Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Wazzin images

Hey everyone. I recently tried to upload a picture relating to the Tunisian border incidents but ran into some copyright trouble. I've found a nice cache of Wazzin related pictures but i have no idea of thier copyright or how to find it. If somebody could find out and maybe upload the best/most relavant images i'd be grateful, thanks :)

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.153027828096375.40721.133738650025293

Fancyflyboy (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of War on Italy by Libya?

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110430/163800240.html

so what does this mean now?--Thegunkid (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That means that Gaddafi is an idiot! Declare war on Italy officially and Italy invokes Article 5 of the NATO Charter (collective defense) and in a week Gaddafi is dead and NATO in Tripolis. That's just some of Gaddafis ramblings, ignore that. If he would go through with it though, then it would show that he has completely lost it. noclador (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This means that brainwashed people who believe everything told by pro-western media are idiots. There was nothing like this in Gaddafi speech. What he really said was like "i have no right to tell the other Libyans not to hate Italy after such treachery". Some liars deliberately mistranslated him. 95.32.62.57 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-western? This is a Russian source, with Russia being critical of the Foreign Intervention in Libya so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegunkid (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a primary source. And no, bigger russian media aren't that critical, most of the time they simply repeat anything that reuters or jazeera say. 95.32.62.57 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We need precise translation of speech before enter such statement in article. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless someone just set the Italian Embassy in Tripoli on fire [2] --Thegunkid (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

in the old days and attack on an embassy was a veritable reason for war,... alas I doubt Berlusconi will use this to declare a chapter 5 case. noclador (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Battle of Al Zawiyah, and First Battle of Bani Walid

Could someone please create these pages once we get some more (official) information.

So far I have gathered from 23/04/2011

Suburb in West Al Zawiyah taken by populace, an ambush of Gaddafis forces resulted in 20 killed after the previous ambush last night at a farm just south of the town.

In Bani Walid rebels ambush four convoys, loyalists attack the town with Mortars and GRAD but failing to retake the town.

Source is Al Jazeera, April 23 Blog Comments Section. (Can't be verified yet as trustworthy as source is, wait a few hours.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.140.40 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We can wait, but I'm sceptical. I recall at least two instances in the past where uprisings were reported in Sirte by the Twitter rumour mill, only to receive no confirmation whatsoever by legitimate sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, April 23 Blog Comments Section - uh, that fails all and every WP:RS rule! noclador (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya is now a warzone according to the Twitter Rumor Mill. We will see if the media pick up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.140.40 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't pick up on the vast majority of what comes out of that. While I'd certainly like to hear such news, I don't think it likely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the latest from Bani Walid: 1 (taken from here). Still loyal to Gaddafi, but perhaps not as firmly as before. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN Say Zawiya Under Rebel Control

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/27/libya.protests/index.html?on.cnn=1]Apparently the security forces switched sides and forced the rest out of the town. Can someone please create an article and update the map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.140.40 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That was the 27 February 2011, that is under looser control now. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Az Zawiyah has been relatively quiet since it fell to loyalists back in early March. You might want to check the publication date of the article before jumping to conclusions next time... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

http://liveword.ca/libya/2011/04/25/4804/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.140.40 (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Three words: Twitter Rumour Mill. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

CNN !? No shit. CNN is source of unsource and lie since they exist.--94.140.88.117 (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But actually, there was no lie in that article. It was just from months ago. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia Bellerigent?

According to Al Jazeera, Gaddafi's forces crossed over into Tunisia and are now shelling and exchanging fire with the Tunisian millitary. Should they be added to the Bellerigents list? According to twitter they seem to be collabarating with the Rebels around Wazzin at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.137.160 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is some border clashes, not interstate war.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

According to one of AJE's journalists in Tunisia. The battle was very much fought by the Tunisian military against the Gaddafi forces trying to shell one of the towns (Dehiba) crucial to the rebels supply and support/control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.137.160 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should wait for some official information from both sides. Publish information that one country is in the war with another is serious think.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there some statement of Tunisian government which declared that it is in war with Libya?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian troops defending their territory is not equivalent to Tunisia entering the war, much less Tunisia intervening on the rebels' side. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. we must first to official statements about international probles before enter such information in Wikipedia articles. I try to find best solution, I believe that this is the best for now.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia is certainly not a belligerent. territorial defence due to rebel and/or gov't forces possibly entering Tunisia does not mean they are an active participant in the conflict. As already pointed out, no statements exist that indicated the two are at war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia is not an active Belligerent as of yet. A border incident does not a war make. If they choose to respond to the provocations and attack back, then you could have case for saying Tunisia is actively participating. ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If these boarder incidents continue or of Tunisia sends in soldiers into Libyan territory then I believe we should include Tunisia as a third party belligerent, however as the current situation stands this has just been a boarder incident and not an act of war as such. IJA (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Tunisia should be added as a 3rd party, they're clearly just protecting their own territory, not taking sides. Fancyflyboy (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Like Archer said Tunisia is not an active participant in this war. And like he said a border incident isn't a war. And Tunisian soldiers have not directly engaged Libyan soldiers, they only fired in the air. EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter, Loyalist Forces are still shelling Tunisia http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE74009920110501 --Thegunkid (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

How do they know these were loyalist artillery rounds? 95.32.62.57 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the rebels in the Area currently don't hold Artillery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegunkid (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even a measily howitzer or a mortar? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the rocket launchers were always considered artillery. 95.32.123.178 (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Title?

This has probably been brought up before, but I'm not sure where to find the discussion, if any exists. The title of this article is "2011 Libyan civil war". Why is "2011" part of the title, and Libyan Civil War just a redirect? The title of the article should be "Libyan Civil War", because Libya has had no other civil wars (unless there's one that I don't know about?) and "2011" is redundant if there was no civil war in previous years. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there have been several in the area of Libya, but none in the modern state. Searching for 2011 in the archives would be a bit problematic. Errr... Try searching title. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wars that have been waged in Libya's territory, but occurred before Libya became an independent state (especially in antiquity), are never described as "Libyan civil wars". They have well established names. No war is known as the Libyan civil war, except this one. Also, I'm not aware of any civil wars that occurred before Libya became independent. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what others said, I don't have much of an opinion on this issue unless it is changed to Conflict. Someone cited several civil wars with years, but it's in the archives and they don't have articles yet. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, found them. Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_8#2011 and Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_9#2011.3F Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves

Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → 2011 Libyan Revolution

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan civil war → 2011 Libyan Revolution – Consensus in two discussions above seems to be that partisan involvement by formally constituted external forces is by now such that it can no longer be considered a civil war. I'm open to other suggestions, but revolution seems to acknowledge the initial stages of the conflict as arising internally, but not not have the sense that it necessarily remains between domestic belligerents. Reliable Sources no longer seem to be using civil war, but there is not much uniformity as to what they are calling it (turmoil, crisis, conflict and others seem to be in use). Kevin McE (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Do we have to list all the sources again that fall under what title the media uses? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't give a reference for where all these sources have been listed before: majority opinion in discussion above is that civil war is no longer a valid description. The RSs I looked at aren't using the term. It probably was applicable earlier in the conflict, but no longer. Kevin McE (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose same as above. I haven't seen any sources calling it a revolution. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose How could it be a revolution if they're still fighting? Gaddafi hasn't been overthrown. Revolution means that the rebellion has to be successful. Was the American Civil War a revolution? TL565 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Unless people have been successful, their actions were not revolutionary? You cannot revolt unless you do so successfully? Massive external forces were actively engaged in the American Civil War? Extraordinary grounds for an oppose! Kevin McE (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult you, sound uncivil, or have this sound like an ad hominem attack, but I'm not quite sure you understand what a Revolution actually is. It is a complete and total upending of the system in place, and yes it does have to be sucessful otherwise it is usually just called an uprising or rebellion, etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're talking about about the war being a revolution. Were not saying the rebels actions are not revolutionary, but just like Tunisia and Egypt, it has to be successful otherwise it could just be a crushed rebellion. Do we call the American Civil War "The Confederate Revolution"? Also per WP:COMMONNAME, there are no sources calling this a revolution. TL565 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This isn't a revolution, it's an ongoing conflict. And in fact I'd still describe it as a civil war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask by what definition of civil war you make that conclusion. Massive partisan involvement of multi-national forces places this outside any standard definition of civil war. Kevin McE (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a conflict between domestic factions for control of the state. Foreign support for one or more factions doesn't change that. —Tamfang (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It started as that: it is clearly now a conflict that goes far beyond domestic factions. On our article on civil war, the definition given is "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies." NATO do not aim to take power in Tripoli. Foreign intervention on this scale absolutely changes the conflict away from the definition you cite. Kevin McE (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cited definitions and trying to match them up with various reports here are just WP:SYNTH, it's not our job to determine what kind of conflict this as that goes against policy. We're basically being armchair generals or w/e then. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If NATO do not aim to take power in Libya, what is the goal of the belligerents? Is it not to determine which domestic faction shall have power in Libya? Or is NATO opposed to all Libyan factions? — Does an electoral campaign cease to be a contest between candidates Alice and Bob when voters get involved? —Tamfang (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The results of previous move requests have affirmed this name as the most appropriate. This requested move appears to be a self developed title, with no indication that it is wildly employed. If there is no support for it by tomorrow I would suggest a quick close.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Huh?. I've never heard that foreign participation was a defining feature of revolutions. —Tamfang (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor did I claim that, merely that such a scale of foreign participation was incompatible with the definition of a civil war. Indeed, I pointed out that my suggestion (now withdrawn) of the revolution title was because that did acknowledge the "grassroots" start of the conflict. Kevin McE (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw suggestion of 2011 Libyan Revolution as a new location, owing to different applications of the latter term. Many opposers seem to have overlooked "I'm open to other suggestions" in the proposal. BUT I still see no way in which the current conflict meets any definition of civil war, and no evidence of major reliable sources doing so at this stage of the conflict.

I am still seeing a good deal of civil war being used in the RSs. Whether we feel it does not meet the Wikipedia or dictionary definition of civil war is irrelevant in this case really. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Libyan conflict is still preferred by the news sources in something like a 10:1 ratio over every other alternative I can think of (including the current title). If we actually have calmed down enough to follow the policy governing article titles (WP:COMMONNAME), someone will suggest a move to Libyan conflict, everyone will look at the current mix of WP:RS, and a consensus will vote to move it to that title. Wareh (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't be opposed to a move to Libyan conflict, whichever is preferred. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan conflict

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan conflict – per discussion above. Kevin McE (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're only allowed one of those banners at a time. Please delete the old one. (not deleting another user's post)Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The title ought to include "2011" imho. —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "Libyan conflict" is a useless name. It could easily refer to any of the many actions during the Napoleonic Wars in and around Libya, Reagan's bombing of Libya, etc. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then you have a reason to keep 2011 in the title now don't you? ^^ Btw, strongly opposing or supporting something doesn't give the opinion more wait weight, just so you know. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would it give more "wait" ? :) I'm not suggesting to put the decision on hold. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha, whoops, brain-fart. I wasn't saying you were suggesting, though if we are going to have it be Libyan conflict, we have to have a year. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Far too general a term to apply to this conflict, could also apply to e.g. Italian-Turkish War of 1911-12 or important campaing of Second World War. PatGallacher (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - especially since there is no year in this suggested title. We had "2011 Libyan uprising" before didn't we? ...before it got changed to 2011 Libyan civil war. I'm fine with it if it includes the year, such as 2011 Libyan conflict, but without the year, it's a pointless title. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose You dont call a two government sided battle that has involved NATO, other countries a mere conflict. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to 2011 Libyan conflict, for the same reasons previously stated the last times. On asking the admin who wrongly closed the last 2 requests himself, even though the 2nd was a reflection on his flawed closure of the first, in which it was pointed out by many users that 'conflict' was by far the most commonly used term in reliable sources compared to 'civil war', and still looks to be, he declared he had given as much weight to those people using their own original research to declare this was a civil war in clear violation of policy and Wikipedia's core principle of writing from the neutral point of view, than to those properly referring to the widely accepted naming policy to say that this article should be at the common name. This was clearly wrong, and needs to be overturned, but yes, it also needs 2011 for accuracy. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it's a Civil War. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Khamis???

Khamis al-Gaddafi death was not confirmed and its dispute, so why he is marked as "killed in action"?--78.102.90.139 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Change 2011 Libyan civil war to Libyan civil war?

