slightly vaguer ideology that still specifies the context, such as Islamic socialism, could be given. Either that or put disputed, or put that it depends on the group involved. Then in the ideology section of the main text we could put interpretations of the LPNM ideology, which may or may not be representative of the wider movement. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The LPNM does indeed keep a low profile at present, but we should remember that they are banned from contesting elections or conducting other political activities by the present Libyan regime. The Libyan press, government controlled, is hardly going to give them a platform for spreading their ideas. Green Resistance members have been killed, tortured, imprisoned, by the regime. The mainstream western media supported the NATO attack on Gaddafi and so are hardly likely to pay much favourable attention to those opposing the present government. Opposition does clearly still exist, though. Only this week came news of a breakaway movement in the east, and demonstrators fired on in Tripoly. Little information is available on anti government forces, but all such information needs to be evaluated. LPNM has claimed to speak for a significant group of resisters, and I am unaware of any other resistant group contesting that claim. The LPNM program, as presented on their Wikipedia page, needs to be carefully studied, rather than merely dismissed as just another call for Sharia. Libya already has Sharia, imposed by the civil war victors. LPNM is not calling for revolution in order to give more of the same. It's program gives more emphasis to democracy, socialism and citizens rights than to Sharia. It nowhere claims to want total reintroduction of Gaddafi's Jamaharea, it wants a system that draws on socialism, democracy, Islamic traditions, and secularism. They clearly present themselves as more secular than the present regime. The fact that many Libyan women support Green Resistance, because they want a restoration of the freedoms and rights they enjoyed in the Gaddafi years implies that a Green Resistance government would be closer to western ideas of women's rights than to the more Sharia dominated Islamic States. Calling for equality of citizens, free elections, an end to persecution, and the other parts of the LPNM platform constitutes a social revolution, and Green Resistance have several times stated that they want a"second green revolution" You are presenting Shari as a single monolithic system unable to tolerate deviations, and socialism as a single western doctrine which cannot be adapted by an Islamic nation. The bani Walid fighting remains controversial. First reports spoke of Green Resistance , but later the elders, faced with overwhelming government force, presented a different story, which may or may not have been true. Remember, though, that Bani Walid had a history of loyalty to the previous regime. It was the second last stronghold to fall to the rebels, it had been the scene of torture of one of the main killers of Gaddafi, all Green Resistance blogs said they had taken the city, and Al Jazeira said the same. I was not claiming that the Green Resistance is a. Secular movement, but I do claim it is a democratic socialist movement, a point you have failed to address. My point is not whether it is secular, but exactly how much a Green Resistancce government would be based on Sharia. There is a very big difference between Sharia as the source of legislation and Sharia as a point of reference. In regards to the Tripoli airport attack, at no stage have I said I believed it was the Green Resistance. however, when both pro Gaddafi blogs and government forces claim that the attackers were Green resistance I of course mentioned those claims. We must remember that since the fall of Gaddafi Libya has fallen into chaos and loyalties have become very hard to read. As for Foco, I did not add it in as a way to aiding an understanding of the groups tactics, but because in my view, the tactics are part of a larger package, representing the ideology of the revolutionary movement. The Arab spring showed that there exists a real appetite for change in the Islamic world. Green resistance should be seen as part of that movement, rather than as a conservative movement back to Sharia or Gaddafi. I see no reason to reject the term Green Resistance as applying to a significant opposition group. When Islamist militants launch any attacks in Libya there is never any doubt that they have links to Al Kaida, but whenever Green Resistance attacks there is a great debate as to whether they did it. With the Tripoly bombings, we are supposed to express doubt that on the anniversary of the battle of Tripoly, the attack was by the Green Resistance despite both sides claiming that it was them, the only difference in their positions being whether they should be described as Green Resistance or Gaddafi loyalists. Even news channels spoke of Gaddafi loyalists. I do not ask for Green Resistance tclaims to be accepted without checking, but we do need to give serious consideration to all sides of the conflict. Of course the government limits opposition publicity and implies opposing groups are ineffective or do not exist, but we need to give a fair hearing to all sides.Red and black partisan (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a couple of main points here.

