Talk:Factional violence in Libya (2011–2014)/Archive 1

Two pages

I noticed there was a similar page, but this one is much more developped and should absorbe the other or just lead to the delete of this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_infighting_and_militia_clashes_in_Libya --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that suggestion and also suggest renaming this article to drop the hyphen in "interfactional".--Anders Feder (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jeancey (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Inter-factional is redndant as factional/factionalism already means /implies infighting.Lihaas (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabha

Is there enough material for specific article about Sabha clashes? More then 50 people killed in that fights so I believe that it deserve article on Wikipedia.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Create it yourself Sovetus (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June

There are new clashes in june: on Tripoli international airport and in Kufra (few dozens dead).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links about operations on airport: Tripoli airport re-opens after Libya clashes, Fighting at Tripoli airport, gunmen surround planes. Kufra clashes: At least 16 killed in two days of Libya clashes, Clashes at Kufra Leave 16 Dead--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those information should be added in this added in this and 2012 Kufra conflict and about Tripoli airport clashes we can make new article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarhouna fighters aka Pro Gaddafis had seized the main international airport of Tripoli on 6th June, it should be really added here..Source Clarificationgiven (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those facts should be added, maybe series of incidents on Tripoli international airport could be treated in specific article?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These information ever got added? Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rising of Islamism?

I think that information from this article should be incorporate in this or article about post-Gaddafi Libya?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zintan

There are new clashes in Zintan: BBC: Troops sent to quell clashes in western Libya; Reuters: Army sent to quell clashes in western Libya; Deutche Welle: Libya deploys troops to stop clashes in western region; in media reports I find mostly news about army deployment and potential military intervention, and some sporadic news about earlier clashes (which provoke intervention of army) but no details about those clashes.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New heavy clashes

New clashes in Western Libya left more than a 100 dead: Libya tribal hack and slash: Hundreds killed and wounded in week; Libya's tribal clashes leave 105 dead --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News from Kufra

There are new clashes in Kufra: South Libya clashes 'kill 47' in three days; South Libya clashes kill 47 in three days: local sources--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 22:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufi mosques destroying

Should we have specific articles about destroying of Sufi mosques in Libya?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but it seems that shyt is brewing up. In village near Benghazi salafi came with bulldozers to destroy sufi shrine and after what locals took their guns and shot 3 of them dead they ran away. This may become something larger, in that case we should make one. Or it may just die out. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if such violence continue (I hope that it will not) we should make specific article because some of that monuments are very important.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 23:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Walid

Bani Walid is under siege for few weeks, I think that we should make specific article about it?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it is part of the previous Bani Walid uprising article, but I do think it deserves its own article. Jeancey (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that uprising in January and siege in October are two specific events.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Vojvodaen.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a separate article was created. Also, Brigade 93 isn't really pro-gaddafi, but it is against the new government so I think a lot of times it gets lumped together. I've said this several times, the actual members of Brigade 93 may have been pro-gaddafi when he was alive, but I think that they are just looking out for their own interests now, not trying to put the old regime back into power. Jeancey (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing a hunch here but are there any sources, any at all that says anything about some Brigade 93 in current events? Because I´ve seen none. Neither had I saw that they are fighting under Gaddafi era flag. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of sources?

The statement about 50 government militia members being killed on December 24th, 2012 is based on a source that links to a facebook page with not other evidence. I don't think this source is very valid at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.139.64 (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Facebook is not RS. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship?

