Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

No-fly Zone Participants

The infobox and the Un Mandate box both have Saudia Arabia, Jordan and the UAE included as "nations enforcing the no-fly zone" (infobox) or "committed to enforcement" (UN Mandate sidebar). Both are sourced to the same Forbes article that says only this: "Diplomats have said Arab countries likely to participate in possible strikes include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan."[1] That's not sufficient. I'd remove it myself but maybe there is a better source that I'm not aware of. I'm also too lazy to do it. I'm sure this will be an ongoing problem, so the regulars here should keep an eye on it. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweden should probably also be removed, I've checked all major Swedish newspapers for any news of Sweden enforcing the no-fly zone, to no avail. --GoldenMew (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protection needed!!!

Quickly. --Novis-M (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reasons needed!!! Quickly. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The article changes ten times in a minute, people making nonsenses, changing the infobox all the time. Impossible to fix it. --Novis-M (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Then say that, don't just put what you put originally where there was no reason. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was so naive to think that people in this discussion (such as you) would actually have any idea what's going on in this article. Apparently you don't, so I don't understand why did you comment my contribution to this discussion. --Novis-M (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it's not your fault. You probably just didn't know that people usually put a reason for saying something, even when they think it's obvious, rather than a single word. It's an honest mistake anyone could make. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

New Map Needed

Now that we have action by third parties, we need a new map. I suggest a map with indicators for recent battles/strikes, as well as those for the locations and actions of coalition naval and air forces. The map should also be enlarged to show the operations out of Naples and Sicily. I also suggest we move back to shading the map itself, rather than the cities, to show terrirtorial changes. Further, arrows to indicate major movements and allow the tracking of military advances (we have good reason, IMO, to expect a new anti-ghaddafi drive from the east back towards tripoli). 76.230.58.80 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Foriergn Gadhafi Supporters

This page used to have a list of countries that were supporting Gadhafi. While I understand why they might have been taking down because it's very tricky sistuation, I would hope if their is any definitive evidence of any support by other countries for Gadhafi they get listed.

Personally, I feel any country that supports Gadhafi be made an outcast as well, and as someone that considers himself a progressive social democract, that's saying alot. Gadhafi's regime has gone too far, and must be ended.

I agree with you, User:184.77.10.72, he's cooked his gose. I agree, he deserves to be crushed, but this is not a forum. Wipsenade (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk section, while not a forum, should be open to opinions and such in good taste.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

O.K. :-)Wipsenade (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So, this is not a forum, but "good taste" opinions can be added? Well, strange policy, I don't know how would that improve the article... Anyway, I'm assuming good faith, so let's go: Good luck, Colonel! You can crush those terrorists along with the Anglofrench Axis of Evil! Now let's hope the number of terrorist casualties goes waaaay up :) BytEfLUSh | Talk! 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also suppport Gadhafi... should I be bombarded? :) Frajjsen (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No.86.24.31.144 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference tag

{{exspand}}--Wipsenade (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

WP:RSWipsenade (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph of the Cease Fire section, I am concerned about [2] as it seems to be a fast paced blog "update" and I believe those are disallowed as reliable sources. Also, in the Reuters article it specifically says "The reports could not be independently verified.." and seems to be based upon telephone calls from "rebels" with satelite phones. I am wondering what others think? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A Google News [3] Search shows that no major media is presently reporting that the Cease Fire is not being adhered to by Libya. Prior reports were based on phone calls & stated that they were not "independently verified", so I removed that content for now. Maybe later there will be confirmation of a Cease Fire breach by Reliable Sources but I don't see that right now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It isn't easy for journalists just to go see, like it wasn't in Zawiya - same as Misrata today I guess Sayerslle (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN has a reporter in Tripoli (Nick Robertson) and Bengzhai (Anna Damon) who have verified that the ceasefire is not being upheld. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant section from the article mentioned above: "Outside Ajdabiya in eastern Libya, CNN's Arwa Damon said she heard explosions, listened to fighters' accounts of heavy casualties and saw ambulances. She said fighters, who don't trust Gadhafi, believe that the declaration is a trick.". Alfons Åberg (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually saw those reports. They were very non-commital in their word choices. Just as you say, Damon "heard" explosions; think about that for a second; so fucking what? She saw nothing and did not say that Gadaffi set off that explosion. Gadaffi would have to be as dumb as a bag of nails to be dropping bombs today but if a Reliable Source says that "Gaddafi's forces were dropping bombs on people today" then it should be included, but if you listen carefully, they are not saying that ! and then "rebels don't trust Gadhafi"???? so what! what would you expect? if you want to put in the article that the rebels don't trust Gadhafi, go ahead. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And The Independent today, headline 'Gaddafi called a ceasefire. But still the bombs fell.' [4] Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between "still the bombs fell" and "still Gadaffi was dropping bombs". Its fine to say that bombs fell. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of reports this morning that gddafi is continuing to attack both misrata and benghaziSayerslle (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) At certain times the world is overrun by false scepticism. Of the true kind there can never be enough. Jacob Burckhardt. wikiquote style response Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please input at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

I have entered [5] an inquiry as to whether the aljazeera live news blog[6] is a reliable source(its currently being used in this article). I don't think it is but others may wish to have input at that inquiry. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, the view from the noticeboard is that the newsblogs of existing Reliable Sources are usually ok but not from "activists sites"

and there are other interesting qualifiers, so I suggest anyone interested have a look.[7] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez opposes the French intervention

he asks for an immediate cease fire (source france info live feed @18:57). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olecrab (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He's a crank, like Moralis82.11.85.155 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What?? So "Obama is a crank, like Sarcozy (and Mussolini, or whatever's the Italian PM's name these days)." BytEfLUSh | Talk! 03:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman, these opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is this world leader saying what he said. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be on thier pages, not the Libyan civil war page.Wipsenade (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chavez, Morales and co.

• Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina are neutral and both Bolivia and Ecuador are getting fed up with Chavez and are neutral.

• Venezuela and Nicaragua are pro-Gadhafi duck, but has sent no forces.

• Uruguay is on the allied side.

• Brazil is opposed to the allies, but not openly pro-Gadhafi.

[[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]]

Wipsenade (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New page for war or bombing?