Firstly, there is a question of when we refer to the Green Resistance whether we're referring to a structured organisation, or whether we just mean individuals described as Gaddafi loyalists. If it's the latter, then we can't really ascribe to them the LPNM's ideology, as we don't know if it's representative of them, as clearly the Green Resistance would be a name for an ideologically broad group. If it's the former, then we should remove information from the page referring to any events where there isn't an explicit claim that a group named the Green Resistance was involved.

So, for example, nowhere does anyone claim a Green Resistance group is involved in the Tripoli bombings (or the airport clashes). All we know is that some people claimed that Gaddafi loyalists were involved. We can't say that the groups involved were aligned with the LPNM, so we can't say they were fighting for the LPNM's goals.That means either we have to remove the bombings from the article, or we have to remove "Democratic Socialism" from the infobox.

Similarly, reports about Bani Walid never spoke of the Green Resistance. They only spoke using the vaguer term of Gaddafi loyalists. Certainly it should also be interesting that the unit involved - Brigade 93, was named after an attempted coup against Gaddafi by tribal groups living in Bani Walid. Do we have any information that specifically connected the Green Resistance (by name) to this?

Secondly, once again I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I specifically stated before that there is a difference between Islamic socialism and Islamism. Islamic socialism is socialism interpreted in light of Islam. Islamism is a separate movement altogether. Islam is used in both, but in totally different ways. The point I was making is that the group isn't secular - which it isn't. It might want Islam to play a moderating role, but it wishes it to play a role in the state. Ergo, they're not secular. Also you had previously written on the page that the group was secular. Even in your response, you speak of them being influenced by secularism.

If you accept the LPNM's goals as being representative of the Green Resistance/Gaddafi loyalists, then they're Islamic socialists - they explicitly refer to bringing legislation in line with Sharia. Therefore clearly Sharia/Islam has a role to play in the state. It might be a moderate form, but it's still Islam.

If you don't accept the LPNM's goals as being representative of the Green Resistance/Gaddafi loyalists, then all we have to go on is Gaddafi's Third International Theory as a possible ideological impetus. That Theory is an Islamic socialist theory.

My point isn't that socialism cannot be adapted so as to be construed in line with Islam - in fact my point is entirely the contrary. What I'm saying is that it can, and there's even a term for it, and the term is Islamic socialism.

Also on the issue of ideology, you say many women support the Green Resistance/Gaddafi loyalists. Do you have a source for that? Has there been polling done on the subject?

Thirdly, so you're claiming that the LPNM isn't reported on due to some conspiracy? Firstly, the Libyan press isn't government controlled. The government is after all incredibly weak. Don't you think it's a bit odd that you simultaneously point out how the Libyan government is weak (faced by numerous militias) and also seem to believe it has some kind of stranglehold on domestic media? Why wouldn't the Libyan government want to blame Gaddafi loyalists for incidents? Considering opposition to Gaddafi was the key uniting force amongst opposition groups during the civil war, wouldn't doing this (and thereby reigning in rogue militias) make more sense?

You can't just blame everything on some conspiracy to subvert the LPNM. All we know is that there's no real mention of it in the Libyan press. No mention of it in the international press.Even if it wasn't in the Libyan or Western press, wouldn't we expect to see some mention of it on Russia Today? OrSANA? Or the various Lebanese news outfits? The lack of coverage thereby suggests that the LPNM is a minor force. As a minor force, we therefore cannot interpret the lack of denials of association with the LPNM as a tacit approval of such claims. That has just as much merit as claiming that Gaddafi loyalists are associated with the Libyan Ba'ath movement (as they haven't said they're not).

Once again, remember that LPNM =/= Green Resistance =/= Gaddafi loyalists.