Just an idea but how many civil wars has Libya had? if this is Libya's first civil war then adding the 2011 does not make much sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya as a nation is a construction of the the Saharan wilderness to the south and the states of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. In short, as a country it has existed only for around 60 years and this is its first long term civil conflict. I've said in the past the 2011 in the title is pointless and cumbersome, but people around here don't want to have another change the name debate after the arduous process it took to rename it Civil War instead of uprising ArcherMan86 (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well time has passed since then, I can easily put it to a move request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge, go ahead. I think its a good idea and may have a consensus now given the degree of conflict that has already occurred(its not just a "2011" thing). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

btw, I still can't get used to thinking of it as being a civil war with the major events (like yesterday's killing of Gadafi's son etc.) being caused by outside forces. To me it's like a 6 year old named Joey(rebels) attacking a 12 year old named Bob(Gaddafi) and then a 21 year old (NATO) steps into the fight on the side of the 6 year old (not 100% but just dancing around the ring and smacking down Bob once in awhile). I don't see how that can, with any degree of honesty, be billed as "The Joey and Bob Fight" (which may be why there are still not that many Reliable Sources calling it a civil war). The term "civil war", especially after yesterday's NATO bombing, is becoming ever more transparent in its "does not fit"ness with the passage of time. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many civil wars that involved participation from external forces. Solely being between to internal factions is not the definition of a civil war. The Spanish Civil War is a good example...both sides received direct support from other outside interests (Germany, USSR, etc).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War Jbower47 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was the UN not NATO that "stepped in", either way we don't live in a world where conflicts begin or end at borders and we haven't for quite some time. I doubt you could find a conflict that is going on in this world today that does not on some level involve outside influence. The reason this is a civil war is because there are two factions which claim to represent the legitimate government of libya and are vying for control of the country. 65.92.8.231 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

NATO assasinating of Gadafi family

It becomes clear that NATO is trying to kill Gadafi family, since there is not advance on ground. Chapter could be made. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Several European leaders have made contradictory statements about this, along the lines "We are not trying to kill Gaddafi but there can't be peace in Libya as long as he remains there". Biscuittin (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a bit from the BBC article on the views of China and Russia that these attacks are beyond the UN mandate. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read conflicting articles where the US says reports about members of Gadaffi's family being killed are unsubstantiated, and where you have Gadaffi spokesmen saying that one of Gadaffi's sons was killed as well as three of his grandsons and that Gadaffi and one of his wives (or does have just one?) were in the building at the time it was targeted.

Now both of these are sketchy of course. The Gadaffi one is prone to lies that, for the most part, would only be believed by the uneducated man on the street, who might already have a deep distrust of the West.

The US, if we were actually targeting Gadaffi, would not admit that we are doing so as it is against Federal Law (and international as well?) to assassinate members of a foreign government (the exception being Admiral Yamamoto, whom we owed retribution for Pearl Harbour, though he was brilliant).

Now unless we can get enough reliable sources we should not be saying that the US government or NATO are trying to assassinate anybody, we cannot put that in. Even if we feel it is painfully obvious, it does not matter. Our own interpretations have no place in this article.

Also, Biscuittin, I think that quote is meant to mean that they want Gadaffi out of the country in one way or another, it does leave open the possibility that he leaves it alive ofc (though you left out the bit where he said that "if Gadaffi happens to be in one of the places they hit at the time of the strike, well...") =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NATO is not trying to assassinate Gaddafi, that would require an agreement by all the member nations that this be a goal for the commanding officer to execute. If Gaddafi happens to be in a place being bombed and he dies, that would be "collateral damage". However as of now there are no agreements taken by NATO that killing Gaddafi is a goal of NATOs mission, therefore any talk of NATO trying to assassinate Gaddafi is crap. However nobody will say this publicly, because if Gaddafi believes he is a target, maybe be scared enough to go with his family into exile, which is NATOs preferred outcome of all this. noclador (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't share Noclador's confidence that NATO countries always play by the rules. Even if NATO is not trying to kill Gaddafi, it's quite likely that the security services of one, or more, countries are. They have, allegedly, tried it before. See David_Shayler#After_MI5. Biscuittin (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all just speculation really. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Everything is speculation. It just depends which speculation you prefer to believe. Biscuittin (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As a reminder, this Talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not general opinions about current events. There are plenty of political forums on the internet to do so. Please keep discussion limited to the article.Jbower47 (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is trying to determine how to include what things in the article and how much WP:WEIGHT to give them, though some of it is veering into WP:FORUM. Biscuttin, when I say speculation, I mean it appears that you're engaging in WP:SPECULATION, let's just stick to what the sources are saying, because their reporters (reporters though they may be) usually have a better idea of the situation on the ground than we do. =p Please find some English-language ones that disagree with the Western ones, like Xinhua and such, and present them here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I disagree with Wikipedia policy. I think truth is more important than verifiability and I think the "verifiability, not truth" policy brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Biscuittin (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See, the problem with the WP:TRUTH is that everyone has their own versions of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, article talkpages aren't the place to bring that up. That is why we have WP:PUMP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have put it on WP:PUMP. Biscuittin (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a more direct link: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Verifiability, not truth. Biscuittin (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all very fascinating, but wikipedia is not a forum! WP:FORUM 65.92.8.231 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again with the dagger?

There is a dagger next to Saif al-Arab's name. I thought we agreed not to use the dagger as it looks like a Christian cross to most. We opted for KIA instead. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

misleading information

In response to protest section there is information about security forces attacking ambulances but reference leads too events of 4th march in Misrata, when this was a war already and not protests, in same passage they speak about firing from helicopters and there is no source what so ever, I think it never happened so unless you have some sources please delete it.

I would recommend changing the name of the article to "2011 Libyan Revolution." This meets the criteria to be categorized as a revolution more than a civil war. [Leroi] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.18.191 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Abdul Jalil being labeled as dictator and the opposition to Ghaddafi rule as anti-Jalil's protesters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.237.190 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's more important, Jalil isn't even the current head of TNC, it's Mahmoud Jibril [3] (who's not even mentioned in the infobox). It's even unclear if Jalil is still alive, as there were rumours of his death and he was nowhere to be seen for some time 95.32.234.51 (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again the misleading info in the introduction reappears. It seems that there is a dedicated vandal here because the introduction has been corrected already but when i checked 30 minutes after it got reedited in a manner in which Jalil is labelled as dictator again and other misleading statement contradicting what were and are in the news. Is wikipedia now a battle field for Ghadaffi propaganda war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.237.190 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The vandal has already change the heading of one of the topics from Battles between pro and anti-Ghaddafi factions into Battles between pro and anti-Jalil factions

Soon he will corrupt the information of that section too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.237.190 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

He did it again. The Return of SuperblySpiffingPerson? :O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is! I was just joking before, lol, but it was him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Muammar Gaddafi speech, 22 Feb 2011.png listed for deletion

A file on this page, File:Muammar Gaddafi speech, 22 Feb 2011.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Loses

Loses on both sides havent be updated for several weeks so we should mark that this is not current numbers.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See also - missing link

In the see also part you are missing the Wikipedia - Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flawededge (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti Gadaffi loses

Somebody put smaller numbers of anti-Gadaffi forces loses. I don't know is there some new sources but it is quite strange that loses of one belligerent side become smaller as war going on?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We revised the numbers in the main article. Before the opposition numbers included civilians also. Now we made an attempt to separate the civilians from the rebels. That's why it went down. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Rebel Movements

On the AJE Libya blog it states that the rebels are now going through the streets of Tawergah and huting for hiding Gaddafi troops. There is also a video named "Rebels Creep Towards Sirte", perhaps the arrow south of Misrata should be put back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.137.160 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for such discussions. See here for the image talk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edition

Development: successes and corruption

Its petroleum revenues contributes up to 58% of Libya's GDP.

in the first line. I see a miscorrelation in the number category: "revenues contributes".

JLincoln (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Add this

Add this note- On May 28, 2011, Russia offered to mediate a peace deal with the coalition to help oust Col. Gadhafi in a dignified manner.[[4]]86.24.22.97 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. It's been edited a bit from what you said (here's the diff). Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi

Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi wasn´t leader or comander! he was a civilian, killed by NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.161.123 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that given recent events, the towns of Bani Walid, Zurawah, and Zliten be labeled on the map as "unclear situation" instead of "Gaddafi-controlled" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heresbubba53190 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Update

Is there an update on the total number of casualties. Hasn't been an update in a while. MuffinxMonster420 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

United Nations intervention

Reference to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 shows that there is far more involved than a 'no-fly zone', which is all that is suggested in the section. For instance, the resolution authorises participating members to use 'all necessary measures' for the protection of civilians and civilian-populated areas. I suggest that a suitable re-write would be on the lines of: "On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 calling for an immediate ceasefire, requiring the Libyan authorities to comply with their obligations toward the Libyan people and all relevant international laws, including facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance, authorising 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians and civillian-populated areas by participating member states, including a 'no-fly zone, calling for an end to the provision of mercenary troops but prohibiting any foreign occupation force. It included other provisions relating to travel restrictions, asset freeze and the arms embargo." This would replace the current first sentence. Agent0060 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to international intervention

Wherever it occuurs, the suggestion that the intervention is US-led is quite erroneous. Can we agree that the intervention is, in fact, British or Anglo-French led with the US very much taking a back seat. In addition, before anyone includes such a suggestion, can we agree that the European Union has had no role, apart from trying to suggest that it was leading. when, in fact, it is incapable of doing any such thing. Agent0060 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

Missed

Is there some information about missed anti-Gaddafi fighters?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Rebel Crackdown in Benghazi" section

The following segment is misleading and redundant :

"During the rebel crackdown, hundreds of suspects were arrested by rebel security forces in a several-week period. Some of the suspects were summarily executed. An official in the rebel security agency stated that six suspects were killed in one week, claiming that they had been on a closely guarded list of suspects, but that each time that an arrest was ordered, it was discovered that they had simply been killed. Many of the arrests were carried out by vigilantes, or by "protection squads" not sanctioned by the National Transitional Council."

I read the Al-Jazeera article and the AP article by MICHELLE FAUL which were cited as sources for this. The AP article said 6 suspected Gaddafi agents were "found" dead. Murdered? Yes. Assasinated? Yes. "Summarily Executed?" No, not according to this source. The passage above implies these 6 people were executed while in rebel custody. That is not true. Their killing was not sanctioned or carried out by the National Transitional Council, according to these sources. Vigilante justice should not be confused with government policy.

I have rephrased it like this:

"During the rebel crackdown, hundreds of suspects were arrested by rebel security forces over a several-week period. Many arrests were carried out by civilian "protection squads," not sanctioned by the National Transitional Council. An official in the rebel security agency stated that six of Gaddafi's former internal security agents were found dead in one week. He claimed that they had been on a closely guarded list of suspects, but that each time that an arrest was ordered, it was discovered that they had already been killed. Vigilantes are suspected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogTrain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Marines captured

The article mentions 3 Dutch marines captured, citing the BBC. However, these were not marines but 'common' Navy personnel, such as correctly reported by i.e. CNN; http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/03/libya.netherlands.sailors/index.html 80.57.90.106 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

252K - time for subarticles

This is now 252K! Time for some major subarticle work folks! BarkingMoon (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

References Collapse

I noticed the references section on this article is almost 400 individual entries. Would it be possible to make this section collapsible, therefore cutting down on the amount of clutter. This would cut down the length of this article which has become quite large. --Maddogxlt (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not without further discussion, please. Referencing is a key part of checking the reliability of Wikipedia. It should not be made onerous to check sourcing. Also the change you made ended up with the refs beign centred which is ugly.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

UK Humanitarian Eforts

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/Situation-in-Libya/ Could be added to the humanitarian section.147.188.254.210 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxhound66, you were blocked from editing. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Media manipulation, fake child victim NPOV

Could use a bit of media manipulation POV regarding Benghazi rebels and international coalition of the bombing, maybe.Pär Larsson (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Independent article

On June 10, it was reported that French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Qatar Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani were hindering talks on a peace and humanitarian deal being brokered by Greece between the Libyan government and the National Transitional Council, which includes the end of violence and relief of $20 billion for both sides from Tripoli, over pre-conditions.

• "and Qatar Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani were hindering talks"; however The Independent writes that "A senior Libyan official... claimed that there was now "personal enmity" with the French Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the Emir of Qatar,..., against Colonel Gaddafi – which was hindering a peace deal and humanitarian efforts." It does nowhere in the article state that the Emir of Qatar contacted the Greek or was active in hindering anything that the Greeks do, but the writing on wikipedia makes it seem that those two persons actively hinder the Greek.
• "a peace and humanitarian deal being brokered by Greece between the Libyan government and the National Transitional Council" the article does say that "a team led by a former diplomat close to the Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and regime members" - but the article does nowhere say that the National Transitional Council is involved in this negotations.
• "which includes the end of violence and relief of $20 billion for both sides from Tripoli", the article does not say that this deal includes the end of violence, it states "an agreement on the use of its assets for aid could lead to a ceasefire agreement".