Should we create a new page for the international war that's started, or the bombing campaign? Something like 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia?--Sloane (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes! --Wipsenade (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No - we should move the article Libyan no-fly zone to Operation Odyssey Dawn and concentrate there all information of the international military campaign. noclador (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Opération Harmattan, Operation Ellamy, and Operation MOBILE? We cannot move the no-fly zone article to Odyssey Dawn because the US is NOT the only state involved in this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We're also not the main power involved this time around. I agree that there should be an all-encompassing article and the individual operations should be made into super sections. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is still part of the same conflict, but you could make another page for this portion of it, sure. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote on moving the UN forces in the infobox from being a third combatant to being an ally of the opposition

Support Even if the UN resolution doesn't take sides, those who are enforcing the resolution have taken a side. The French have stated they only recognise the rebel council as a legitimate government of Libya and the US stated that the goal of the UN operation is to provide support for the rebels to push back Gaddafi's forces and to remove Gaddafi from power, stated by Clinton herself and Susan Rice and Obama. They are not a third party, they are a rebel ally. Also if you will be telling they are enforcing the arms embargo on both sides how come the Egyptians who called for the resolution are selling weapons to the rebels and are not being punished? EkoGraf (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, cleary stated today the mission has two goals: prevent further attacks by Libyan forces on rebels and civilians, and degrade the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone. As far as I can see it they are basicly saying we will attack only Gaddafi and protect the rebels, couldn't be more clearer. Here is the source [13]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

SupportThe UN wasn't in any rush, at any time, to protect Ghaddafi. All the UN action has been pro-rebel. I favor listing all libyans as "primary combatants", the coalition as "air support under UN resolution 1973", and those from Tunisia and Egypt as "Volunteers" 170.232.128.10 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong support. The British prime minister and French president have both called for Colonel Gaddafi to leave Tripoli. The European Council demanded that Gaddafi leave. The US foreign minister, Hillary Clinton, has also stated that Gaddafi should step down. The UN powers are clearly on the side of the rebels, even if UNSC res. 1973 is neutral. --Imperium Europeum (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Every major country involved is backing the rebels.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - There is no doubt who is on which side here.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - The UN members are carrying out their mandate in a manner that is clearly meant to help bring the swine to his knees once and for all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - listening to 5 live and a female U.S commentator has said the object is to stop civilians being pogromed against by the despot stinking with hysteria - no ground troops, regime change is not the mandate, but to prevent civilians being massacred - obviously the rebels in benghazi their object is regime change - at least for the eastern half of the country - the U.N is not saying as I understand it, we will fight side by side til we topple the regime , but , we will ensure defenceless and ill armed civilians will not be massacred with impunity by gaddafis thugs in the east of the country. the people of benghazi want it to be their own actions not foreign involvement to free themselves, but want a no fly zone because the uprising was the work of poorly armed, vulnerable people and they were too open to that power.Thats my opinion, anyhow Sayerslle (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is she exactly? (I don't think pogrom applies here btw as it is a minority against the majority here) A commentator can say lots of things but not actually be informed on the situation. Was she at least a high up level member of the military or US gov who would actually be informed on such matters or was she just stating her own opinion as a Fox talking head? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The UN resolution specificly took a neutral position, however, the enforcers of the resolution have they themselves said their objective is regime change, Clinton and Susan Rice said it themselves. That can be seen as going against the resolution they are enforcing, which advocates a neutral position, and violating it but that is what it is. They are rebel allies. Plain and simple. EkoGraf (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neverthless the result of vote, it remains my strong conviction that when the Libyan situation - both the current uprising and the no-fly zone enforcing - would no more be in the news, but in the reliable third party scholarly sources, the third belligerant column would still be an option; as the UN-forces are following their own distinct aim in the current conflict, regardless of the simplified journalistic rendering of the intervention as 'with the rebels against Gaddafi' which prevails today.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Why do people keep moving the UK to the third position in the infobox? France and the UK – as president Barack Obama himself has pointed out – are leading this operation, having backed it in the UNSC, even if the US has been heavily involved in the initial stages of the conflict. I think the UK should be placed second to France. --Imperium Europeum (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't think the Americans like being placed third! But yes, Britain & France are clearly in charge of this international operation. The US military have said that command will be formally transferred to a "coalition commander" soon, and that will be either a French or a British officer. David (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned? Is this some sort of contest for you? As it stands right now, the United States is leading the operation and has done most of the damage to Gaddafi's defenses. If anything the US should be placed before France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.58.198 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we officially said we would not be leading this op? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The US President himself has stated that this is a British-French led operation. How much more authority is needed? lol David (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I think we need the God to say that... oh wait, sorry, last administration. (couldn't resist) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Google images

Libya maps [[14]][[15]][[16]][[17]][[18]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Foreign mercenaries should be added

Israel have mercenaries in Libya:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzDWXWfuxYY [19] [20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.162.0 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A blog and a youtube video aren't credible sources. Blelbach (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I am heavily pro-Israeli, let me look at the sources from a Wikipedia standpoint. The first and third are the same video and appeared to be provided by Ma'an News Agency, which is a Palestinian news agency (which is biased against Israel in the same way that Arutz Sheva is against the Palestinians). The second is clearly a conspiracy site. Please find a source that complies with WP:RS that shows this story to be true and that there are really Israelis who have shamed themselves in this way. As it is, this is just a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Isralie Jews or Palastinian Arabs?Wipsenade (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't quite get what you're referring to. You know I'm afraid I was incorrect. I should have said that the article linked on the third was from Ma'an and the was of course from Press TV, which is Iranian state television. So yes, Palestine's Arutz Sheva, a (funny) conspiracy site, and Iranian state television. So yes, if we don't include A7 as an RS (I might agree with them at certain points, but they're not an RS), a conspiracy site is automatically tossed out, and the Iranian state news is hardly an RS on Israeli activities as they are openly hostile to Israel. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Aparently Israel Defense Minister Mr Ehud Barak! I think the Lockabie bombing section was a bit bizzar, but the mercenery could be partly a MOSSAD false flag operation.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think even Ehud Barak is that stupid. In all seriousness, with the mercenaries etc. Israel would not do this as it is actual detrimental to them to keep that idiot in power. This is a case of people taking two things they despise and putting them together, and is most probably propoganda. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