Finally, links between Islamist groups and al-Qaeda aren't always assumed. E.g. when Zeidan was kidnapped in October, it was led politically by two Islamist members of the assembly, yet nobody claimed it was al-Qaeda that was responsible. MrPenguin20 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like Brigade 93 exists or existed. Only one mention in history of Libya of its existence come from al-Khazmi and al-Fatmani, head of Bani Walid military council affiliated May 14th militia which he made few days after he and his brigade were kicked out by BW. After that one statement we get NOTHING, nada. This whole Gaddafi Brigade 93 came from shit editing and stupid fans like the one who made this article, based on claims on biased source who just wanted to prove whole-hearty how Misratis must help him to get back to the power. No one ever saw that Brigade 93, no one ever heard about it, no pictures exists, no videos exists, no members exists and when journalist were in the city between 1st and 2nd BW they saw NOTHING like that. This is exactly what is wrong with wiki, lack of overseer. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

True, that's the only reference that's made to it, and yeah you're right - being that Khazmi and Fatami had just been kicked out amid accusations of abusing their power etc they'd naturally want to delegitimise any opposition as just being Gaddafi loyalists, despite claims by BW elders. I did find it interesting though that the group was named after an attempted coup against Gaddafi by BW residents, as it suggests that there might be some truth behind the Brigades existence. It almost suggests an attempt by BW residents to remind others of their pro-Revolutionary credentials ("hey we opposed Gaddafi too!") so as to prevent them from just being dismissed as Gaddafi loyalists. MrPenguin20 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that when I created the article I accidentally named it "Green Resistance" instead of "Green resistance". The latter would have been a more appropriate name since "Green Resistance" is not an official name for any single organization - rather, "Green resistance" is the name that I saw being used for Gaddafi-inspired anti-government fighters by various journalists and supportive blogs. This is why the original article stated explicitly at the beginning that it is a "generic term", not something referring to a specific definable organization. Like "Islamists" is a generic term, for example. Esn (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Real Problems of the Page

The real problems with the page are:

• a lack of information on the movement
• not enough sources
• no pictures of the green soldiers
• There is as yet no map showing the history and current situation of the insurgency

Red and black partisan (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-existence of such organization would also pose a trouble. You conjecture what you want from sources. Fe you have source that some hundred prisoners escaped the prison and you throw it without any context into this article as proof of some Green resistance operation? What the hell? The Zintan part of this article is incredible. The sources - conspirationalist websites, blogs, youtube videos with RS claiming NOTHING about something like that.