When using sources stick to the source and do not rewrite the original material. noclador (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This Petey Parrot person has been insistent on trying to add POV edits to this article. Good catch. Fovezer (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Saif al-Arab @ infobox

Why he was posthumously listed in the infobox as one of the "commanders and leaders"? He was neither. Simply being a son of a leader doesn't make him a leader. But the fact he was with his father all this time proves that the rumours about him being sent to Benghazi to quell protests and then siding with the rebels were nothing more than usual pro-rebel lies and propaganda. 77.45.143.205 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point about him being list as a leader is right. He was reported to be a "minor son" in sources I read, though idr which they were atm, probably Jerusalem Post. But yeah, he wasn't someone who actually lead anything afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the sons are leaders to some degree, each having been given their own, essentially personal, 'army'...ranging from 100-10000 men.92.21.218.112 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unfounded claim. That's how english wiki works: watch NATO killing a civilian and then name him a military person 77.45.205.194 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed him from the info box for the reasons listed above. He had(has) no connection to the military. Besides, no one even believes he's dead. 163.1.188.194 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It might just be a hoax, but true, he has no connection either as a military leader of a political leader. BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary events

Preliminary events

Why is that "vandalism" when the defector Nouri Mesmari who was head of protocol of Muammar Gaddafi and preparations for the airstrikes by France and Britain are mentioned? There is even an official website by the French military on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.245.25 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a conspiracy theory; please read WP:Fringe and it is also a ridiculous conspiracy theory. noclador (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Preliminary events" does have references and the idea that it is a "ridiculous conspiracy theory" is just your opinion. I get told off for expressing opinions on this page so let's have some consistency. Biscuittin (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "conspiracy theory". Those are facts from Maltastar, AFP, AlJazeeraEnglish and an official website of the French military. Just watch the videos. It is really Nouri Mesmari the head of protocol of Muammar Gaddafi. He is in Paris and he asks for NATO air strikes against Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.104.99 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense! Conspiracy theories are not part of an encyclopedia. noclador (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not nonsense. Those are facts from Maltastar, AFP, AlJazeeraEnglish and an official website of the French military you cannot refute and that is why you ignore them. Your allegation is just your unsubstantiated opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.5.179 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey-hoe!Wipsenade (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Isn't that why the neutrality of this article is disputed? BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war

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: No clear cut consensus to move. Although good arguments have been put forward. Perhaps when the conflict ends may be a better time to request a move. KiloT 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war – It makes no sense to have the 2011 added on here as there have been no other civil wars in Libya's history. Name change also does not conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Per Knowledgekid87. There have not been any other Libyan civil wars. Only this one. What's the purpose of the 2011? We don't call the Bosnian civil war the 1991 Bosnian civil war? EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We actually call the Bosnian Civil War just the Bosnian War. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok than, but we don't call it the 1991 Bosnian war :). EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Libyan civil war" or Libyan Civil War? (2011 Libyan Civil War) 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: quoting myself from Archive 8: Libya also had civil wars (or events that could be termed as such) in 1711, 1795, 1835 and 1920, according to a very cursory glance at GoogleBooks. Articles on either of those conflicts (if not already covered elsewhere) would certainly be welcome additions to WP overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  If there are such events, then Libyan Civil War should list them all. Yug (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Re "list them all": Merely because they are not on Wikipedia does not mean that they did not occur. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember that discussion, someone really should write that article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys should direct yourselves to my comment at the bottom of this section, there were no other conflicts which are libyan civil wars, and if you're opposing the name change based on this you may wish to alter your stance. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, look for a few sources and make your decision based on what they say. Libya predates the Italians. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please do a search for sources that discuss libyan civil wars besides the current conflict. Like me, you will discover that the Italians unified the former Turkish colonies of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan in 1934. You will also find that they chose to name this unified colony Libya because it was the word that the Greek's used to refer to all of North Africa (except Egypt). At this point you may logically ask yourself how any conflict that occurred before 1934 could be a libyan civil war if the country did not yet exist and the people who lived in the area did not yet refer to it as Libya :). 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But you will find that there are a number of civil wars that occurred in what is today Libya. These wars would most likely be addressed by a book covering the history of Libya, and someone searching for "Libyan civil war" might very well be searching for one of those. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support This is the biggest modern day internal conflict involving two Libyan factions unlike the coup. It should be just Libyan civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuffinxMonster420 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as there have been others. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MatthewVanitas. Lack of articles on the other wars is no reason to have this one usurp what should be disambiguation space. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MatthewVanitas. Also, for consistency's sake. All the other articles stemming from the Middle East protests (e.g. 2011 Egyptian Revolution, 2011 Syrian uprising, 2011 Saudi Arabian protests) include "2011" in the title. Regardless of whether there have been other revolutions/uprisings/protests in those countries (there have), I feel that keeping "2011" in the title of this article is important for now to maintain consistency. In addition, should Gaddafi be overthrown, there will likely be a (successful) push to rename this article "2011 Libyan Revolution." Why must we name and rename this article more often than absolutely necessary to maintain WP:COMMON, etc.? DonT15 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment In response to other candidates for libyan civil wars: "In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan" (from Wikipedia page on Libya). So someone has some explaining to do, how can an area that is divided into 3 separate colonies (none of which are called Libya) wage a civil war (a war for the legitimate control of the government) between themselves? All of this on-top of the fact that the Italians were administering the government in each of these 3 separate colonies. This rules out any 1920 civil war, the fact that it wasn't even called Libya by the people who lived there in 1711, 1795, and 1835 rules out the others. In sum, no internal conflict in this area before 1934 can be called a Libyan civil war, that would be like calling the French and Indian Wars the American Civil War because it took place in what is now the USA. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The French and Indian War is not really a valid comparison; that is war between colonial powers moreso than amongst the people. Regardless of modern naming conventions, civil wars in Tripolitania/Cyrenaica/Fezzan/any combination of the three might be referred to as Libyan civil wars. See this, for instance, which refers to Libya as a "quasi-independent Ottoman province", which goes against your claims of Italy creating the political entity known as Libya in 1934. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See this as well, which states "rebellions broke out across Libya and the countryside descended into civil war." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Italy created what is now Libya, I bolded the important part of the quote in hopes that no one would miss it, Italy chose the name Libya. The circumstances of an individual war were not my point, my point is that we cannot responsibly go around and name conflicts based on the countries which eventually came to exist in the area they took place. As a legal entity no country of Libya existed before 1934, and the name Libya was not even used to refer to that area by the people who lived in it before 1934 (as the quote points out that it was the Greek name for all of north africa minus egypt, not a name which was indigenous to that area). These wars which you mention did not take place in any state, country, nation, or entity called Libya, either by historians and scholars now or the people of that time either. The google search you provide only has 3 book results, one of which refers to "Tripoli (Libya)" and is clearly drawing the distinction between what it was called then vs. now, one of which uses Tripoli and Libya in alternating sequence and the first one which erroneously just uses Libya. Are you really going to argue that the name shouldn't be changed bc 1 author used the name Libya when he should have said Tripoli like the other authors did? This kind of stuff just distracts from the real issue which is simply that nothing at all has changed in this situation to warrant changing the name. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if we were discussing the name of one of those conflicts, which we are not. My point is that any of those conflicts might be termed a "Libyan civil war" by a searcher. That is why we would have Libyan civil war as a disambiguation page, to point them to the correct page of whatever civil war they seek that occurred in what is today Libya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That would make perfect sense if these wars in question even existed as articles on wikipedia, but they don't. We have to deal with things as they are, not as they could be. As it stands right now these wars you speak of don't have articles and thus they should not have any weight in what name we give this page. When (if ever) they exist and when (if ever) people confuse them with this page then it would be worth consideration. I think its also important to point out that even if these past wars had pages they'd be little more than stubs, and given the near lack of sourcing on them they would be at risk for deletion. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. If they happened, they can be articles. All that is needed is for someone to create them. That is the entire premise of Wikipedia. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My argument is perfectly valid, the name of this page cannot take into account pages which don't exist. Those pages haven't been created, they might never be created, and they may never be called anything which could be confused with this page. And if they were created, a disambiguation page might not be, or the articles could simply get deleted. There are too many variables in this that could quickly render your entire argument moot. But if you really believe what you're saying then I urge you to go and create the pages so that we can get this resolved, otherwise this will remain hypothetical bs for the foreseeable future. Since you mentioned premises I'll also remind you that Wikipedia isn't merely a repository for everything in existence, articles have to be well sourced and in a reliable, verifiable manner. I caution you that the sources given for these wars aren't very reliable, and given the sheer lack of sourcing that they aren't verifiable either. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said that "the name of this page cannot take into account pages which don't exist"? WP:OTHERSTUFF may not exist on the wiki as of now, but that is no reason to disregard them. Just because we do not have articles on them does not mean that they should not be taken into account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind you that WP:THEREISNODEADLINE for article creation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have converted Libyan civil war to a disambiguation page for now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? There is no rule that we must disregard information which is not on wikipedia, but there is no rule that we have to take it into account either. I am simply advocating that we deal with concrete scenarios and not hypothetical ones, which is why I asked you to create the page so that we could deal with it, and now we will. I congratulate you on craftily avoiding stub articles by making the disambiguation page a page of information onto itself...good job 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your reference goes against this reference [5] page 61 of this book states that Libya was named Libya in 1934. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Libya was not a separate independent state in 1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920, just a collection of Ottoman or Italian provinces. The Proffesor (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As many people have said, there were ones in 1711, 1795 and 1835. Also, it would be most unlikely this war will slip into 2012. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As you can read here, adding the '2011' to the title was a deliberate choice because there actually have been other Libyan civil wars, such as the 1832 Libyan civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per User:TaalVerbeteraar's note.Wipsenade (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I am changing my position to supporting the move, I can see that the people who are opposing the move are the same people who have opposed every rename at every point and that inventing imaginary wars is their next step in stifling the process. You may think this is an unwarranted accusation, but I don't see how people who opposed the name "libyan civil war" because it didn't meet WP:COMMON can now turn around and say that other wars which have never been called "libyan civil war" could be considered them even though they would never meet WP:COMMON and don't even exist on the encyclopedia! The bottom line is this: you cannot have a Libyan civil war before 1934 because Libya did not exist before 1934, and unlike in the case of "America" the area that is now called Libya was never referred to as such by the people who lived there until 1934. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC
• Support, even if it isn't the only thing that might conceivably be called a Libyan civil war, it's still the clear primary topic for that phrase. Also by calling it "2011" it sounds like it's already over, or we somehow know it's going to be over before the year's out.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per MatthewVanitas. Also, the consistency with other wiki articles about other arab conflicts this year would be lost1exec1 (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its kind of inevitable that said consistency will be lost, "Tunisian Revolution" has already lost its "2011". In any event, they'll all remain connected through the "Arab Spring/Jasmine Revolution" article. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Almost every oppose standpoint I have seen here have just agreed with another's POV or cited that there were other civil wars in 1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920 and pointed here that back then they were just a collection of Ottoman (Ottoman Tripolitania) or Italian provinces. If Libya was indeed named Libya in 1934 which it appears to have been "In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three Provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan). The colony was administered among four provincial governatores (Commissariato Generale Provinciale) and the southern military territory (Territorio Militare del Sud or Territorio del Sahara Libico" then there would be no other conflict named Libyan Civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons listed above. It is the only Civil war in Libyan history. Its not important whether the other ones have a page or not. Whats important is that prior to 1934 'Libya' was not called Libya and did not exist as a nation-state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is NOTHING wrong with the current title. Stop this stupid renaming crap once for all and direct you energies into something useful. Like improving that pile of propaganda there is for an article.95.105.180.253 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not only does the new name meet WP:COMMON but the the fact that "Libya" didn't even exist till 1934 means that all the other civil wars listed (1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920) were not even for the same country (even though it may have been the same group of people in the same general region). I also agree that the 2011 in the title sounds presumptive. It sounds like it's already over or will be over before the year is out. Everyone thought the US Civil War would end within a year as well...Sabre ball (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As has been noted, all oppose votes have been based on an argument of there being previous Libyan civil wars. As has been noted, none of these were actually Libyan wars:

• 1711 Karamanli coup, at the end of a period of civil war in Tripolitania
• 1793-1795, a second civil war in Tripolitania (this is still about 150 years before Libya even exists as a state)
• 1835-1858, a revolt in Ottoman Libya

and finally,

• 1920, a civil war in only one part of the Tripolitanian Republic (interestingly enough, in the Nafusa Mountains, but that's a different discussion)

So, no wars that fulfill the requirements of a) 'being' a civil war and b) happening in 'Libya', not a pre-existing entity. Is there a possibility of doing a redirect and having a little line under the title saying "This refers to the civil war in Libya beginning in 2011. If you are looking for other civil conflicts in this region, check Libyan civil war (disambiguation)", as I know it has with other things, like the French Revolution, which refers specifically also to a couple later revolutions and also has a disambiguation page? 97.75.142.190 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 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.

Missed rebels and losses

Is there some information about missed rebels? Are they deserted, killed in action, murdered or captured? Is there some relevant rebel-based source with this kind of information? I looking on the internet but I haven't find some official national transition council source.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Battles/slashes/raids

I saw that there are frequently changes of article names (battle of Al Zawiya - raid to Al Zawiya). Can we gain some consensus about article names and what is more important some minimum about opening new articles about different battles.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

POV in Photos?

Uninvolved editor with no bias here, but I was looking through the photos and what I noticed is all of the photos are either 1) Supportive of the rebels, 2) Show Gaddaffi's forces destroyed or damaged, or 3) Show NATO air superiority. Now, I'm personally supportive of democracy in the middle east. That said, the photos strongly lean toward a POV in support of the rebels. Anyone else notice this?--v/r - TP 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your evaluation is still correct.Satiksme (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a POV tag to force review. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone reverted the tag and I readded. The photos only promote 1 part of the war. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Error?