UN No Fly Zone Actions Cleanup

The UN no-fly zone actions was a bit of a mess - basically repeated itself twice, so I cleaned it up. On a broader level, there doesn't seem to be a single clear place for discussion of UN (UK, France, US) involvement. A separate article for each of the three countries operations seems a little excessive to me. Perhaps combining those three articles into one and moving some of the UN coalition related content there would be a good idea. Blelbach (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, three separate articles seems a little excessive. A single big article would make more sense as few people will probably know the individual names, and will probably be looking for the UN intervention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would strongly support combining Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn, Opération Harmattan, Operation MOBILE into a single article. It could be called United Nations coalition attack on Libya or something like. Having 4 separate articles really is excessive, and makes it difficult for readers to find general info on the Western war operation. Nanobear (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it should be called something more NPOV until the sources give it a common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Map colors

Sounds like Benghazi is firmly in opposition hands after the rebels forced back Gaddafist forces with French air support. Vote to change the color back to dark red. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I have not seen any confirmation from a credible news source that Benghazi is firmly in rebel hands. However I have heard that people are leaving to tobruk and that Bengahzi is being shelled feroiously therefore I still beleive it should be yellow.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chris Mcgreal , the Guardian journalist, in Benghazi, and BBC News 24, both say that Benghazi is back free, in opposition hands. Sayerslle (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebel news agencies Al Manara and the Libyan Youth Movement have said that they are on the offensive, heading towards Ajdabiya with military vehicles. I know these are rebel sources and they shouldn't have the same weight as independent reporting, but there is simply no way for us to know as there are only a handful of foreign journalists in Benghazi. The independent reports that I've seen though have shown the city firmly in opposition hands, with a CNN report showing rebels parading the streets and the entrance to the city littered with destroyed pro-Gaddafi vehicles. Infernoapple (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus Reuters,and i think Al Arabiyah or Al Jazeera.

Gaddafi's response

This section sounds like an angry pamphlet by a human rights organization. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

May be.82.14.51.216 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit on press fredom.Wipsenade (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Belarus Arms Traffic Sources

Neither of the sources cited in the arms traffic section regarding Belarus have any mention of Belarus. Can I remove that second paragraph?Raphael Luckom (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Wipsenade (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

US - leadership

Maybe we should somehow point out that the mission is guided by the USArmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.64.3 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work as we are relying on the Brits or French to lead this whole thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but the major strikes were conducted by the USAF and Navy (114 Tomahawks), or am I wrong ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.64.3 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Our contribution of firepower is irrelevant to the question of who is leading this op. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also been huge damage caused by the UK and France. Infact, the French have probably caused the most damage, and some of those Tomahawks were launched by the Royal Navy. 91.85.131.107 (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Today's Guardian newspaper (UK) said it was 110 US, 2 French and 2 UK Tomahawk missiles.82.14.51.216 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely more have been launched since last night, no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably, I saw new UK 1 go up at dinner time on the BBC.Wipsenade (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're forgetting that there have been more strikes than the Tomahawk missiles too. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, like the French airstrikes (and their managing to lose a plane in the process, yet another proud moment in the military history of the French Republic). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be sceptical of reports that the French lost a plane. The only people that are claiming it at the moment are the Gaddafi's forces afaik. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry what they have managed to lose a plane ?--84.168.103.29 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Anglo-French air strikes, USA spy plane and the Italian patrole boat, ect.Wipsenade (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I managed to fall into a trap based on my own bias against the French military command (The French are teriffic fighters themselves, it's their military command that screws everything up). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree The French are teriffic fighters themselves, it's their military command that screws everything up.82.14.51.216 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? The military operations are being reported as US-led. Swarm ^X 20:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

By a US news source. That's not a particularly reliable claim. If you read the Daily Mail it claims it was put together by David Cameron, and I'm sure some French sources say the same about Sarkozy (and they have the best claim, too). Xtremerandomness (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why a US one isn't reliable, though I do consider CNN to be populist trash (just like FOX and MSNBC). This is taken from the CNN Article: '"While we're leading it now, we're looking to hand off that leadership in the next few days," Mullen said on NBC. On the same show, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Britain, France and Arab nations would assume control of the mission.' Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

President Obama said that one of the conditions was NOT to lead the operation but to rely on its partners (Britain and France). The firepower might be American but that is different from leading --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Peace deal?

A BBC report said a Libyan spokes man has just called a seas fire beond Tripoli.Wipsenade (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Description

Someone needs to re word much of this, there are numerous grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes; I noticed two just skimming through.

It has beenWipsenade (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Concensus was to KEEP

---

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was saved on the international reactions pages.86.24.31.144 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

* Actually, it is currently a stand-alone article. ☠ - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 12:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

Hey everyone! Is there any chance we could decide how we are sorting out who is who in the Belligerents section. Do we differentiate between those pro-actively enforcing the no-fly zone (eg the French who are mentioned twice so far when there is only one France) compared to those supporting with bases and fuel?

If so should we have "Enforcing No Fly Zone" and "Supporting No Fly Zone"?

Any comments would be great! Madscotinengland (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it is clearly a one-sided air operation, I separate it into "Gound forces" (the rebels and volunteers from Egypt / Tunisia) and "Air support under UN resolution 1973" (all others). 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

only french military will engage on saturday according to french defense ministry (source @17:54). btw four lybian tanks have been destroyed according to al jazzera (reported by same source at 18:56). Olecrab (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It will take longer for the other nations to get their planes to Italy for the strikes, but they've already signed on to do the same thing France is doing, so I see no point in excluding them...or in highlighting France just because it was the first to get there. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

details are available here. Olecrab (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There should only be two belligerents (sides), it makes absolutely no sense have three columns! Jeffrey7777 —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