This is exactly the type of article that should be preserved and showed as an example of how not to do the bloody wiki editing. Give me some time, I´ll nominate this for deletion ASAP. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you will fail if you try. There are enough reliable (or at least notable) sources on this page to establish that a pro-Gaddafi movement does indeed exist in Libya. There are even quotes from government officials attesting to that much. The question of what the article should be named or what information should be included is a different one from whether such an article should exist at all. Esn (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Which one? Show me ONE which says that something like 'Green Resistance' militias/organization/whatever exists. The name of this article is completely made-up, relying on damn blogs. As for two militias fighting and both accusing other of being the Gaddafis, its more of an hilarity than actual fact. Fe Tarhouni brigade which took control of the Tripoli airport briefly. They flew the current Libyan flag, not green one. They were established as rebel brigade during the war and not on Gaddafi side. Or this Green resistance in Benghazi? I mean, seriously? Benghazi? Where they'd slaughter them like sheeps? Or throwing all Tuaregs are Gaddafi movement militiamen...Or Bani Walidians. It seems that no one here has in mind something like tribal and local conflicts. When Toubou and Arabs were fighting in Sabha and Kufra which was one pro-Gaddafi, anyone mind telling me? Or when was Khamis Gaddafi was resurrected and led the defense of Bani Walid? And bytheway am I the only one who noticed the little fact that Gaddafi is dead? EllsworthSK (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's one that mentions "Tahloob": [5]. The name "Green resistance" was taken from the few articles I was able to find at the time the article was created. It also seems to be the name that supportive blogs use. I wasn't sure which term to use, and this seemed as good a term as any other. Esn (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is nice faux pas. Ta7lob is a vulgar word used by anti-Gaddafi Libyans to describe pro-Gs. Means algae. Another one is crocodile. Forgot the Arabic word for it. Morever as we can see with current assassination string in Benghazi those are nothing but claims, not any Green Resistance militia ever took responsibility. However, there was one case - bomb planted in Tripoli which injured 2 policemen and killed no one. That's it. And so you admit that you made this Green Resistance name out of the thin air? EllsworthSK (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This one also mentions potential leaders and this one mentions the Benghazi prison break info (of course the information may be inaccurate, but it is seemingly from notable journalistic sources). Esn (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And where, oh where, does those sources stay it was organized operation of non-stage organized armed group of Gaddafi loyalist which may, or may not go by the name Green Resistance? Because it speaks about riot inside the prison and some attack. Nothing what you or Partisan conjectured out of thin air. The first article speculates if behind assassination string are Gaddafi loyalist which are easy to blame, or islamists. If last year didn't prove enough who it is than I don't know what did. The piles or articles written about it is higher than planned Kingdom tower. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean look at those sources. What an abomination of an article. Some here are strongly mistaking wikipedia for another damn blog. Damn, I've been out of Libyan articles for months and for a good reason. Because everytime some determined fella like this would appear and I just don't want to work in this environment. And damn me if I didn't see people getting perma-ban for lesser things than this constant vadalism. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm not a fan of the constant use of Youtube blog videos as sources. That's going to need to be weeded out (videos should only be used if they belong to news organizations or directly show the thing being talked about, with no possibility for confusion). Articles like this one, on the other hand, I'm hesitant about removing at the moment because it seems to be a translation from another more level-headed journalistic source, and seems to provide valuable direct quotes from somebody directly involved in the movement. Esn (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Come again? You are hesitant if to remove source so great that it publishes so unbiased and totally not one-sided articles as [6] [7] [8] [9]? And the reason is that it is taken from La Haine without providing link or anything that would prove it and what would also prove that La Haine is actually a WP:RS since we know nothing about it but its name? Whats next? Should we include Pravda.ru? I mean, it claimed that in Sirte one B-2 bomber, AC-130 and 5 Apache helicopters were downed in one day and also reported that NATO is planning nuclear strike on the city but hey, perhaps they just copied it from unknown Latin America source. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And that source also likes to post conspirationalist propaganda such as [10] [11] [12]. Must say, this makes me hesitant. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

And you made this article? That's just great, I thought it was Partisan. In his case I could say he's new and doesn't know the rules. Aren't you supposed to be experienced editor? This is Wag the Dog the wikipedia version. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm an "experienced editor" but I'm also one of the old breed of Inclusionists from Wikipedia's early days. I fully acknowledge that this article is having some growing pains, as I expected that it would. One of the first people to notice it and the main person who tried to significantly expand it was naturally a supporter of the movement (Red and black partisan). Me and MrPenguin20 (him more than me because I have little time just now) tried to rein in the worst of his mistakes and provide some sources for unsourced allegations when he added them, whenever possible. Various sources have been found to support certain claims in due course, so the article has gotten more accurate slowly, but it also certainly still needs a lot more work.Esn (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this this count as a reliable source? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

...what? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean. You did notice that you just hotlinked some dif on Slug article? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm My bad. Check link now. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would really love if there was a date but al-Ahram has always been like that. Now I could´ve taken some issues with the author, but let´s ignore his personal opinion and believe that he does not let that interfere with his professional work. Indeed you have brought source (and I admit that it is the first one I ever saw), even though you cannot expect me to not question claims like that some Green Resistance of Gaddafi remnants is responsible for Tuareg rebellion (2012). And it is mentioned in two sentences in article. Hence I am going to pull out WP:UNDUE EllsworthSK (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As you seem to be fine with that source, I'm just wondering why the source doesn't seem to be in the article. Is there something that happened? Esn (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that I may have misread your words and that you are NOT fine with that source. Still, I hardly think it's controversial to use that article only as a source for the "Green Resistance" name, especially as there is now another corroborating article (Voice of Russia) for it. Esn (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