At the bottom of the article, the {{Anti-government protests in the 21st century}} seems to be generating a Wiki-link to Template:Navbox. I checked the template in my sandbox and it renders correctly there, I cant figure out what's wrong. Does anyone else see this?--v/r - TP 01:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The page exceeds the size limit and some templates can't be rendered. I added a toolong tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much vandalism

Currently, there seems to be too much vandalism going on. I have requested semi-protection here.--Tingo Chu (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one. There is no hope. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.192 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I work for the CIA? News to me. O_O We have just been getting our info off of the RSs and putting it here. As far as I know, the CIA, MI6, Aussie MI6 (G something or other), Mossad and everyone else haven't had a hand in writing this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the 'Australian SIS'. 86.24.22.97 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As we see above, it was called "a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one." Why just the CIA!? Sir William is right, it is unfair to only blame the USA (the UK and France are in there to)?

Wipsenade (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that serious consideration be given to the thought that vandalism is being undertaken by Gaddafi supporters wherever they may be. Including the comment above that "This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history."

We should be asking ourselves who has most to gain from making this suggestion. The US, or Gaddafi? Agent0060 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Australian version of the CIA is ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation), just for your information.. Tjpob (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ASIO is the internal Aussie intelligence agency. ASIS is the external one and thus the equivalent of the CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.77.153 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline and list of countries which recognize the provisional rebel authority.

Annoyed at U.S. media failure to provide ongoing record of which countries have now recognized the Libyan rebel authority as legitimate, I came here hoping to find such a list and timeline only to discover it was not explicitly being done.

Included should be Italy, Canada, Germany, UAE, and the rest. As of this writing the U.S. has not. Unsure about U.K. Unsure about a lot of them due to this media suppression for whatever reason.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You may find such a list at the NTC's wiki article.--Yalens (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection expired, please re-protect.

This article WILL be consistently vandalised until the war is over. It was semi-protected for _short_ periods multiple times only to get vandalised as soon as the protection expired. I strongly suggest an indefinite semi-protection as this conflict is likely to go on for some time. 109.230.2.249 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This should be taken up at WP:RPP. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AL QATRUN UNDER REBEL CONTROL, currently attacked by Ghaddafi forces from Sebha

Source? Loro-rojo (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This libyan blogger, It is not an official source, but sometimes local bloggers are the only ones who can provide current news from some parts of Libya off-limits for foreigners. http://twitter.com/#!/libyanproud

Anyway, he later stated rebels have been forced to retreat from Qatrun but they are currently re-grouping. Stay tuned.151.80.66.79 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nearby Murzuq (not in the map) currently under rebel control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.66.79 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Rebel offensive

I suppose that we should start new chapter after Rebel offensive because several days there are not any territorial change or important military event. In medias there are more reports about NATO actions than rebel-Gadaffi clashes.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sudan now a Belligerent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.211.54 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kufra

I think that Kufra should be added on the map.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support – It is probably more known than Al Jawf (the largest town in the Kufra oasis).--Paracel63 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To big article

All templates failed, I suppose because article is to big?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.28.92.39, 5 July 2011

"offering them bribes to reject their her claims" - needs minor grammatical correction so that this makes sense. (Possibly delete "their?") 96.28.92.39 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

well caught this error! fixed it now, thanks noclador (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Already done per Noclador. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Paragraph- Please fix

Hello, I can't edit this article, but I noticed there is a repeat paragraph. Could somebody please fix it? (I think the top one is better- it sounds more neutral and has sources cited) Here are the paragraphs as they appear in the article-

"In Tripoli, clashes between demonstrators and security forces took place in the center of the city, according to Al Jazeera. A doctor claimed that government forces had fired on protesters in the city. Crowds of protesters threw rocks at billboards of Gaddafi, and troops attacked them with tear gas and live fire. A resident claimed that armed security forces were positioned on rooftops surrounding Green Square, and about 200 lawyers and judges demonstrated inside a Tripoli courthouse, which was surrounded by security forces.[176]

In Tripoli, clashes between demonstrators and security forces reportedly took place in the central part of the city, and involved thousands of people. According to a doctor, security forces fired on protesters with live ammunition. Crowds in the city threw rocks at billboards of Gaddafi, and troops attacked them with tear gas and live fire. According to a resident, armed security forces were positioned on rooftops surrounding Green Square, and surrounded a courthouse where about 200 lawyers and judges were demonstrating."

Thanks and have an awesome day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.172.13 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out! I fixed it now - good work to read through the article! noclador (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate and Allied war crimes

By June the international press was calling the conflict a fiasco which had reached a stalemate. War crimes allegations against the Allied forces began to surface, including mass rapes of Libyan women at "gang bang parties" and their subsequent murder after by NATO-backed rebels.

Petey Parrot (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sources for international press are two opinion pieces from the Huffington Post and Washington Post, both US papers; one by a "professional mediator" and the other by an "opinion writer". Your source for the war crimes is a self-described "radical newsletter". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of a Russia Today YouTube video does not improve this I am afraid. They are heavily biased against the US and under the control of the Russian government last I checked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same report from your government BBC and the rest of the global media highlighting the U.N. report, which stated the rebels have committed war crimes. Go sit in a classroom of Luc Ferry and follow Weinergate, it's more up your alley.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why not just link to the story on one of their sites? You know YouTube videos, by themselves, are not RSs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an extremely POV snippet that relies on opinion writers, which are called "the international press," and a hilariously unsourced blog post that provides zero evidence of said claims, which are treated as legitimate "allegations." Oh, and throw in the conspiracy-ridden Russia Today for good measure. Someone has to read WP:RS. Fovezer (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The American people opposed the arming of rebels by a vast majority, yet the United States did it anyways, allowing the mass rape and gang bang parties of innocent Libyan women obviously without the arms Western Libyan leadership dispered to their people earlier in the conflict to protect themselves from such barbarity. What a scary thought for Libyan women as a whole if the despots in Washington put the rebels in control of Libya. The U.N. has already accused the rebels of committing war crimes.

If we listened to the so-called champion of women in America Hillary Clinton counting chickens before they've hatched again, she would be attached to the Kucinich resolution standing up for her gender across the globe. She'd be Madam President if counting chickens before they hatched was actually quality governmental leadership and strategy.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On June 8, 2011, the U.K. said they would turn their guns on Libyan rebels lynching blacks and attacking pro-West Libya civilians, following a report from Human Rights Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Other reports indicated that weapons with depleted uranium were being used against W. Libya, contaminating the global air supply.

Petey Parrot (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The first article is about Fukushima and only makes a flippant remark about DU at the end, not a "report." The second one is about "fears," but nothing indicating they are being used. DU is used in smaller penetration weapons and ammunition, not in the bombs they are dropping now. Still no RS claiming the use of DU in Libya, either. Fovezer (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On June 9, 2011, the Libyan government in Switzerland denied allegations of war crimes, claiming to be the victims of media fabrication employed to deflect attention away from Allied-backed rebel war crimes, which included engaging in acts of cannabalism. The representative in Geneva said evidence it has obtained would be turned over.

Petey Parrot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The same day, CIA director Leon Panetta conceded there were "legitimate" concerns about the rebels and their extremism.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that any statements which are not pro rebel are instantly rebuffed by the community here, so I have little hope of the article ever reading like an encyclopedic article should. That being said, in the head section of this article it states "Gaddafi's forces, particularly amongst the foreign mercenaries, are alleged to have widely used rape as a weapon of war, and in some cases victims may recently have contracted HIV.[43][44]". This is true, however highly misleading, as both sides have been accused of using rape, and both on equally weak grounds of evidence. An article with several references which pulls together interesting and relevant facts can be found here: . For those who are not pre-judged about either side, it is clear that for whatever reason, the wikipedia article is skewed as anti-Gaddafi propaganda, refusing to apply the same principles to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.169.242 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is essential to add that the rebels are an extension of NATO hence they cannot move one inch without NATO advisers giving the green light. This basically means the rebels are under NATO command, a proxy force, therefore NATO is responsible for the crimes committed under the hands of the rebels. An example of such crimes is the brutal torture and murder of black Libyans , not to mention the rapes which the rebels are accused of.

Also NATO is guilty of War Crimes for example targeting imams , civilian buses, and even a University . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozyism (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Pro-Gaddafi Propagandist

Please, remember that Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda; it is a place for knowledge. At the moment, this article is very biased! If nothing will change during this week, I will ask my friend (from Wikipedia administration) to lock this article and fix it. Yes, I know how you love the opposition, but again: Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.147.61 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, we are just going by what the reliable sources say, nothing more. Nothing can really be done if there aren't ones that show Gadaffi in a positive light. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I have not even mentioned that this article is anti-Gadaffian! I caught you! It seems that you agree with me that this article is biased, but don't say it!

In the whole time we have been editing this article, that's the bias that has been complained about, and we have told those people the same thing. Don't you think an AfD is a bit extreme? You're going to get a WP:SPEEDYKEEP rather fast. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An AfD are you serious? This just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for deletion, anyways expect a speedy WP:SNOW close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this guy likes to bold things to make his point he does have one, I've been so focused on the title of this article that I haven't been looking enough at the content. The opening paragraph says it all, it's loaded with unsourced speculation about when the civil war will end, and in who's favour it will be decided. It also mentions the human rights abuses by gaddafi but fails give prominent mention that the UN believes both sides have committed war crimes. Another good point was made that most of the pictures seem to depict the plight of the rebels and not the regime. I don't think "not having sources" is an excuse for this, I'm not suggesting that we integrate the bs that Gaddafi spews out, but the language of the entire article needs to revamped to remove predictions and to speak dispassionately about the situation. The article has also become way too long and needs to be broken up, some of the subheadings are relevant to the article or deserving of their own, but others have been added by enthusiasts who are forgetting that wikipedia isn't a fanboy repository. This is especially true of the `battles between gaddafi and oppisiton` heading. PS in case anyone wasn`t aware, there are 493 references given in this article!!!!! 174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources that contradict info in this article, add them, with verification. Otherwise, you can call the article "biased" until "the cows come home," and it's 100% your POV. Tapered (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying that someone's insight is 100% their POV makes utterly no sense, of course that's the case, everyone has a POV when they speak and its their own. If this guy wants to criticize the article as being biased you can't dismiss it by saying "well that's just your opinion". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To delete the article is the worst thing you could do here. If you think the article is biased, then you have to change it by adding "unbiased" or counterbiased information to make it more center. To delete it this way is, compared to the huge amount of time and information given, absolutely useless. WP:SPEEDYKEEP for you, because i haven't seen a dispute of "unbiased" editors against "biased" editors, which ended in unjust favor of the biased ones. Change the article, which you are free to do, but don't delete it.--Mardas90 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Time was given to contradict statements and references given in this article and none have been produced. The Gadaffi regime is censoring news and holding journalists and torturing and executing people. Wikipedia, above all, is not the place for the bias and POV of dictators. It would be very useful to see some statements and analysis by ordinary people, not members of the Libyan government, who think Gaddafi should be left in power and his crimes excused, but we need to see this in some believable and verifiable way. Radical Mallard (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. The internet is full of articles about the peculiarities of the rebels from the eastern tribes, including their central bank. How many revolutions start with a central bank? The internet is also full of articles about the motivations of the former colonial powers in recapturing Libya, from depriving China of an energy source to securing the Mediterranean to maintaining the dollar as a reserve currency. And the internet is also full of articles about the history of Libya, including the fact that although there are certainly those who hate Gadaffi, they are very sympathetic to the way he kicked out the western colonial masters. Anybody interested in making this article more plausible can easily google for these, insert a few sentences and references. Otherwise it is a very disappointing example of how self-policing in the wikipedia can fail so egregiously. Son of eugene (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The internet is also full of lots of porn too, what's your point? Wikipedia isn't here to represent what the internet is "full of", it's an encyclopedia that only accepts verifiable sources, not blogs, not opinion, not original research. I agree that there are many issues with this article and I believe the language of it is written in such a way that it favours the western pov and demonizes gaddafi beyond what is neccessary to communicate the facts of the matter. If you're really concerned about the artcile then YOU should do something to improve it, we've got plenty of people on the talk page who are willing to repeatedly and montonuously point out the problems with the article or the problems with the people who edit it. What we haven't got is anyone actually willing to do anything about it. If you wanna see a change in the article then don't pass the buck off to someone else and tell them to google what you say and fix it, they're not gonna do it because they don't think it needs fixing. If you think its important to do then get it done. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The opposition's rejection of democracy through elections is significant enough to warrant mention in article's lead