See Bosnian War. Though one can assume we're fighting for the rebels. We need a source quoting the military or Obama or the SoD that we are solely attacking Gadaffi's people. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I've just found that the Template:Infobox military conflict lists Combatant3 as an option. Shouldn't be nations enforcing the Security council resolution no.1973 listed under that description, as they are not actually siding with the anti-Gaddafi opposition? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear they ARE siding with the opposition. France has recognized them as the legitimate government, Obama has called for Ghaddafi to go, the UN has basically recognized the legitimacy of their demands for a free and representative government 170.232.128.10 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps their activity is 'de facto' more beneficial to the opposition, but 'de iure' they're not allied with the opposition, and - at least theoretically - they are going to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya and cease fire according to the UN 1973 resolution ("complete end of violence and all attacks") - erga omnes. As such I believe they are the "third distinct side" to the conflict.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be put as a third combatant. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 18:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's going to make the infobox much more easier to comprehend, so if there are not other comments I am going to edit. Perhaps it would be better to make United Nations forces combattant #2, and Gaddafi's forces the #3, so ťhe UN forces would be visually in-between both sides of the conflict? --Hon-3s-T (talk)

You can do something like in Bosnian War, but it gets a bit confusing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is exactly the same, as in the Bosnian war, there already were (at least) three sides to the conflict - Bosnians, Croats and Serbians, so the question of additon of the NATO forces was certainly a bit of problem, but here we have quite neatly opposed "pro-Gaddafi forces" and "anti-Gaddafi forces", so the UN-resolution enforcing forces could be quite easily inserted as the third side, interested in victory of neither of the two former ones.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a really good way of working the problem - it is a truthful representation that things have changed. Good plan! Madscotinengland (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Flinders Petrie, UN as combatant #2 and Gaddafi's forces as #3. Other than France, no other participating country is really supporting the opposition. This is made rather clear by the fact that none have allowed the opposition to access frozen assets for the purpose of buying arms.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the above opinion. France and the others are attacking and are authorized to attack only Gadhafi's forces and they have called for his removal. There is no doubt whatsoever that they are side on the opposition and it's frankly POV to describe them as some third combatant. Kostja (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They're authorized to enforce the arms embargo, to protect civilians, civilian-populated areas against attack and enforce the no-flight zone over Libya. Not a word about 'Gaddaffi's forces only' in the resolution.They're following aims distinct from the rebels.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the US, at least, is against Gadaffi in this. [21] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not unconditionally pro-rebel, either. Wasn't it FDR who explored for the difference between "the neutrality in deeds and the neutrality in thoughts"?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know as much about FDR as I should, even though he is one of my favourite presidents. Still, they're our Libyans in this conflict even if it's not unconditional, and even if they are violent, it's not the first time we'd have taken sides with the lesser of two evils. Besides, our foreign policy has changed somewhat since FDR's time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the No-fly Zone Participating Nations be on the Anti-Gaddafi side on the infobox? Because they are defending the rebels. --Gimelthedog (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)--Hon-3s-T (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Does anyone on here honestly believe the coalition will try to stop a rebel advance? France, England, the USA, etc. have all called for the ouster of Ghaddafi, and France (at very least) recognizes the national transitional council as the legitimate government of Libya. The UN resolution, further, was targeted at Ghaddafi's forces attacking rebel areas, even if the language was more diplomatic. There is no "third side" to this war. 76.230.58.80 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No place for the original research on Wikipedia. The UN resolution expressly called for the "end of attacks and no-fly zone". --Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Every major US newspaper and television station - and presumably several in other coalition nations - clearly broadcast that the no-fly and the coalition action is designed to stop ghaddafi and protect the rebels. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I am certainly not. Can you read?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*ahem* WP:NPA, and [22]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you cannot read any of the major news websites, or listen to the coalition leaders, or watch television news right now and come to the conclusion that the coalition is an unbiased peacekeeper here. The operation is clearly in favor of the rebels and against ghaddafi - if it weren't we would have seen Cruise Missiles attacking the rebel air defenses and landing strips as well. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why?. No such a thing in the UN SC resolution.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[23] [24] [25] [26] <<--- Sauces that characterise it as us against Gadaffi. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We should not care about sauces.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll call sources sauces and sauces sources if I please. They are both tasty and essential to a good encyclopedia. Good day sir! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

They are using the resolution as an excuse, they have clearly stated that they support the rebels push to remove Gadadfi from power. Which I would say is a violation of the resolution from the start by the enforcers themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it's also hypocrisy in a way as the enforcers are the main decisionmakers in the United Nations. We can't have that in the article ofc unless someone brings it up in an RS. Though I do realise it's probably a personal observation. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, cleary stated today the mission has two goals: prevent further attacks by Libyan forces on rebels and civilians, and degrade the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone. As far as I can see it they are basicly saying we will attack only Gaddafi and protect the rebels, couldn't be more clearer. Here is the source [27]. EkoGraf (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even Colombia openly opposed Col’ Ghadffi in the UN! [[28]][[29]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The section is clearly labelled "belligerents" so there should only be countries which are actively fighting. Voting in the UN or providing moral support to either side is not the same as sending troops or material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.7.9 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article, Neutral Point of View Discussion

Lead Paragraph Issues/Questions

• rebels (why the use of this word, why not citizens, insurgents, terrorists, etc etc... what makes them this word?)
• controlling Benghazi
• controlling Tripoli (controlling in what way?)
• fighting and casualties fast-approaching the scale of a civil war (what is the 'scale' of a civil war?)
• Gaddafi's forces, greatly outnumbering and out-powering the rebel ranks (be more specific, if possible)
• Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Jordan, and Russia have all imposed sanctions on Gaddafi (why Western powers mostly?)
• why are 3 Western nations (France, UK, US) taking military action in a nation outside their borders?
• not seeing a lot of commentary from non-Western powers in the lead paragraph

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 March 2011

Background Section Issues/Questions

History

• article seems to make a distinction between long-term autocrats (royals) and short-term autocrats
• "Much of the country's income from oil ... was spent on arms purchases and on sponsoring militancy and terror around the world" (vague statement)
• Social media had played an important role in organizing the opposition. (how?)

Human Rights

• 2009 Freedom of the Press Index (are they an unbiased source? where is a corroborating or countering statement to show balance or verifiability?)

Early Developments

• Libya blocked access to YouTube (in Libya or elsewhere?)
• By 27 January, the government had responded to the housing unrest with a US$24 billion investment fund to provide housing and development (so do people doubt the investment? why would this be part of 'Early Developments'?)