In my defense

I am a new editor, so EllsworthSK I would prefer if next time you would bear that in mind when you attack me with your appalling grammar, incoherent sentences and swear words. You may attack me for what you see as bias, but I am not the one cursing at a page and calling for it to be taken down because I do not like its message. It seems as if somewhere along the line some have defined me as just another mouthpiece for the resistance, but neither you or anyone else thought to ask what my opinions actually are. Merely because it is said that the green resistance may have attacked someone somewhere, it does not mean that I believe it. For example, I do not believe they attacked the US consulate, but I believed it should be put on record that others made that claim. With the Bengazi prison break, it does not say that the Green resistance did it and no one disputes it was them, rather it says that they may have had some involvement and that green soldiers did escape. You would know that if you had taken the time to read the actual article thoroughly. If you had bothered to do that, you might have come up with something more constructive than abuse and threats. For the Zintan brigade, I do not believe that they have changed sides, but many have suggested that they have and those claims should be added, with a note that they are only claims. If anything, I think the paragraph shows a high level of skepticism. You seem to extract what you want from these paragraphs, completely misrepresenting what is said, in the process. I suspect this is due to your bias against the Green resistance and your willingness to believe anything the new Libyan government claims. I should point out 2 things. First, no offense Esn, the page was fairly bare before I decided to expand it. As for it now, it is not perfect, but, in my view, it is better than it was. I have tried to use the utube videos and blogs with discretion when using them as sources, but we should bear in mind that I also used journalists as sources and I believe we need to get the claims of the resistance and their supporters down. I have done most of the work on this page, adding in links, sources, and other information, all the time trying to do my best with it and be as unbiased as possible, even if pro government people accuse me of being pro Gaddafi. Secondly, I am not the only one who has edited this page EllsworthSK so why are you blaming me for nearly everything, and wouldn't rational debate be better than swearing? Besides, the page is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, so I think your real issue with the page is the fact that it is doing more than merely repeating Libyan government versions of events. You spoke of 2 militias fighting, each calling the other Gaddafi followers. There is no instance of this on the page. As for your claim that one group calling another pro Gaddafi is a fallacy, that may be true, but we cannot simply remove such claims because you become distressed when they are made.

You forgot to mention that there were claims that alleged the brigade that attacked Tripoli airport were green resistance fighters. Nowhere do I claim that this is certain or uncontested. Also it is said by people on both sides that they were green sympathisers. It is no secret that Libya has rivalries between different factions and we have not simply said that in every conflict the green rebels are involved, like the Kufra conflict, for example. No one is suggesting Kufra had anything to do with green resisters. With regards to the Tauregs, it is said by many that they are in the resistance in significant numbers. The Bani Walid fighting was regarded and reported by many on both sides as a battle between supporters of the former regime and supporters of the current one. Khamis Gaddafi may or may not be dead. You must remember that many have reported him dead at different times. The former rebels do not have an impeccable track record when it comes to announcing the death of opponents. Your position is contradictory EllsworthSK. You say on one hand that if the Green Resistance does not claim responsibility, even when their enemies accuse them, then it is not them, but when they claim responsibility, you simply dismiss it as a "damn blog" making a claim. Even my fiercest critics, apart from you, do not believe I am vandalising the green page. For example, the notably balanced Esn, who created the page, and does not agree with everything I say and has interesting theories as to where my loyalties lay, has not made any allegation of vandalism. It is you who wants to delete the page because it displeases you, and you plainly have nothing constructive to say, and nothing to offer that would improve the page. I have no problem with you accepting as truth only what the present government says, but I think Wikipedia readers should have access to both sides of the conflict. You could argue that not all of my edits have been constructive, but the fact is that such does not constitute vandalism, and the page would not be as high profile without my contributions. If you find it unpleasant to work in this environment, then please do not let me stop you from taking your prejudices elsewhere. If you find a page that gives only the Libyan government's version of events, you will probably find you are in total agreement with it.