Along with being vigilant not to conflate aims of the National Transitional Council with terms suchlike 'seeking to introduce democracy', 'seeking the holding of elections' etc. Its aims bear more accurate description as solely relating to the promotion of its own influence and power along with that of its members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If you for a second think that the NTC rejected democracy simply because it rejected Qaddafi's offer... you must be mad. Loro-rojo (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP is a banned editor. A community banned editor in fact. He is not supposed to be contributing here and you can delete his stuff on sight. He wore out his welcome a loooooong time ago.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the Tripoli government which has announced a peace plan founded on elections and the Benghazi government which has continued war and rejected it. That action speaks louder than any propaganda statements to the contrary. There have not been elections in the regions where the NTC has seized control at any time in the four months since they have done so. It is something they have proved hostile to. What they have been about is persecuting the existence of rival political parties in Benghazi founded upon the ideology of the 1969 revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kynuna (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK man.. Yeah, just like the cease fire they announced right before attacking Benghazi and before NATO intervention. I can't believe that people listen to Qaddafi's empty promises and believe his talks about "peace and democracy". And about the NTC not holding elections... you said it yourself, they have been in power for ONLY 4 MONTHS!! Funny how you attack the NTC for not holding elections in 4 months as anti democratic, but Qaddafi who has been in power for 41 years and has not held a single election is the example of democracy to you. Go away. Loro-rojo (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Four months is enough time to announce and then hold an election. As part of an offer for the acceptance of a framework for peace the Tripoli government has committed for them to completed in even less time than that. In three! The barrier to those elections proceeding is the antidemocratic hostility and nature of the NTC who are themselves wholly unelected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.60.97 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And there is your problem. You believe Qaddafi. It's amazing that he can hold an election in 3 months, considering that he has had over 40 years to hold one but he hasn't. Maybe you should read a bit about who Qaddafi is and what he has done. Your ignorance is astounding. Loro-rojo (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In February a group starts disrupting traffic, setting fire to buildings, and then murdering police and soldiers. They say it is for the sake of having elections called. Some people notice that over time the group itself doesn't hold elections. Then in June, initiative is made for the calling of those elections and the group just rejects that and continues with its war. That is the admission of their hypocrisy, that the elections talk was smokescreen for the agenda of their own power. It's a point of high relevance for exposing the subject of this article. It warrants coverage in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.131.154 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, you may start a Gaddaffipedia on your own, no one will stop you. But it is not helpful for you to demand we introduce a lopsided POV and obstinate denial of the facts into a currently respectable encyclopedia article. --Yalens (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just undid an edit by IP user 124.171.60.97 over the same issue. Can we please get semi-protection on this article or something? Also aren't some of these 124...IP's connected to a sockpuppet account investigation or something?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To all editors the IP beginning with 124. are used by the banned vandal SuperblySpiffingPerson. As he is banned from editing wikipedia the procedure with all his edits is to revert on sight and as for the socks and IPs he uses the procedure is to block on sight. No debate, no discussion, you see an edit that fits the pattern, revert immediately! noclador (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this sockpuppet editor has found a new tactic. I noticed an edit by one of the 124 IP addresses, followed shortly thereafter by an 'undo' (in which nothing was reverted) on the edits by that 124 IP by user 'H3limon' - this user has 4 edits - two of which are on this article, and two of which are on another article which has also seen much activity from these 124 IPs.

User H3limon also removed a pic of a protest in Dublin against Gadaffi because a woman was holding a sign calling Gadaffi a 'murderer'. Both changes have been reverted.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Try to check before blocking 'on sight'. Not all 124. IPs are neccessarily the same guy. 92.16.123.34 (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys might wanna read up on IP, before some RS claims censorship lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.136.226 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember the CIA involvement in this conflict. CIA has been trying to topple the Libyan regime since 1990s, training and financing anti-regime forces. The violent start of the protests are testimonial to foreign involvement. UNHCR reported that CIA was directly training and financing anti-regime forces, this was reported in 2006, from sources all the way back from 1996. The same anti-regime forces attempted to topple the regime previously, but they failed. This time US was quick to help them through air power. (Source - UNHCR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozyism (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 2 add ... Sudanese army invades Libya, taking control of the southern town of Al-Kufra.

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 2 add: According to The Daily Telegraph, the Sudanese army invades Libya, taking control of the southern town of Al-Kufra. (The Daily Telegraph) 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the Sudanese allies of the rebels, of Ghaddafi, or are they a third side to the war? — kwami (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

They just want stable oil supplies on their northern border, defacto this pits them against Ghadds guys who've been shutting down supplies to interfere with rebels finances, but in general they're Neutral. Wouldn't expect shots to be fired, officially denying they're even there etc. 92.16.123.34 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say they're more a third combatant than neutral. Let us see how the rebels like the Sudanese invading part of their territory...--Yalens (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

MQ-8

The MQ-8 is a US Navy drone, not a USAF drone. 150.226.95.18 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

could it also be that it is operated by the US-Marines? or the Army? that it is not the Air Force is clear, but what service is it exactly?

foreign costs

Foreign powers have spent a lot of money on this war. I have read figures of 700 million USD [6] from the US, over 100 million CD from Canada [7], and then this from the UK, [8] . Could we get a section on this? It would be quite helpful. (LAz17 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)). France - old figure, [9] (LAz17 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)). UK so far - 250 million pounds [10] (LAz17 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

Support - I support this measure, the price of this conflict should be public knowledge. --Smart (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are the other main players involved that contributed funds to the assault? So we have US, Canada, Uk, France... I thought maybe Germany, but maybe not, [11] (LAz17 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)).

The French costs are available. [12] Gonna make a list soon. (LAz17 (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)).

It would also be great if we calculated how much Libya has lost, I have seen the MSM constantly talk about the cost of the bombs dropped by NATO, but have not at all commented on how much it has costed Libya, the destruction, the unrest, the bloodshed, the stolen foreign assets... Please Wikipedia, it is necessary to create a section counting the Libyan cost.

example

Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya.
Country	Funds Spent	By
Canada	$26 million USD	June 2011[13]
France	$228.9 million USD	July 2011[14]
United Kingdom	$400 million USD	June 2011[15]
United States	$664 million USD	May 2011[16][17]

Rebel advance on Gharian

According to the BBC, rebels are advancing on the town of Gharian (spelled Gharyan on the map, I think) south of Tripoli. Link--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And according to the NYT, they're looting and pillaging indiscriminately on the way [18] 95.32.131.153 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

One section will make this perfect

I'm sure you guys are too busy with these topics, and you're all doing a wonderful job :). I'd like to suggest that the Battles_between_government_and_opposition section splits to a new article, and put a very brief and general intro. It would solve the length problem here, as most readers will run away in this case. Happy editing and good luck. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I support this suggestion: same thinks we can do with section Background and Anti-Gaddafi movement. basic information in article and long text in specific article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• note: I don't have experience in this field, so no-body whould wait for me to do anything :p. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved section Gaddafi response to protests into specific article, but it should be fixed. It will be good solution to completely rewrite this article and make some sustainable structure (Background, Protests, Military operations, Intervention, Reactions) and than make specific article on every of this topics.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this is only early stage of war and if it continue in next months we will have article of few hundred pages and thousands of references. I think that small number of good references can be good substitution for hundreds of references.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

True, and it would have a final clean-up at the end of the war (if it ends :p). My consern is, readers rely on Wikipedia during the war and a tiny scroll-bar will scare them away. There's almost 1/2K references, and 272K visitors last month (more than Islam)  :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably one of the most reading articles? we need several editors to completely rewrite article, make good structure and more specific articles because we have huge amount of text.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Does UN News Centre need a wp article, or is the redline unnecessary?

Does UN News Centre need a wp article, or is the redline unnecessary? 99.181.151.89 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

foreign spending

I think we should have a foreign spending section. It could be divided into two parts - funds used to bomb Libya. And funds used to fund rebels. Here is a small table I made regarding funds to bomb libya...

Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya.
Country	Funds Spent	By
Canada	$26 million USD	June 2011[19]
France	$228.9 million USD	July 2011[20]
United Kingdom	$400 million USD	June 2011[21]
United States	$664 million USD	May 2011[22][23]

Is it any good? If it is I will proceed to get sources and data on financial aid to rebels. (LAz17 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)).

Good idea, if you find reliable sources, I think that it is Ok to include facts about financing.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks lovely... Good work :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick run of aid before I table it... Turkey-100 million granted[24] plus 200 mil [25] , Italy - up to 400 million [26] , various donors - 100 million [27] , 1400 billion from UAE [28] , Kuwait 180 million [29] , France - 425 million [30] , Quatar - 100 million [31] , USA 25 million usd [32] ... not a bad list of figures for just a short time of searching. (LAz17 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).

How does one code so that the entire text/table is on the right instead of on the left? (LAz17 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)).

Sorry for editing your table, but you can look at it as an example ;). All table functions are available here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda in Libyan war

Im certainly a bit surprised (only a bit, I have seen it before) by the attitude of some users who try to avoid at any cost the inclusion of Al Qaeda in the rebels side in the infobox. There are dozens of reliable sources stating the presence of Al Qaeda fighters in the Libyan conflict. If that is not enough (and it is enough, if we dont apply double standarts in comparison with other groups included in the infobox), we have that both sides of the conflict had confirmed the presence of Al Qaeda in the fighting. The Libyan gov. and Gadafi had stated it since February, but in the other side it had also been confirmed by NATO generals or NTC commanders. So, what more evidences are needed to include it?. The number and strenght of that Al Qaeda fighters is anothers issue, but it is crystal-clear that Al Qaeda is involved in the 2011 Libyan war. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like an extraordinary and inflammatory claim, and rather than being like the 24-hour media, we should have a higher standard. Having "links to Al Qaeda" or "knowing some guy who used to be in Al Qaeda" shouldn't be good enough. If it is crystal clear that Al Qaeda is involved, could you, as you say, tell us how many and what tasks they are doing? The problem is that we need to using our critical eye instead of the one the world often prefers that we use, which is the undiscerning eye. What does 'links to Al Qaeda' mean exactly, precisely? They get a weekly paycheck? They learned how to fight from Al Qaeda? How does whatever link they might have affect their behavior in this war? Is it negligible? Is the war changing their outlook on things? WHAT IN THE HELL DO WE ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT IT? See, its super easy to throw inflammatory things into an article or on TV. Its quite another to really look into them and discover what the facts are. -- Avanu (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

the al-Qaeda in Libya story is bogus and BS. someone once was in Afghanistan... so what? there are flickers of al-Qaeda in Libya??? there are surely more GRU operatives right now in Libya then al-Qaeda people. the al-qaedae inclusion is like saying: a camel kicked a Gaddafi soldier to death! so now we must also include the camels as a combatant force, as obviously there are flickers among the Libyan camel population of anti-Gaddafi activity. noclador (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qamel :) -- Avanu (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Avanu and Noclador. Al-qaeda has a minimal presence in Libya. Just because al-qaeda has declared support for the rebellion in march, doesn't mean they are a belligerent. They have not been fighting in Libya as alqaeda. The ones in the frontline are now trained soldiers in the east, and civilians in the west. Hugo Chavez declared support for Gaddafi. Should we put him as a belligerent or commander? Zenithfel (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only that but the articles he mentions only give "flickers" of al Qaeda. and all these articles are dated to march. Any al Qaeda that is in the Libyan opposition is not fighting under the command of alqaeda, but independent. THis differs from foreign mercenaries which still fight under the command of a contractor. Anything with alqeda speculations are indeed just hype.I7laseral (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen literally nothing from WP:RS confirming al-Qaeda is fighting alongside the rebels. What's more, I seriously doubt the governments of Canada, France, the UK, Australia, Spain, and the United States - among others - would have gone all-in to support people allied with terrorists who have perpetrated or attempted attacks against their civilian populations. Especially considering the government in all of those countries is facing potential defeat at the polls. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that for some users, Al Qaeda presence can only be included with an official, Al-Zawahiri signed, authentified Al Qaeda communiqué, and perhaps with that they still will denied it. Im only claiming for avoiding double standarts and try to made the article not totally biased, as it is now. For example, if Al Qaeda is removed, same should be done with the African "foreign mercenaries", wich is based on claims with no proofs, rumours, etc.. and had been denied by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and finally by the same "rebels". As other users had stated, I hope WP is still a enciclopedia, as with articles like this looks more like an AGIT-PROP pamphlet. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Wikipedia policy called Identifying Reliable Sources. We are not here to spread rumor or propaganda, but verifiable information. If you want to do something other than that, start a blog. -- Avanu (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you keep trying to add the Libyan islamic fighting group as a belligerent. This is also wrong, considering the group does not fight even though they assign allegiance to the NTC. At this point only trained soldiers go to the Brega Adjadibya front, meaning the soldiers their count as NTC soldiers solely despite what ever their personal or past beliefs are, unless they are conducting contrary practices like spying. Long story short, that group is definitely on the side of the rebels, but not a belligerent. I also took out the anti-addafi tribe/pro-gaddafi from the box, because they too are not belligerents. People have only been fighting as either part of gaddafi's army, NTC's army or the Misrata/Nafusa civilian army, never as a tribe.I7laseral (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bengasi court tribune 0833.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bengasi court tribune 0833.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

MAP IS WRONG

Al Qatrun is in rebels' hands, not Ghaddafi. Actually right now Ghaddafi's troops have encircled the town trying to re-capture it. There are several others errors in the map in the distribuition of Ghaddafi/rebels held zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide your source. There have been many claims that Qatrun has fallen to rebel hands, but no one has provided evidence for this. 12.177.58.124 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source which talks about the "rebel-held city of Al-Gatron", but then says how rebel claims are unreliable. Nothing conclusive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is also a translation of a Spanish-language source which talks of an attack on the city. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the most recent raw footage Arabic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbEHIF4D_v8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7L0uAvPHM Moemin05 (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The info box

Recently i have noticed people adding pro and anti gaddafi tribes to the info box. This is incorrect, as no tribe thus far had faught another side in representation of its own. Basically everyone in each army is fighting as a Libyan citizen and not from a tribe. We have not seen any proof thus far that any tribe is fighting alongside anyone, despite what the government spokesperson says. The height of any evidence for these "tribes" helping out either side is a bunch of masked people in a room with Gaddafi at the rixos hotel hugged him, and even then we have no proof if those people were actually tribal.