Discussion

I appreciate you taking an interest in improving the article and you do raise some valid points, but be mindful of a couple things. For questions like why the countries are taking an interest in Libya, if anything, a lack of speculation at this point is probably a product of the NPOV policy being enforced (and if you disagree, please provide some sources). In the case of things like your YouTube point, copy-editing doesn't fall under the purview of the POV tag. The sentence is saying the Libyan government blocked its citizens' access to YouTube, unless I'm misreading and there really is a more serious issue. Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess what prompted me to mention the NPOV is that it seems to be highly biased in favor of the anti-Gaddafi movement and presents most points in terms that favor that side. I'm not personally pro-Gaddafi, but our guidelines in Wikipedia state that we are supposed to try and present a neutral viewpoint, and although I am still looking through the remaining sections, the bias seems fairly prevalent. -- Avanu (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't call for 'speculation'. So I am not saying a lack of speculation is the problem. I would be asking for reliable sources to present a neutral (or at least balanced) viewpoint. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem my friend. As was said in a now archived discussion (this one here), we are merely repeating what the sources tell us, as we are supposed to, and we cannot find many (or almost any maybe) reliable sources that are not anti-Gadaffi, so it simply cannot be helped. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please just ignore this thread

When Avanu posted this thread, he obviously had not read Naming the American Civil War or Insurgency because if he had, he would know how fooling he sounds. What is happening in Libya is a rebellion. NPOV is about who, what, when and where. All of his why questions are philosophical questions beyond the scope of this article. (Why do USA, England and France try to be policeman to the world? Uh, because they can afford to and because they are prepared to and because they feel like it) And he uses all those silly questions to suggest that the bias exist within the article. If he meant to ask for more citations, then he put it very poorly. Terrorists? Citizens? He does not suggest a preferred word at all. What? Is he suggesting that civilians with pencils and pens are terrorizing the country? He does not demonstrate bias and he does not make any specific complaints that we should act on.--189.41.26.213 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ignore your thread as you suggested, but I have to reply. "NPOV is who, what, when and where?" Yeah right, "Why" isn't important at all. Citizens with pencils and pens do not take over cities from the regular army. By the way, the correct term is "insurgents". Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna grab a pen and rob a bank. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm not done with the above section, but I saw that someone had suggested bias previously on this very active article, and another editor declared it invalid because the editor hadn't provided reasons on the Talk page, so I was trying to get some things posted as quickly as possible in order to avoid that situation happening again.

Second, where do you get the idea that Neutral Point of View is about 'who, what, when, and where'?

Explanation of the neutral point of view WP:NPOV

• Avoid stating opinions as facts
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts
• Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion
• Prefer non-judgmental language
• Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views

Finally, by including as much detail as possible, it might appear 'fooling' or 'silly', but I am trying to show an overall pattern in the article, not order pizza. In order to show overall patterns, I need to include information from all parts of it. Questions like 'why' stimulate thought and engage the mind to look for bias. Simply placing information in an article might help, but how do you know it is biased?

To me, if several major nations of the world are willing to use advanced weaponry to bombard a nation, we need to set a higher standard with our work in Wikipedia covering it. We need to follow guidelines and use judgement and do things not only right, but *well*. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents (2)

As far as I know, France, Britain, and the UK are the only belligerents so far. Verbally pledging support isn't the same as giving it. I think the infobox should only include countries that have done something. Swarm ^X 07:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think you mistyped (accidentally obviously), we are the only ones who have actually done real shooting so far, afaik (nice to also be invited this time by the sane locals). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom!

Mistyped what? I was under the impression that US and UK ships fired missiles, and France has performed air strikes. Swarm ^X 08:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but our article belligerent says "A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat." [Emphasis mine]. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears Denmark has sent fighter jets to the combat zone: Source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Swarm, "Britain, and the UK." =p They did indeed. The Danish link is broken, and it's a link to Twitter. Twitter isn't an RS I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Source on Denmark (also suggests UAE and Spain have jets on standby in Sardinia). Also a source on Qatar: first Arab state into the fight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Source another source for the danish involvement. - wouldn't mind if someone would add this if it's an RS, seeing how I'm freshly joined to the wikipedia network. The Harbo (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

8,000 rebel fighters killed since the events began says rebel spokesman

"More than 8,000 anti-Gaddafi rebels have been killed in the revolt in Libya, a spokesman for the rebel movement tells Al Jazeera TV."

This was reported by the BBC and Aljazeera. I believe this is reliable because it comes from the rebels on how many of their own have been killed and not Gadaffi who may have wanted to over exagerate. The rebel spokesman would not have said this if it was not so due to the fact that the amount killed would be detrimental to morale. I believe this should be added to casulties figure with an explanation. However we still do need confirmation from one other source. Tugrulirmak (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. Frajjsen (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That is very notable,imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken sentences in lead

There are some broken sentences in the lead paragraphs, like some things got cut. Someone pls fix.. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Help!82.14.48.234 (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Monday's situation report

The American coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain[[30]]. 11:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But who is leading it all?Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Military forces are also co,,ing from Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Qatar and United Arab Emirates [[31]].--Wipsenade (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone, France. However, there is no one specific country leading everything. Different countries are taking part in different roles to work together. Xtremerandomness (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Transnistria

• Transnistria – The government dismissed rumours that Gaddafi's soldiers were equipped with guns supplied from Transnistria, describing the scenario as "impossible" because Transnistria is unrecognized by the World Trade Organization and as such cannot legally sell weapons to the Libyan government.

Illegal arms exports?Wipsenade (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If Transnistria is not recognised then it is not bound by any of the institutions that govern states; to that end it has no concept of legal or illegal except for that which it has agreed with the other rebel states with which it has diplomatic ties. Maybe it is Libya that cannot legally purchase from an unrecognised entity. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 144.132.125.21, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Protest against foreign intervention in Libya the first line is wrong. It says 'thousands of people marched on Chicago' and cites a Bulgarian news agency which quotes a Chinese source for a Chicago protest. An ABCLocal report from on the scene says 'not more than 1500 protesters'. source is http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8022937. It's not even worth mentioning as it was an anti Iraq war protest anyway according to article. On 19 March, thousands of people marched on Chicago to demonstrate against U.S. attack to Libya.[251] The protest also held at Downing Street, London,[252] in Athens [253] and in Belgrade.[254] The Arab League has complained that the air and missile strikes have exceeded the mandate of the UN resolution.