In conclusion, EllsworthSK, I have no problem with you taking a side, but unfairly denigrating attempts to present the facts is not helpful. On a final note, I would like to say Thanks Esn for creating the page, for being balanced, and for tempering some of the more extreme allegations from EllsworthSK.Red and black partisan (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Don´t bring this new thing on me. I´ve seen how many times you were warned about upholding the rules. Your talk page does not disappear just because you delete the content, its still stored in its history. I am not the first to bring this on you. You need to read rules. Take WP:RS and WP:NPOV as your first priority. Also you can respond with this gigantic wall of text on ANI where I reported you. I have nothing else to say to you unless you learn the rules first. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also when ANI is done, I am bringing this article to WP:AfD because I don´t see anything salvageable in this. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Partial overhaul

While I would disagree with EllsworthSK that this article needs to be deleted, there are also numerous deep issues with it, from highly POV tone to horrendous sourcing to large amounts of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I've sought to remedy this partially by making a number of changes. I've changed the article title from "Green Resistance", which is really not well substantiated by the available reliable sources, to the generic and more neutral "Gaddafi loyalism after the Libyan Civil War". I've tried to also correct a number of egregious issues with the tone to make the article less extremely pro-Gaddafi, per WP:NPOV, and have removed some of the more obvious instances of shoddy sources, OR, and SYNTH. Nevertheless, I still have reservations about the article's quality. Sources need to be individually evaluated, for one, as I didn't go through and check all of them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that does seem to be a better title. As I said, I wasn't really sure what to call the article when I first created it. I'm still really busy so I'm afraid I don't have much time for at least a month, though... Esn (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I should mention that the term "Green Resistance" is used here, so perhaps that can be used as a source for it. Currently it doesn't seem to be in the article (I only did a quick scan, maybe I missed it). Esn (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like you and EllsworthSK did a good job - the article as it stands right now is pretty readable, well-organized and not too long. A shame that you couldn't find sources for anything more recent than 2012, though. Anyway, Red and black partisan's version is in page history, so anyone who wants to can leaf through it and try to see if any more reliable sources exist for things from that version. To Red and black partisan: the article seems unlikely to be deleted now, so you can relax. Anybody who really wants to see what you wrote can view the page history. Just take your time and learn how the system works if you want to edit the public face. Or post suggestions in the talk page. Esn (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I did like the inclusion of this map in the last version of the article before your edits, though. I can certainly see it as useful to see which countries do not recognize the current Libyan government, and therefore might be friendly to the Gaddafi loyalists. Esn (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have 10 pictures of armed gaddafi loyalists (mostly from 2013-2014) they are all taken from facebook/YT videos would they be classified as fair use? SYobservation (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, post please.--Communist-USSR (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been plenty of new pro Gaddafi activity recently. Both in 2016 and 2017... a litany of videos, Saif Al Islam being freed, various towns (mostly in the south) having green flags being posted, like what the hell are the editors doing to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.121.90 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gaddafi loyalism after the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202233801/http://unsmil.unmissions.org/Portals/unsmil/Documents/Briefing10May2012.pdf to http://unsmil.unmissions.org/Portals/unsmil/Documents/Briefing10May2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227101642/http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/18/346409/libya-declares-state-of-emergency/ to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/18/346409/libya-declares-state-of-emergency/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140130052152/http://www.afriquejet.com/news/730-army-9-soldiers-killed-in-clashes-with-gunmen.html to http://www.afriquejet.com/news/730-army-9-soldiers-killed-in-clashes-with-gunmen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested, unopposed. Dekimasuよ! 22:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Gaddafi loyalism after the 2011 Libyan Civil War → Gaddafi loyalism – Is that last part really necessary? Charles Essie (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus Koopinator (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The two are pretty related, and it would improve our coverage of both to have them in the same place. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least as of now. It's a separate organisation and deserves its own coverage in light of the upcoming 2020 Libyan general election as the party of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. SUM1 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)