Claiming that this article is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, some user who tried (and fortunately failed) to simply erase the whole article as it had never happened (in my country that is simply called censorship) is trying now to made article irrelevant by deleting most of its content. As I said before repeatedly, I dont mind to move some of the sourced relevant information to other articles (for example to Aftermath of the Libyan Civil War), but not to simply delete it, with weak or simply no reasons, and probably based on personal political motives. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff like kidnapping of the President of the Olympic Committee by unidentified gunmen has nothing to do with "factional fighting" this article is supposed to be about. Title claims to be about "factional fighting" but you seem to be treating this like Chronological list of armed crime and violence in Libya (2011–present).--Staberinde (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so delete that part of the article, but do not use it as an excuse to erase more than half of the article. As I said, if some content doesnt fit here, it should be moved to Aftermath of the Libyan Civil War, or to a Chronology, or to somewhere, not simply erasing it, wich is simply C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P. It seems that the pro-rebel "arab spring" WP lobby is trying to hide facts as always had done. Also, the title of the article had been discussed by many users as not the best, and, who can assure what is factional fighting and what not? You? Me? The "neutral" (note the irony) Libya Herald?. Ah, the user who is erasing sistematically the content is also deleting sourced content related to clashes between factions, he is simply using excuses to delete all the content.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the last tribal clashes in late February in Kufra between Zway and Tebus had been deleted by one of that pro-rebel WP lobby users, with the now typical and fake excuse of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Whole months had been deleted with that excuse. This type of things is what made WP biased and unreliable...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not job of other editors to clean up after you. Its your job to make sure that things you add to article are actually related to factional fighting. Even your newest additions include things that have no obvious relation to factional fighting.--Staberinde (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is job of other editors is to not delete sourced content without reviewing it or without consensus. What its not logic is that with the WP:INDISCRIMINATE excuse all the content is erased. Can you say what things have "obviously" no relation with factional fighting? I repeat again, who judges that, you? Libya Herald perhaps?. I dont want to engage in a edit war, but Im not gonna accept a deletion of sourced relevant content for political motives of some WP users.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You screwed up this article by bringing every damn unimportant thing here up to the point of absolute unreadability, spamming of server and extremely long loading time and I am here trying to clean it up. You. Are. Welcome! Meanwhile if you try to look at deleted content it is that which has nothing to do with factional fighting. That means factions fighting (and one fighter being angry for being kicked out of Rixos hotel and so he destroyed the vase is anything but WP:N), plus I managed to delete double-content like having both battles of Bani Walid, Sabha and others content on their separate article pages and here, instead replacing it with short description and adding main tag with reference to the article. Again, you are welcome. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your "Libya Herald is not neutral, yet I don´t mind using it here about 300 times as reference" is simply pathetic. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have not accepted that you wanted to erase the whole article weeks ago, and fortunately other users with more sense deny you that move. As you have not accepted that, now you're trying to make the article almost irrelevant (perhaps waiting for another oportunity to bring the deletion of the article back?). As I had repeated a trillion times (so Im gonna put it with Emphasis), but I'll do it again: I'm not against getting out some sourced relevant content from this article to others, for example to Aftermath of the Libyan civil war or to a Chronology, or whatever. More, I had started to do it with parts of the article. What I'm totally against (and every non-sectarian WP editor should be against too) is to simply erase most of the article with poor excuses like "that's not relevant", "that's not related to the issue", etc... wich looked so politically-oriented and so POV. So please, if you are going to delete something, first look if that could or should be moved to other article (or even ask me to do it if you cant or do not want to), instead of imposing some type of censorship (it couldnt be called in other way). Also, as you centered on the "factional fighting", you mean that, for example, the systematic targeting and killing of officials in Benghazi aint "relevant" or "related"? The destruction of mosques or attacks on churches aint "relevant" or "related"? The kidnappping/detention of foreign nationals aint "relevant" or "related"? Also, several parts deleted by you are "factional fighting", but you delete them without reasons. For example, clashes between Zintan and Tripoli militias in Tripoli (November 2011) aint "factional fighting" according to you, why, please?. Zintan gunmen attacking Khalifa Hefter caravan aint "factional fighting"? why, please? And I could bring several examples like that...

PD. Ah, and what is pathetic, for example, is denying credibility to former official Libyan news agencies, tv's or newspapers (JANA, Jamahiriya TV, etc...), but now affirm that actual official Libyan news agencies, tv's or newspapers (LANA, Libya Herald, etc...) are reliable. I would be ashamed if I acted like that. And what about Tripoli Post, in its Gaddafi years aint reliable but post-Gaddafi Tripoli Post is reliable?. Wow, thats like a festival of double standards...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you yourself start moving content that isn't related to the topic here elsewhere? Or you think that you will simply keep spamming everything Libya related here and its others job to actually search proper articles where to put it?--Staberinde (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me start by assassinations. How is that factional fighting? Do you know who did it? Do you have source which say who did it? You don´t have a thing, yet you put it there because of your own POV, you completely mistake criminal activities for factional fighting. If you claim those have anything to do with factional fighting without giving relevant source it is crystal clear WP:OR. Moreover you removed NOTHING. Instead you added more irrelevant content. Second, there is no chronology article and if it were all you have to do is move my pre-clean version there. Nothing else. Third, since when is kidnapping factional fighting? Which factions fought? The kidnappers and abductors? Seriously? Again and again, look up the name of the article. If you want to propose rename to chronology, go for it. If you want to rename it to timeline, or whatnot, go for it. I will even support it. Fourth, attackers of Heftar convoy - have you read that source? Here is statement by spokesman of Ministry of Defence The Zintan militia was not even involved in the fight, which [he said] had pitted the army against “a group of uneducated men” who were “thinking about killing Gen. Khalifa Hiftar.”. Regardless of that it was not WP:N (An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable). As for Zintanis and Tripolitanians if you think that incident which had ZERO casualties and lasted for several minutes is WP:N and not WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOTNEWS than you are wrong. To make it short, it is not my job to clean your mess, it is your to not leave it there in first place. This article was longer than World War II article. Who added that WP:CLEAN tag? Was it me? No. Who reverted me trying to clean it? You. Not anyone else. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file problems with File:Ansar al-Sharia Libya Logo.jpg