144.132.125.21 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I did find sources that put the numbers in the thousands ([32], [33]), but you're right, it was an Iraq protest, not a Libya protest ([34]). — Bility (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

International attack

Isn't that the attack named Odysseus Sunrise or Sunrise of Odysseus?58.187.26.178 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Odyssey Dawn.Wipsenade (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

these names don't need to make sense. But in this instance you really wonder what they were thinking. It isn't even clear how the two nouns relate to one another. They could just as well use "tortellini suspension" or "oppossum remorse". It also did not occur to them that "Odyssey", the sad story of a failed homecoming drawn out for a full decade, isn't the best of omens for an enterprise that we would assume they would like to conclude within months, not years. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English, DN! & BBC Live News Video

Folks, please update the map regularly. You can watch these broadcasts for up to date info:

• Al Jazeera Live English Broadcast
• Democracy Now! Broadcasts (live on weekday mornings)
• BBC News Africa - Live Coverage of Libya

:-)86.24.31.144 (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab league opposition?

There has been one statement by Amr Moussa, the Arab League has not opposed the actions of the coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid section

to explain my removing of this section please see: [35] and [36] noclador (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign mercenaries in infobox

Should foreign mercenaries be listed in the infobox? ~ Justin Ormont (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No. And the claims as to where the mercenaries originate from are getting increasingly outrageous. Op finish them (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Western Mountain cities should be marked UNCLEAR (March 14)

New intelligence from the Wall Street Journal, among others, indicates that there is a struggle between pro and anti Gaddafi forces in Yafran and Zintan, known as Western mountain cities. I move to have these changed to YELLOW, or UNCLEAR, on the map.[37]

They are still politicaly unclerar.Wipsenade (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

UN Infobox and "civil war" vs. "uprising"

Two concerns have cropped up in this article that I would like to address. Firstly, there seems to be an eagerness among editors to include many countries in the infobox who have not even started any military operations. Should they be included, or only the current batch of UK, France, Italy, and US, and include a link at the bottom per other war articles (ie WWII).

Secondly, User:Xtremerandomness insists on changing the lead to Libyan Civil War, instead of keeping it as uprising. This is a valid article move request that I will submit on behalf of him. Personally, I oppose, but what do others thing? I believe there was a discussion on this previously, but... --haha169 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the nations that have actually used weapons against Libya should be included, not chestbeaters and saber-rattlers.

If you do it once, it's WP:BOLD, if you do it twice, it's a bit rude imo. We do have a discussion going right now. Look up top for the link, I put a nice little notice there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

The countries that I included are the ones that have been confirmed to have taken part in military operations. I did not include the ones that have not yet done so. I apologise for the renaming of the article. I came at this page from a redirect of "Libyan Civil War" and it seems to have been inadvertently included in my edits as the title. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was accidental, then no worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Revaloution?Wipsenade (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that Qatar has sent fighter jets to Italy, but they have not actively engaged in any military operations as of yet. My reason to remove so many countries is to keep the infobx less cluttered and avoid unnecessary inclusion. I mean, I'm pretty sure Norway has done nothing, and if they do, it would be incredibly minimal. If the article name change was accidental, then I withdrawl the article-change suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they put the lesser combatants (like Argentina and Chile) for WWII in some sort of special thing on the infobox. Not sure, might just lead to a separate article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right that I was WP:BOLD, although these are countries that have confirmed they will be enforcing the no-fly zone. I didn't include any that have yet to pledge forces. Would it be fair to include them once actual planes have patrolled? I do, in fact, support the name change, although not without a broad consensus to do so. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fair to put them when they actually have pilots risking their asses in this conflict and actually making a contribution. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like the ones undoubtedly taking part are Canada (Operation Mobile and the deployment of HMCS Halifax) and Spain (various forces including the submarine Tramotana). I'm not sure if Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Qatar and the UAE have actually taken part yet, but they definitely will. Can I include those first two? Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada has deployed aircraft to Italy but I haven't seen a source that indicates they are a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this good enough? Xtremerandomness (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. There was a report out earlier today saying they might begin flying missions in the next 48 hours. Until there is a source that says they have actually done so they are not a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous sources say that both Canada and Spain have deployed (a) ship(s) off the coast of Libya that are taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. I feel this is taking part enough to be included. Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Harper effectively declared war against the government of Libya while in Paris. Therefore, Canada is belligerent.[[38]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soutsc (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada and Qatar are in the exact same position, forces deploying in Italy but have not yet flown any mission. Until they fly a mission they aren't belligerents, plain and simple. the most recent status I have is this [39]--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that because they have not taken part in air patrols over Libya they are somehow not taking part yet. You've repeatedly ignored my comments about having deployed a ship off the coast that is currently taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. Spain is also doing so. Qatar, as well as various other countries, are not in this position. I even cited their navy's involvement, but you think it is alright to continue to cite sources about promises of future air action as though that refutes what I am saying. Currently I feel you are being dishonest. Xtremerandomness (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, its clear on the CEFCOM webpage that the navy (HMCS Charlottetown) is part of "standing NATO maritime group 1" which is conducting operations off the coast of Libya in enforcing the no-fly zone. It is also clear that by deploying CF-188 into Italy for the purpose of enforcing a no-fly zone, Canada has acted in a belligerent way. A state must act aggressively to be belligerent, and Canada has done so by deploying its naval and air forces in support of the mission. Not to mention describing this as an act of war. This is now a moot point.[[40]]. soutsc (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. However, Qatar is in the same place as Canada[41] so if Canada is on the list, Qatar should be there as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just a generic case of infobox bloat. It's endemic to Wikipedia. We should just remove excess bloat from the infobox as people add it. People will keep adding bloat, and we will have to keep trimming it down. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly means "bloat". Maybe US-negative information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Think of the box as being too fat, that's what he means by bloat. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloatware?!Wipsenade (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's about wikipedia's policy: Neutrality

Support: According to wikipedia's policy we must remain neutral when selecting article names, and the most common name.