The second thing is foreign mercenary issue. I have altered it, so instead of using the term mercenary we will now use foreign militia, and simply separate which ones are company hired and which ones are just off the street hired. It only matters because of international and legality complications.Sopher99 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. No evidence from either the NTC or Gaddafi's people that tribes are fighting as tribes rather than conscriptions . No evidence of tribes fighting alongside either Gaddafi or NTC either, other than spokesmen claims. Not only that i would raise a third issue. The Libyan islamic movement. As i said before At this point only trained soldiers go to the Brega front, the soldiers there are NTC soldiers solely despite what ever their personal or past beliefs are, unless they are conducting contrary practices like spying. Long story short, that group is definitely on the side of the rebels, but not a belligerent. I also took out the anti-addafi tribe/pro-gaddafi from the box, because they too are not belligerents. People have only been fighting as either part of gaddafi's army, NTC's army or the Misrata/Nafusa civilian army, never as a tribe. I7laseral (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree; There is no reference for 'tribalism' because it seems to be a myth. If it's true then there should be a source; till then it must be removed. This seems to have already been done, but 3 days later it has reappeared. What's going on?Moemin05 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sopher99, both you and Geromasis have made four reverts in the past 24 hours, and HCPUNXKID has made three within the past 48 hours. If y'all want to avoid a WP:3RR violation, I suggest stop trying to change the infobox before the multiple parallel discussions now running here are concluded. My personal opinion is that I see no reason to change the infobox; tribalism has been convincingly cited by WP:RS as a reason for factionalism in Sabha (see: 2011 Sabha clashes) and the greater Sirte area. I'm more opposed to the inclusion of the Islamic Fighting Group as an ally of the 17 February revolutionary movement because I haven't seen reliable sources calling it a belligerent and it comes off as more of a smear against the anti-Gaddafi forces than it does a reasonable attempt to be encyclopedic and verifiable. If someone were to present supporting RS, I would likely change my opinion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sopher. we have not heard of a single tribal casualty from either the rebel or gaddafi side. Any tribal members fighting in gaddafi army counts as gaddafi's army soldier. period. The tribes themselves due to come independtly to fight colonial aggressors who allied themselves alqaeda. Nothing support either gaddafi's or NTC claim other than "see these people wrapped up in cloth and hugging gaddafi... they are tribal leaders and they love gaddafi". Hardly counts as tribes taking arms into battle against rebels. Zenithfel (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, in order to do so, we would have to disregard the clashes in Sabha, Zlitan, and Sirte, and the popular resistance opposition forces have faced in the environs of Gharyan and Sirte at various stages during the conflict. While in the areas firmly under NTC control and many of the main battlegrounds, it seems irregulars and volunteers have been integrated into the regular army of both sides (inasmuch as such organizations exist in Libya), tribal allegiances seem to have had a significant role in determining who controls farther-flung outposts and cities. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets only put tribal belligerents in battle pages like Sabha clashes. I have seen no tribal armed activity in Zliten or Sirte for that matter. They are not a MAIN belligerents. They are just sectarian clashes that happen time to time. in an unrelated example, Algeria supplies gaddafi with weapons even sent soldiers according to the rebels, sudan occupies kufra as we speak, but we don't put them as main belligerents. During the beginning of the conflict Tunisian citizens came to fight against gaddafi, but we don't put them in the MAIN PAGE info box. Just because an anti gaddafi tribe decides to revolt temporarily in Sabha doesn't mean we put it in the main page info box, rather the Sabha clashes box.Zenithfel (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been no independent confirmation of Sudanese participation, just one article quoting unnamed "NATO officials". The Sudanese government has denied it and the NTC hasn't said anything about Sudan being in territory they purportedly control. As for putting tribal belligerents only on certain pages, this page is the main article for the conflict as a whole. Most of the battles of World War II didn't involve Free French or ROC forces, but France and China are considered Allies on World War II worthy of inclusion. This page should express all noteworthy combatants in battles part of this main event as per precedent. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources for involvement 'as a tribe', then please name those tribes. Otherwise, there is no tribe, and it's only a word that rolls off western newsreaders' tongues. Just because the country has tribes, as all Arab countries do, doesn't mean they will be involved as a tribe in every situation. I've seen no tribalism at all, except on Gaddafi's State TV. Moemin05 (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the Awlad Suleiman tribe rose up in support of the revolution in Sabha, but they were suppressed. Al Jazeera mentioned unspecified tribes were at odds in Sirte here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New article United States involvement in the 2011 Libyan civil war

I have created a new article called United States involvement in the 2011 Libyan civil war. YHG 942 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is good idea but it should be completely rewritten to meet Wikipedia criteria.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

that is a superfluous article - as long as the US acted on its own the operation was under Odyssey Dawn and since then became a NATO mission all the information is under 2011 military intervention in Libya. this article above is only doubling the info already contained int he other two articles. noclador (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it doesn't necessarily need to be deleted- it could be used to chart US humanitarian and diplomatic actions as well. I would suggest at the present moment that it should be expanded to be "Western involvement in..." (Western excluding Turkish here), as many Western nations had related strategies. In particular, I feel like the pivotal role of France-the first and most staunchly pro-rebel state- is being ignored.--Yalens (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both views together :p. We can consider the official move discussion on its talkpage. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having an article about US involvement on its own is fairly pointless. NATO involvement on the other hand might actually make for a substantive and relevant article. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Request

Maybe we should move it to Libyan civil war instead of 2011 Libyan civil war? There have been no prior civil wars in Libya, and keeping "2011" on there seems pointless and unproductive. We do not say "1936 Spanish Civil War", for example, nor "1864 American Civil War".

Per WP:COMMONNAME of course, as searching for "2011 Libyan Civil War" (in quotes) leads to 400,000 hits, while "Libyan Civil War" garners 976,000.

If you search with " -wikipedia" tagged on to the end of the above search, you get 3,900,000 for "2011 Libyan civil War" and 5,390,000 for just "Libyan Civil War"

Google News Archive returns 115 results for "Libyan Civil War" compared to 2 for "2011 Libyan Civil War".

Google Books gives 3 results for "Libyan Civil War" and none at all for "2011 Libyan Civil War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.125.253 (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed ad nauseam with the previous civil wars in the area being brought up etc etc. Not to be a pedant btw, but 1861 American Civil War would have made more sense. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one think that renaming this Libyan Civil War would be a great idea per the last discussion though these problems came up:

• 1711 Libyan civil war
• 1795 Libyan civil war
• 1835 Libyan civil war
• 1920 Libyan civil war

While Libya was not called Libya in the 1920's and before, there was no consensus for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea that there are other things which could be called a libyan civil war was brought up in the last move request. I asked the person who was most vehement about it to go ahead and create the pages as well as a diambig page that included them so we could settle the issue one way or another. The result was that the disambig page was deleted and the consensus was that 1) these wars in question weren't likely to be called libyan civil wars by anyone and 2) that no one was likely to confuse those wars with this one. So what does all this babbling mean: wars in Libya before it was called Libya should have no bearing on what we call this page. That said, the "2011" portion of the title has been there since the article was created because it is a wikipedia naming convention to do so (when there is no common name). I don't think that at this time its worth opening up another RM just to get rid of the 2011. While the google news results for libyan civil war and libyan conflict are approximately equal now, this only underscores that there really is no common name for this war. In short: lets wait until the sources decide the name once and for all, then come back and re-evaluate the page name. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Article size

The articles size is way too big. It needs to be cut down to separate pages.--Wikien2009 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, but many parts of artickle should be completely rewritten and new articles organized. It is big job.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Map

Where is previous map with separate territories marked?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rebels enter Brega

This Lebanese site say that rebels attacked Brega while loyalists forces withdraw to "Bashar" area.

http://www.elnashra.com/news/show/367406/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B7%D9%82%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%82%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.12.223 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Its no good if it can not be confirmed the information, is there another reference to back this one up? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Brega is still in Ghaddafi's hand, being attacked from 3 directions from the rebels who are 4km away from the center. It might be matter of few days. Qatrun and Murkuq fully in rebels's hands.MaXiMiLiAnO 19:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please post your source. I have heard some claims of Qatrun and Murkuq being liberated, but no one posts their source. 12.177.58.124 (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera says so too: http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/libya-jul-18-2011-1848.--Yalens (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, battle for Brega is still ongoing. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/Landmines-Hinder-Libyan-Rebel-Battle-for-Oil-Port-125799958.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.234.93 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebels took Qatrun but it was retaken by Gaddafi's forces on Thursday after three previous attempts. (92.7.1.69 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC))

Yes , unfortunately Qatrun fell back to Ghaddafi's forces. When you ask for reliable sources, sometimes it is difficult to find them from the southern libya and we ca rely on some reliable blogger in Twitter who are on the spot. Maximiliano151.80.86.92 (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Qatrun still contested: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=293994 Zenithfel (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

British Airman

Military sources indicate that he was killed OFF DUTY in ITALY, Not because of the Libyan war So he wouldnt be on the casulaties list. Goldblooded (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but I believe that he could be mentioned in artickle about Military intervention.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. But it wasnt because of the war. Goldblooded (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Military sources don't say he was off-duty, far from it. They say he was part of a logistical convoy, transporting supplies from the UK to Italy, in support of the military operation against Libya. The official military source is here [33]. Please don't make up things or you will be reported for POV-pushing. EkoGraf (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I smell a threat here. Why couldn't you just WP:assume good faith and put a possibility that he read it somewhere (maybe it's not reliable, or before the news spread).

Who cares if he's on-duty or not. As long as his death is not related to the civil-war, I don't think it belongs here. It might belong to other articles that is related with their losses in-general. There wasn't, till now, any suspicious that his death is a conspiracy or purpose to delay their attacks. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not a threat it was a fact. Also, off-duty or not he was declared to had died while supporting operations in Libya, thus part of the war effort. He was logistical support for the bombing campaign. The MoD declared him part of the operation, I have provided the official source for this. Removal of sourced information is considered vandalism by Wikipedia. There have been around 1,000 US military deaths that were non-combat deaths but are regarded as fatalities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what conspiracy? Have no idea what you talking about there. EkoGraf (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My comment was solely-based on the reference you added. It never says that his cause-of-death is related to the mission in Libya (he was just on-duty, and it was an accident). That's not like battle-loss or loosing a plane...etc. If you find a source saying otherwise, it's welcome. Yes, it's appropriate in WikiNews and in a separate invasion page. This ain't a news-channel to mention every single detail you find. This article is from the Libyan civil war, so whatever isn't directly-related is not appropriate, IMO. This comment is also on the article in-general, as we don't need to add too much details. I'm sure most readers don't even read half-of-the-page. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Im not going to get involved since this isnt my patch , Although i feel that if it wasnt a result of enemy action , battle loss or actually in Libya, then it wasnt really a castualty of war action. Besides its already misleading. And if you really do think it should be there , how come it isnt included in pages such as Operation Ellamy ? Goldblooded (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Note: If the result is to stay (which I highly disagree), I will add "(accident was non-related to war)"--or something with that meaning. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. But personally it shouldnt realy be there since like i said it wasnt a material loss such as a jet and it wasnt in Libya or because of enemy action. Perhaps it could be mentioned else where in the article but not in the "casaulties" box since that implies war casulties. Goldblooded (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC).

Your personal oppinions on the issue don't count. The official line of the British government is that he died as part of and in support of operation Ellamy. This source has been provided. Like I already said to another editor, there have been around a hundred non-combat US military deaths in Kuwait in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and they have all been declared to be casualties of war by both the media and the US government. This is the same thing here. Removal of sourced information to push a personal point of view is not good faith on your part. So please refrain. His death may have not been combat-related but he was part of the military operation against Libya. There were around 10,000 US soldiers who died non-combat deaths in the Vietnam war (some of them even in Thailand and Japan, far of from Vietnam), and their names are on the Black wall as casualties of that war. EkoGraf (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First, keep your accusations and bad-faith to yourself.

The point you're not getting, is that we're on an article called LIBYAN CIVIL WAR! NATO is an outer force that got the duty to protect civilians. The airman is a casualty loss for them and that's why he's obviously mentioned in their article here: Operation_Ellamy. Can you keep this article focused on Libya, and the loss in Libya! Your example has nothing to do with this (as long as his death wasn't a murder to postpone his mission to Libya), as it's only a logic argument on the Operation_Ellamy article. I don't even know why I'm spending my time on such a silly subject. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone, just stating facts, and the notion that NATO is there to just protect civilians is simply silly. Operation Ellamy is part of the Libyan civil war thus he is a death of that war, and francly the subject in the infobox is well sourced with official sources so there is no need to justify it to you. The official line of both the British government and the international media is he died as part of the NATO campaign against Libya, end of story, personal oppinions don't count. EkoGraf (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence

Is this sentence:

According to The Economist, the eastern parts of the state, once a breadbasket of the ancient world, fared badly.

really relevant ? The climate in ancient Libya and northern Africa in general was much more suitable for agriculture than it is now. I don't see how could this represent a rational criticism of Gaddafi's politics. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Colombians (probably FARC) fighting for Gadaffi

Libyan rebels: Colombian female snipers fighting for Gadhafi Found this, don't know if anyone thinks its worthy of mentioning in the article though. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, apparently, the Gadaffi loyalists are charging that the west is funding and sending Colombian mercenaries to assist the National Transitional Council forces.