Well, the point is that by calling it "uprising" we are only supporting one side of the conflict, the rebel's POV. For the regime it was not an "uprising", we all know they denied it, but that was their position. The international community has called it a civil war, internal conflict, libya at war, etc. The most common neutral name would be "Libyan Civil War". It also has been mentioned in UN Resolutions no fly zone mention of possibility of "Civil War" (no wording on "uprising") ultimately "armed conflict" was mentioned 1973 resolution actually called "parties to armed conflicts" I would call it "2011 Libyan armed conflict". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The link there says 'possibility' of Civil War - this uprising began in Benghazi as I understand, when unarmed civilians commemorating the execution of political prisoners there in 1996 were fired upon by pro-Gaddafi police and military. They then rose up against the violence and repression - so 'armed versus unarmed conflict' would fit that better. Since then it has been, in Zawiya, Misurata, etc an 'armed versus a poorly armed/unarmed conflict' - hence the intervention of the United Nations to prevent another massacre in Benghazi. 92.4.110.84 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "neutrality" point is irrelevant. The press calls it an uprising, and therefore so do we. Over the past week I get about 1,300 google news hits for "Libyan uprising"[42], compared to about 600 hits for "civil war in Libya", and another 200 for "Libyan civil war".[43]. This means that "uprising" and "civil war" are both commonly used by now, but "uprising" is still slightly more common. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: the google news hits count is inexact. For future reference, compare these two searches:

• +"Civil war in Libya" -"Libyan uprising" (801)
• -"Civil war in Libya" +"Libyan uprising" (1,904)

We can say that the ratio of "uprising" vs. "civil war" is presently at roughly 2:1. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fail. Popularity is not accuracy.

Popularity is policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then the policy is inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.128.218.206 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Blame the sources, mate, not the policy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox size

The size of the infobox is getting a bit out of hand, taking up half the right justified space in the prose element of the article. I'd suggest removing the total casualties estimates (or summarizing it as a range) and only placing the military commanders of the no-fly zone.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any opposition to employing a summary range of the casualties rather than a table list, for the purpose of keeping the infobox size down?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland involved in No-Fly Zone

How is this accurate when Poland is not getting involved... http://thenews.pl/international/artykul151703_poland-sits-out-odyssey-dawn.html King Semsem (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They are on qadaffi duck's side.14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a MESS

There is a separate article about the UNSC coalition response, yet here there are THREE separate sections, each going off on their own. There should be one short summary, preface with a link to the main article. This looks ridiculous. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well, did you note the tag warning you that "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses"? If you don't like it, you can either help work on it, or try using Britannica's coverage of the events instead. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SPQR?Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"

The UN refers to Gaddafi's state simply as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. We should do the same. Saying "Great Socialist People's" once should be enough. After that, use the shorter name. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, once is enough. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious: CIA/SAS role in uprising - needs to be RSed, NPOVed, chronologically correct, put in appropriate place

i just added a "dubious" tag for the first paragraph of the /* Organization */ section with the edit comment: dubious tag on first paragraph, but really needs cleaning up: mix of original research, info not in references, wrong chronology, unreliable refs. This does not mean that all claims of CIA/SAS having been involved in some way in Feb or early March are dubious. But the present paragraph which has four references needs to be seriously reworked based on the more serious references, and it's not obvious that a reworked paragraph should stay in the same place. Don't believe a paragraph or sentence just because it has lots of references; you need to actually follow at least some of the refs and check their contents... Boud (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it...the journalistic sources cited state that the US was "exploring" giving funding to the rebels, that the British botched an attempt to make contact with the rebels, and that the British had special forces in Libya scoping out Libyan air defenses. The claim that the rebellion is "engineered and funded" by western intelligence services is not supported by these sources. (in fact, if the west is having to establish contact/consider funding the rebels that would seem to prove the exact opposite) Equilibrium007 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that an editor who inserted such claims was engaged in similar form of inserting of information not strictly supported by references on larger scale - i.e. his claim of 'provocative violence against the government' [unlike the Egyptian protests] backed by a ref dealing with the Egyptian protests only.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland in infobox

Reporting mistake: " NATO members Germany and Poland refused to cooperate[273] " but Poland is listed in infobox for very unknown reason Elektryk4 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Gaddafi supporters/Rebels

Do we have any actual numbers or even very rough estimations of the percentages? --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Egypt/Libya differences

Unlike the grassroots protests which removed pro-Western leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan protests gained sponsorhip in February, engineered and funded by foreign intelligence services, including the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the British SAS who were arrested in early March.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

History? From the television crowd and in denial? Hurry up and censor the internet.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's check it: your first source does not state that Libyan prostests were any different from the Egyptian (actually Libya is not mentioned in the article at all), your next source claims that America is [as of March 15] looking to ways for funding opposition from Gaddaffi's assets, not funding them, and the Grauniad's article says the SAS soldiers were arrested by rebels, not engineering their uprising. This leaves us with a conspiracionist blog without any credentials whatsover and an article from the "Mass Voice of the American Party of Labor", reprinted from a British tabloid. If you are attempting to make some original research, you certainly should check sources more carefully.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Egyptian protests, after Tunisia, were inspired by peaceful martyers and the grassroots which followed. In Libya the 2011 root inspiration in this article cites individuals who broke into buildings and caused vandalism. Difference. Concerning the SAS, it was a reference to an event highlighting special operations in the country well before the intervention. Pro-Sarkozy intelligence wings might also be noted for their involvement pre-intervention. Everyone knows the Neo Con establishment was unprepared and caught flat footed by the Middle East revolt, and opportuned it to go after Libya. The sources support such. This is an engineered uprising.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This alleged "difference" is not supported by sources you gave. Concerning the SAS, the reference mentions not a special operation but a failed diplomatic mission to the rebels, where SAS soldiers - eight, not hundreds - were escorting a British diplomat. The only source supporting that the Libyan uprising was engineered is a very dubious blog, by a conspiracy theorist of undetermined reliability. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. If intelligence agencies don't dispatch their covert operations, they didn't happen. :/

Petey Parrot (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

*If reliable sources didn't report it, it might as well not have happened. That is what you mean, yes? =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What he means is what place does this have in this article? You need a reliable source comparing the two events. By the way sources four and five do not count as reliable sources and the the second is an iReporter sort of site so it's dubious. Christian Science Moniter, on the other hand, I have found to be an exceptionally good source of news. The Guardian is cool too. We don't censor stuff here. Please check WP:NOTCENSORED (except for things like goatse). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Much respect for all those large-cap sources. But even they don't report everything, and get it wrong sometimes. The Daily Mail and Sky News, for example, among others, reported a Libyan government plane was shot down over Benghazi when it fact the rebels shot down their own plane. Groundhog day at the old media, Sir?

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well they can make mistakes, but if you want to wiki, you gotta use our "old media", this new fangled media of yours is just too dern unreliable most of the time I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WMDs.

Petey Parrot (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fog of war?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That too, many people really don't realise just how common friendly fire is. Sad reality of war. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here again that one source which states that "We [the United States] are looking the possibility of release for a portion of the assets of the Libyan regime of more than $ 32 billion" is actually contradictory with the assertion that we are already funding the rebels, and if the British SAS is getting detained trying to make contact with them...seems a little funny to say that western intelligence "engineered" the rebellion that detained their representatives?

I'm tempted to put these citations back into the article specifically to indicate how uninvolved and incompetent western intelligence is. But that would be what they want you to think! Equilibrium007 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Political reactions

International condemnation

China and Russia, which had abstained from the UNSC vote, expressed "regret" over the strikes. India and Venezuela also expressed reservations. Amr Moussa, the head of The Arab League, expressed great concern over civilians, clearly defining his position as supporting the UN resolution but not a bombing campaign.

Russia, China, India, Venezeula, the Arab League and others would condemn the bombings, including Turkey, whose defense hierachy would single out French leadership for ignoring NATO alliances, which was left divided and split over the operation. Russian Prime Minster Vladimir Putin described the intervention as similar to "mediaeval calls for crusades", and the UN resolution itself as "defective and flawed".

Former Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica's Democratic Party of Serbia, along with the Serbian Radical Party, urged condemnation.

NATO members Germany and Poland refused to cooperate, while Malta and Cyprus denied access to their airports for coalition forces.

Protests

The have been protests against the bombing campaign in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., Boston, London, Athens, Belgrade, Moscow, Spain, and Minnesota. The ANSWER Coalition is organizing demonstrations across the US in opposition to the intervention.

In Moscow, the Nashi youth set up pickets outside the U.S., French, and British embassies, as well as the NATO mission.

Political reactions and fallout

Polling in the run-up in France showed a majority opposition to intervention, as well as in the United States, where it was as high as 74% according to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation. After the initial bombing, a British poll concluded only 35% supported the military action.

France

It was believed the operation would result in an electoral boost for French President Nicholas Sarkozy and the UMP, but in the first test his party collapsed in local elections held over the weekend the operation began.

United States

In the United States, critics, along with federal politicians, called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

Congressional leadership, including House Majority Leader John Boehner and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, called on President Obama to come to Congress, expressing dissatisfaction, along with Chairman of the Democratic House Caucus John Larson.

Both Democratic and Republican congressional representatives voiced opposition, dissent, Congressional emergency session advocation, and constitutional concerns over the operation and bombings, including Justin Amash, Barbara Lee, Geoff Davis, Stephen Lynch, Ron Paul, Candice Miller, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jason Chaffetz, Mike Honda, Chris Gibson, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Walter Jones, Mike Capuano, Donna Edwards, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Jerrold Nadler, Diana DeGette. and Scott Rigell.

In the Senate, Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar warned Obama of getting in over his head, urging Congressional debate and approval. Mark Begich John Barrasso, Richard Shelby, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Joe Manchin, Jim Webb, and Ron Johnson expressed opposition and concerns, questioning the U.S. interests and involvement in the operation and bombings while believing it was not the country's role.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All this stuff is really more for the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So incorporate it there, don't delete it. That seems to be your pro-intervention page, leaving out many details of condemnation and dissent.

Zdravstvuj, Willkommen, Bonjour, Hello, Hola, 你好, Hej, السلام عليكم, Ciao...

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about deleting it. My pro-intervention page? O_O Actually it would go better in Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya. We'll probably have an international reaction article to that as well soon. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Oh yeah, and the reason you see no condemnation of the intervention there is because it is reaction to Swinedaffi's actions, not the intervention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Yet another edit: Why all tthe ways of saying Hello? Because of the thing after my name? That's my talk page link, silly. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Swinedaffi? Oh, ok...Kaganocidevich...Seriously lacking credibility.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My own personal name for him. ^^ It's very insulting to call someone from a Muslim culture (or Jewish for that matter) a pig. :3 Go on then, let's place this in that talk page. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Hmmm, surprised I've never heard of this Kaganovich before. Awful fellow. How does he relate to the article though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaganovich was mentioned for the same reason that Jew Watch comes up second (after only WP) in a Google search of his name and you have the word shalom in your sig. Although he is right that you shouldn't have used the "Swinedaffi" term. He just chose a pretty racist way to say it. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I don't think our good Petey here would make such an obvious violation of WP:NPA. Hmmm, well it might go against WP:BLPTALK, to call Gadaffi Swinedaffi, but I don't think Gadaffi will care what we call him on this page (many people are saying impolite things of him as well), as he has bigger problems at the moment and will hopefully have more coming soon. I, of course, don't let my opinion of him get into my editing. I consider it necessary when editing to not have any emotion in what you are doing and just repeat what the reliable sources say, as we all should. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1 million armed Civilians

Shouldn't that be mentioned in the belligerents list for pro Gaddafi forces.109.154.3.9 (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Has Gaddafi given arms to the civilians so they can show how hard they are wanting to fight for him? 92.4.111.220 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.166.132.197, 22 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please allow me to make me some additions to the article titled "2011 Libyan Uprising."

122.166.132.197 (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell me and I will add them for you.Wipsenade (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can register an account and then it generally takes four days and 10 edits to the wiki to become autoconfirmed and be able to edit semi-protected pages. — Bility (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)