Libya: NATO Intensifying Bombing To Aid Rebel Push briefly mentioned --L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Article too big

Hello everyone,

Dont you think that this article has grown too far beyond? Its really this notice so important to be so big? For example, the article 2011 Norway attacks which is undoubtedly much more important, is smaller than this, even the related article 2011 military intervention in Libya is bigger than the Oslo attack.

The history about the Libyan "civil war" has grown too much, specially all the articles related to it: Human rights violations in the 2011 Libyan civil war, Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn, Opération Harmattan, Operation Mobile, Operation Unified Protector, Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive, Third Battle of Brega, Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road, Battle of Misrata, Refugees of the 2011 Libyan civil war, Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war, International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war, Free speech in the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war

The majority of this articles should be deleted.

Its obvious there is a political interest in putting Gadaffi and Libya in the front line, the events have been exaggerated, almost the whole Africa is rule by dictators and the majority are worse than Gadaffi, for example in the Democratic Republic of the Congo more than 5 millions people have died, with no media impact. --Living001 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. 15,000+ people have died in Libya versus 93 in Norway. But I guess because those attacks happened more recently and in Europe that means they're "more important", whatever that means. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already said the example of Congo, that is Africa, I'm in no way justifying it, everyday people are dying in Africa, in the Syrian riots a lot of people have been killed by the government, and no European country neither USA have suggest a military intervention. By the way, these 15,000 death you told me about, its highly discussed, the media have already admitted these numbers have been overestimated.

The death of people is a tragedy, but answer me, what is historically more important, more important for a encyclopaedia, the September 11 attacks where only 3,000 persons were killed, of the Libyan uprising? Do you think is normal that even the article September 11 attacks is smaller than this one?? It's make no sense. --Living001 (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Of course it is normal and logic. Libyan civil war is a bigger event than 11 September. There is way more content in it because it last way longer. Also Norway attack is a footnote compared to whole civil war. We are not limited by the size and the more precise the better. There is not any problem with the size of this page. --Geromasis (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying me that the Libyan "civil war" is more important that the 11. September attacks? or even the Oslo attack, first of all, its not a civil war, that is what the media want us to think, the reason for this event to be so prominent is political, some states wanted to get rid of Gadaffi decades ago but they couldn't, and now they are taking advantage of the other (and real) Arab world uprising to go there. More people is being killed in China and no one dare to make a "peace intervention". If this intervention succeeds, they will put another dictator (obviously that follow the order and interest of Occident)and none will care. I also say again, that these numbers of 15,000 are not believable.

We will forget this event in less than one year, if we haven't forgotten yet. Once again, this articles (and the long list of useless articles said before) is more important than the 11-S or Oslo attack?--Living001 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• 11 September 2001 is more important but only because of its consequence (2 wars) but the article on the Libyan civil war has to be longer because there is much more to say about it. The attack in Norway with a mad man killing 80 people is however totally unimportant history wise. It's a big crime but has no other consequences or relevance than death of the victims.--Geromasis (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

   File size: 914 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 165 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 31 kB
   Wiki text: 267 kB
   Prose size (text only): 111 kB (17904 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 2452 B

Per WP:SIZERULE, this article is too long. Rather than divide it, it might be best to cut it considerably, now that some recentism has passed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi's response

Someone removed all information on Gaddafi's initial response to the protests, and simply created Gaddafi's response to 2011 Libyan protests, a pseudo-article without any introduction and simply parroting the former text in this article's section. A look at its edit history shows only three or so editors having contributed. I did not see any suggestions for this on the talk page, suggesting that a large amount of critical information was removed unilaterally, without community consensus. This is concerning, because now, such key events as Gaddafi's use of artillery, snipers, mercenaries, and jets are not mentioned. Indeed, from the tone of this article, one would think that a few clashes suddenly erupted into full-scale civil war. I suggest either deleting that article and re-inserting the information here, or at least putting more information on Gaddafi's treatment of the protesters to better explain this uprising, and expanding that article to make it comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.--RM (Be my friend) 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with splitting off the article, but whenever this is done, cleanup needs to occur - and that means adding an intro for the new article and adding a summary, preferably not just copy-and-pasted from the new page, to this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think it would be best just to merge it back into the main article for now, so as to retain the proper continuity of events. It can always be split off later and a summarized version placed in the main article.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is already way too big. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Then take my second suggestion: re-insert at least some info to better explain Gaddafi's reaction with mercenaries, snipers, and jets, and upgrade the new article to Wikipedia's quality standards.--RM (Be my friend) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative name suggestion

Would 2011 Libya conflict work as a good article title? Two reasons why it strikes me as a good title:

• It is not only a consise title, but it also would allow for discussion of the social and political conflict as well as the associated armed conflict.

• It seems to be more common than the current title: I ran some numbers through Google News as quick test for frequency of name use.

• "Libya conflict" (162) + "conflict in Libya" (1,450) + "Libyan conflict" (860) = 2472 hits
• "Libya civil war" (149) + "civil war in Libya" (149) + "Libyan civil war" (82) = 380 hits

Now of course Google News aren't definitive, but it seems clear than formulations using "conflict" are more common. Recent articles in the major newspapers seem to underscore the point: "The African Union, which offered its own peace plan at the outset of the conflict..." (NY Times, 5/27); "The operating center in Tripoli...could be used as a weapon in the conflict in Libya (Guardian, 5/27)...

• A large proportion of the article involves the lead-up to the current violence/armed conflict, including the political crisis and efforts to deescalate violence, and not the violence itself. Further, of the portion of the article dealing with the armed conflict, much of it is focused on (1) the humanitarian crisis; (2) the intervention; and (3) the diplomatic situation surrounding the conflict. All of these events are distinct from a "civil war." A broader title and one in more widespread usage seems appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of charming that you are walking into this not knowing the extreme amount of back and forths over the article title in the past hahaha. The original title for the article was 2011 Libyan Conflict, but it was changed to civil war because conflict is not a descriptive enough title. Anything can be a conflict without being a war, and the consensus was that whatever is going on is a civil war. Obviously conflict is the more commonly used term, but there have been other attempts to change it back to conflict and the consensus was to keep the current title. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. It was protests first and then uprising and now civil war. Though there were about two RMs for conflict, which I would support if it is common still. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It must have only been protests and uprising for a few days, the first time I looked for an article on the ongoings in libya it was called conflict. Either way, the majority of the article's existence has been either conflict or civil war. The most important point is that we don't need to dredge this crap up again. We're all unhappy with the current name for different reasons but we should leave it for a while and see what happens. There are numerous other things that need working on in this article to improve it. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The title was originally 2011 Libyan protests from its creation on 31 January to this requested move closed on 21 February. "Uprising" stayed from then until this requested move, closed on 29 March. "Civil war" has remained since then. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, there were so many drawn-out RMs that I forgot what the title actually was lol... 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and please stop trying to start the same discussion over and over again. The title of the article has been discussed at length and "2011 Libyan conflict" has already been suggested numerous times. Stop wasting your time and effort. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, most of you fail to understand that this is NOT a civil war. The fighting takes place mostly between external armed forces (NATO) and Gaddafi regime. The conflicts between pro- and anti- Gaddafi citizens still takes place but its level of involvement is far too small for it to be called a WAR. Period. I simply will never understand the level of ignorance and close-mindedness of those people "running" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.204 (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Every news organization and government which talks about the situation in Libya refers to it as a civil war. Are Libyans not killing Libyans? Skipbox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Feh, it doesn't really matter what the name is, the other will just get redirected here, and there's not any POV concern either. As far as I can tell, we have better issues to worry about than the name right now. --Yalens (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Libyans are killing libyans, but the Tunisian army killed Tunisians, Egyptians killed egyptians, and Syrian army is killing Syrians. That does not make any of them a civil war. It should really just be called 2011 Libyan war, and have civil war redirect to that. A huge part of this conflict involves mercenaries, NATO, and outside forces. If we were to remove the effect of these forces in the crisis, then the casualities sustained on either side would be far to small for this to be called a war. It would be more like what happened/is happening in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. As has been stated many times, most of the military action involves NON-LIBYAN militia therefore this is NOT a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.204 (talk) 05:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE A civil war it is and that is what it is called. Anything else is just obfuscation or trying to make some political point. Large-scale foreign interventions routinely occur in civil wars. The name issue has been discussed many times already.Petroff (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I haven't seen a NPOV dispute on the talkpage, so can anyone please point it here if there is. I've seen that many discussions on the article is satisfactory in a short period. If there ain't any disputes, currently, I'll remove the NPOV tag. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe one of the editors is upset over the lack of images showing pro-Gaddafi troops and rallies. Not sure that justifies an NPOV tag. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This issue was never resolved Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_10#POV_in_Photos.3F. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the article has never reflected a neutral viewpoint. For example, is this a moral war? Some defense can be made that the people of Libya were being oppressed. However, the question becomes how oppressed should someone be before we render aid? Why not help North Korea? The situation there is obviously worse. I'm not trying to get off on a tangent here, but the fair point to be made is that we aren't covering the rationale for the war here, and we are essentially trying to say it is merely a conflict between the valiant rebels and the Gaddafi troops, while we all know that if NATO and others weren't involved, this wouldn't be such a rosy situation for those fighting Gaddafi. It is a pro-Western POV, which some here have excused by saying the only news we get is from Western news outlets, but I don't see how we can truly say that is sufficient. -- Avanu (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this is not a place for political philosophy. We're all immature editors that just follow whatever reliable sources say. Show an example of a change here, and we'll see how accurate your claims are. NPOV is related to a problem between editors and has nothing to do with the outer world. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I haven't seen any POV pushing here in this particular article. I would-of suggested 1 image of the pro-Gathafi protests; however, their aint enough photos of anti-Gathafi to balance WP:DUE and this ain't the right article for it. This article shouldn't hold one-view, but it's already balanced by the world-view of the situation. We have no-business to change the weight if you think the media is wrong. Any opinions, or suggested photos?

I've visited Libya a couple times, and we all feel sorry of what's happening. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You may appeal to Reliable Sources as a standard for what MIGHT get included, but that still leaves the standard of Neutral Point of View to deal with. You can't just wave that policy away. If an article is not "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", we aren't doing our job. This article represents a biased viewpoint, and my statement of that isn't about abstract political philosophy, but a reference to a Wikipedia Policy. NPOV isn't about a 'problem between editors' as you indicate above, but one of the three CORE Wikipedia Policies. If you need to know more, try WP:NPOV -- Avanu (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says, " means representing fairly...all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Therefore, I'm still with my point. We need to be neutral about whatever we, as editors, have in hand of WP:RS. I was trying to say above to stay away from WP:OR (complaining that what's available ain't neutral), and stick to whatever WP:RS is there (bring RS for your views) in order to meet NPOV. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can lead a horse to water, but .... -- Avanu (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand why Mrs Thatcher didn't kill Gaddafi 25 years ago when he was openly arming the IRA, as well as many other terrorist organizations all over the world. (92.7.3.52 (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)) Note: This ain't a place for personal commentary. Wikipedia is NOT a forum. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An example of what we could do: There was a big pro-Gaddafi demonstration in Tripoli some time ago. Are there any photos from this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Are there any photos of the anti-Gaddafi demonstrations in Tripoli, which was also published by the media? Shall we add both then, in your opinion? Where do you suggest? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If we find one then we should add it in the place of the girl who holds an anti-Gaddafi placard. That a photographer found a single person that holds a placard implies nothing on Gaddafi's popularity in Benghazi and in Libya unless is supported somehow in the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is clearly justified, and the Unbalanced tag should be added too. The article is clearly biased, from the photographs (all showing the "rebel" side) to the text, passing through the maps or the infobox. As it can be seen on users above, some people didnt see that WP is a enciclopaedia, not an activist blog. It's ridiculous seen people that only accept references from the same newspaper when it fits to their beliefs, or try to name different same type of fighters. I hope people try to made a balanced article, intead of the propaganda pamphlet some tried to made. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What I've seen here is the same weight that is used by the major media. It's not our problem if you think they're wrong. If you can bring one change you want to make that gets refused, the tag will stay; if not, it will be removed. If you have another view, you're welcome to add it; otherwise, don't accuse others of something you don't want to take the effort to work-on. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what WP:NPOV means then. If it isn't neutral, it isn't. That doesn't mean every editor has to fix it all. It means that we're able to recognize the bias and let people know the article needs work, so they don't come away from the article with the impression that this is all there is. Your quote, "same weight that is used by the major media" seems to imply that the major media standards are the same as Wikipedia's standard of neutrality and objectivity, but in fact they are not. -- Avanu (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost every-single-source in this article is from the media. It's not our problem if the media doesn't have our standards.

Why can't you support one argument for NPOV to prove that the tag belongs here (with WP:RS). If there's no RS for your claim, then there's no place for a NPOV tag. Ain't that fair enough?

This section has a justified tag on it, which is fine with me; but do you think a NPOV tag on the whole article should stay if no-one brings one example. Regarding photos, anyone is welcome to add some, as long as they stick to WP:DUE. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've given you a fair example, you are apparently choosing to ignore it. Not sure what your point is in saying the sources are the media. Of course many are and will be. However, it is our problem to take what the media gives and give it a neutral tone. Jingoistic sources may provide information, but it is still our job at Wikipedia to give a fair treatment of the subject. Several editors have been telling you that a NPOV tag is relevant to this article, yet you have decided in advance that what we have is sufficient. I don't believe it is, and I above I provided a single example. I am certain I can provide more, but the fact is, our main sources will be biased and we need to recognize that while writing this article and others related to it. The same sorts of problems continue to crop up in the Gaddafi article and we deal with them. -- Avanu (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't ignored anything but my opinion and your opinion is not what Wikipedia is based on. You disputed neutrality, so you need to prove so (or are we just guessing). You said first that it's a Western-POV, while I have access to Western media and Middle-Eastern media (I don't see that). Can you bring a single RS to explain your POV?! Wikipedia is not democracy to count-by-head. Any discussion needs policy-based reasons, and anything else is needless. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So you don't find it interesting to have an article that purports to be about a 'civil war', but yet that war is being massively supported by outside powers, with money being 'frozen' by outside powers with the supposed express purpose of supporting the enemies of the existing government to support a new government? Yet the article we have barely covers the motivations of these outside powers. Why would a nation like the United States willingly put people and money on the line for a nation halfway around the world? What is the hoped-for outcome? What is the motivation for charging Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court, as if a nation's leader should be tried like a normal criminal? What sort of precedent does this set for the leaders of nations? What is the real purpose or motivation, since at the moment it is more of a symbolic act? How does a No-Fly Zone which is supposed to prevent things from flying, end up being something where we bomb military targets and non-flying targets?

I do see a lot of text in this article, but a lot of it is stuff that will probably be removed at some point because it is a level of unnecessary detail, while at the same time, the article completely fails to cover notable information, like what I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. -- Avanu (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Mam, we're not a news-channel. I don't care, and you shouldn't care, what are the hidden unsourced motivations. What's publicly known and mentioned in the article, is the Libyan people asking for protection, the Arab League (including all Arab countries) raised it to the UN. The UN made the resolution of no-fly-zone and protecting civilians, which might and did include striking Gathafi's military troops that attack multiple cities and refusing the UN's decision. Then the criminal court announced tons of evidence of war-crime, while Gathafi publicly announced that whoever is against him is asking for war.

What I assume here, is that you're claim the UN is lying, the Arab nation are lying, the criminal court is lying, and you have some hidden POV you want to mention here? What's in the media is mentioned in the article, so CAN YOU find any sourced material that is missing.

Please, I don't want to turn this to a political dispute. We're all immature editors that just follow sources. Bring sources or close-this-out. Period. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of bias doesn't require sources, fixing bias does. We *should* care that we are doing our best to provide a decent article, and you're kind of being rude about this. I don't appreciate your cavalier tone, and the "Mam", "Sir" and "ain't" just come off as a bit odd. As for who is an "immature editor", I would suggest you choose a different adjective. The word immature is not complimentary and sounds like you're actually trending toward an insult. -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One summary said "don't call me sir", so i though you're a "Mam". Anyways, I'll avoid both. Sorry if you took it that way, but it's a general term that tons of editors use. Of course I wouldn't insult myself, so consider it "beginner editors" instead (opposite of expert editors, like whom we source). Even if someone is an expert editor or journal off-Wiki, it still makes him/her a beginner in-wiki because we're not allowed to make personal judgement and original research.

Can you re-read the policy that you're trying to push your unsourced views under: "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," according to Template:NPOV. So, if you believe you have one source that that shows anything on this article unbalanced, I'll keep the tag. Ain't Isn't that fair enough? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, it all comes down to a subjective interpretation of what is a "high-quality reliable source". Merely having the prevailing view (or even the ONLY view) does not mean bias is not present, and does not mean we abrogate our responsibility to present material in a neutral fashion. See Propaganda of the Spanish–American War where so-called Reliable Sources would not have been reliable for a truthful and neutral presentation of information. I'm not pushing an unsourced view. As described above, a recognition of bias only requires that we use the mind and logic. Fixing bias requires sources, and as various editors have said in the past, such sources are much harder to come by than the prevailing opinion found in most Western sources. -- Avanu (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we're talking about a totally different template then. I'm removing the Template:NPOV, where you should address the proper procedures before adding Template:Systemic_bias. "High quality reliable source" aren't tricky at-all, as long as we're following the link that the template mentioned WP:RS. The article you gave here barely has any references, and isn't tagged with POV. I didn't get your point there.

I'm totally sorry to say that I don't agree with you, regarding biasness (while I don't know your background). I've worked in Libya with different political levels for 9 years, I have a pretty-good knowledge of Arabic and have tons of connections inside from east-to-west. I've also helped many Libyan families to come here in California. Therefore, I don't see what your concerns are based on. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was directing you to the information in the Spanish-American War article to demonstrate how bias is present in the media (then and now), not to demonstrate bias in that article itself. This bias makes it hard to say that a source is truly reliable when that source is discussing certain subjects (e.g. the war now). The idea that you can't see bias in this article is surprising, but like I said before, you can lead a horse to water.... -- Avanu (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, no-one will understand you more than I do (off-Wikipedia). As an example, Russia was supporting Gathafi at first (because they had $65 billion worth of projects in Libya), but when they saw that the international community is against Gathafi everyone started to seek oil-deals with the NTC. I know many things will be mentioned after the war, but it's not a base for us to tag an article in-advance. When a smell starts to show-up, I'll be the first person to support adding them or tagging the article. For instance, what makes Italy, the occupier, to suddenly become a friend with the rebels... It's all ahead-of-time, so I believe you should wait (just-a-bit), IMO. Otherwise, you'll need to add a sect with "Systemic bias" and look for support (using its guidance Template:Systemic bias). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think {{NPOV}} is not right (this implies also {{Bias}} which is a redirect to NPOV is not right) then the right tag is {{Undue}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough time has gone by to resolve this issue... but also, I need to emphasize that as legitimate reports of rebel indiscretions are coming out (death of rebel leader, executions of black African militants) its clear that there is not an attempt to cover up or "play to one side". reports from Gaddafi's news and propaganda apparatus are also being reported - simply not exclusively or accepted without proof. If NPOV or similar tag is added again with no strong reason and simply weaker or generalized arguments than it should be removed. If there is verifiable information about one side or the other than it belongs here, as always. Radical Mallard (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Militias to disband

It appears the days of irregular volunteer fighters working alongside the regular Libyan rebel forces are over, as the NTC is ordering militiamen to decide between enlisting or laying down their arms: [34] I don't think the infobox should be changed, though, as irregular militias and tribes did fight alongside the National Liberation Army in the past and may continue to do so in areas remote from NTC direct control (such as in the Southern Desert). -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

New stub: Al-Nidaa Brigade (5th column pro-Q unit near Benghazi)

Fresh news, but given that, in the long run, it'd be of value to have articles on the various named-units of this war, I made a stub for this "brigade". I've noticed there are quite a few "brigades" named after various figures on both sides; has there been any talk of having a series of articles on these various units, and maybe a Category:Units and formations of the 2011 Libyan civil war? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Benghazi clashes

last few days there are reports, both from government and rebel side, that there is fights against fifth column or pro-Gadaffi forces in Benghazi. Should we incorporate those information in article (or maybe in specific article)?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for efficient shortening of article

As is well known, the article, in spite of all the associated sub-articles, is brutally long.

Having scanned the article for applicable solutions, I noticed that several sections still retain a day-by-day narrative that perhaps are relics from before the subject matters were assigned their own articles, and which visibly begin at various points and end abruptly at some particular date in the chronology of the conflict. That being said, I think that such areas are in dire need of consolidation. Though no diminutive task, I'm certain the classic Wikipedia teamwork can allow for the article to read much the way it should, with each section maintaining a concise but still informative summary of its branch article's contents. What does everybody else think of this? KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Human rights and violations in Libya

Under this section it is stated that "During late 1980s and early 1990s western languages were removed from the school curriculum". However one of the citations for this claim mentions the fact that these languages returned to the curriculum in the mid 1990s. Acedrian77 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop the Presses: Zintan vs. Zlitan

Hey have people figured out which town is Zintan and which is Zlitan so that we report on the proper city and what is actually happening there? See: Libya: The mainstream media invent new map of Libya ... a closer look! --Radical Mallard (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The map accurately represents the locations of Zintan and Zlitan. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I placed this notice on two relevant talk pages because this is very important. It appeared that people in a number of news services were calling the town east of Tripoli "Ziltan" when it is "Zliten" and Ziltan is to the SW of Tripoli. I have no connection to the video, I posted it to illustrate the mistake. Radical Mallard (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no Ziltan, only Zliten and Zintan.--Yalens (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Mercenaries? (infobox) [DISREGARD THIS SECTION]

This source: Libya Mercenaries help rebels win war say UK generals (citation #6 in the article) uses the term 'Mercenaries', and does not use the term 'military contractors' as has been the usual term included in the infobox. A Spanish IP editor changed it to read only mercenaries, and it was reverted, but upon looking closer, I noticed that (there are 2 sources, #5 which is Reuters and uses 'military contractors' and #6 which is Daily Mail, which uses 'mercenaries') the latter source uses 'mercenaries'. I changed it to read 'military contractors[5]/ mercenaries[6]' so as not to misquote nor misrepresent either source.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That article also doesn't seem to say anything about mercenaries already fighting alongside the National Liberation Army, unless I'm missing something; it simply reports that some UK generals believe they could be a beneficial asset for the Libyan rebels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind - rescanned the article. I was searching for 'military contractors' before (which isn't in there) but the article does use 'military advisers', so I can see why it's cited. Disregard this whole matter then and sorry for my misreading of 'military advisors' as 'military contractors'. Clearly MA's are not mercenaries anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Humanitarian help

Here I found an article about Polish humanitarian plans for Libya http://www.wbj.pl/article-55392-poland-presents-libya-assistance-package.html?typ=ise Boniek1988 (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

References broken

Somebody broke the references section. The links to the Al Jazeera Live Blog should be in the article text. The way the {{Reflist}} is currently formatted with those refs listed is preventing all the references from being displayed. Fortguy (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cross after dead persons?

Theres a cross behind several dead persons in the article, as used by christians to mark a dead person. But those people are muslims, isnt KIA (killed in action) better term? RGDS Alexmcfire (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with this. CayenneGaramonde (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The symbol isn't a cross, it's a dagger. There's no religious symbolism to it, and IIRC, its use to signify death predates the rise of Christianity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Tripoli

Zawiya is 50 km from Tripoli and there are, according to specific article, fierce and unclear fighting. Garyan is also about 50 or maybe more km from Tripoli so I think that it is to soon to make new section Tripoli surrounded. Maybe Struggles around Tripoli?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The map seems to show there is still one clear road out of Tripoli to bani walid so tripoli is not 100% under seige. A fighting around tripoli section may be a better idea but we already have a new section about the rapid rebel advance so we should wait untill things peter out MonteMiz (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I see tripoli sourounded as already been added. does that mean the tripolania map is out of date? It clearly shows the road out of tripoli to the south via beni walid is clear and the map says it keeps going to shabba MonteMiz (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no supply route through Bani Walid apart from the road. With Garyan and the coastal road taken, there is no route for oil to reach Tripoli, and the only option through Bani Walid would be to supply Tripoli from Sirte. Although I think Sirte has a port, you can't get oil that way, and food/arms would not be easy. So, while "surrounded" is an exaggeration, Tripoli essentially has its supply lines cut. — kwami (talk)

Tripoli is indeed surrounded and cut off. Even if Sirte has a port, the NATO naval blockade would prevent anything from getting through. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Just a professional note from my experience. Sirt's port has been abandoned for years. Its port gets shallow fast, so it might need almost a year of foreign-professional work to get it going. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A few 4.5 inch guns will do the job better still. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Liberation of Misrata

There are some reports that Misrata has been liberated by the pro-government volunteers (Report here). Could somebody verify this claim? Zupi (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's why we shouldn’t buy any piece of news that emerges from the internets.--Rafy talk 10:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was true it would be reported everywhere. It isn't the first time the regime's spokesman has been known to lie. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Well...the same can be said about the rebels' propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.142.172 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The very use of the word 'liberated' should have made the news suspicious to begin with.--Yalens (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree here. Mathaba is the major controler of Gaddafi's government. Their members are like secret agents all around the country, whom take control of the government at the bad times. Therefore, we definately have tons of lies before, which is why the Western and Arab media didn't give it any attention. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg's Chris Stephen, who is based out of Misrata, disagrees with Tripoli Tom and the Gaddafist meat puppets over at Mathaba: [35] -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)