File:Ansar al-Sharia Libya Logo.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Ansar al-Sharia Libya Logo.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

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.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Anders Feder (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be merged with Aftermath of the Libyan civil war. After all, it seems that all this page is really about is the sporadic clashes between various armed factions that fought in the civil war that are not really interconnected. Therefore, I suggest the contents of this page be incorperated into Aftermath of the Libyan civil war. Charles Essie (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Essentially the same topic. While the article has several content tags, the Aftermath doesn't. Brandmeister^talk 21:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge I recognize the topics are similar, but it will make the resulting article excessively long and less readable. 2011 military intervention in Libya and Libyan civil war were split into Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya and Timeline of the Libyan civil war respectively for similar reasons.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge per above making an article that would be over 200k bytes would be too messy see also: WP:SIZE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge per others. EkoGraf (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Essentially the same topic. As for long article, y'all are welcome. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge per WP:SIZE; also, this and Aftermath are not the exact same - treat this as a specific portion, while the Aftermath article is a summary. Ansh666 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Benghazi bombing (May 2013)

Is it enough relevant for specific article? There are a lot of sources: Guardian, BBC News, Reuters. I will add few lines in this article, but I also think that there should be one article only about this events.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Post-civil war violence in Libya

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Post-civil war violence in Libya's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IPS":

From Tawergha: Murray, Rebecca: "One Year Later, Still Suffering for Loyalty to Gaddafi". Inter Press Service Retrieved 24 August 2012.
From Gaddafi loyalism after the Libyan Civil War: Frykberg, Mel (14 August 2012). "Gaddafi Loyalists Up In Arms". Inter Press Service.

Reference named "Time":

From Gaddafi loyalism after the Libyan Civil War: Sotloff, Steven (24 August 2012). "The Bomb Attacks in Libya: Are Gaddafi Loyalists Behind Them?". Time. Tripoli. Retrieved 14 November 2013.
From Tawakkol Karman: Baker, Aryn; Erik Stier (16 February 2012). "The Woman at the Head of Yemen's Protest Movement". Time Magazine. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
From Iman al-Obeidi: Steven Sotloff (March 29, 2011), The rape of Iman al-Obeidi: The Libyan regime's other crisis, Time magazine
From Mexican Drug War: "The Border Monsters". Time Magazine. 2001. Retrieved 2010-02-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) ^{[dead link‍]}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> Egyptian embassy staff kidnapped in Libya >> Egypt diplomats leave Libya after abductions (Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Rewrite lede?

The 2012 attack on US embassy in Libya, which led to deaths, is in the lede. Is it worth mentioning in both lede and body article or in just body? Remove it from the lede and then rewrite lede? --George Ho (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of this event is probably Lede-worthy at the moment. That can change over time, especially with the importance (or not) of that meme currently in American politics. I'd take a wait and see attitude for now. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this article title is awful and synthetic. The phrase "Inter-civil war" is meaningless and wholly non-descriptive. I would suggest Interfactional violence in Libya. (fac·tion / n. / 1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually contentious minority within a larger group. 2. Conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension: "Our own beloved country . . . is now afflicted with faction and civil war"). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article named interfactional violence, even when "interfactional" is in a dictionary. What about Libyan interfactional violence. --George Ho (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an acceptable alternative. Anything but the current title. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Should the 2012 attack on US embassy in Libya be mentioned in the lede?

Support retention of mention of 2012 Benghazi attack in lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Survey" heading necessary? The discussion isn't getting longer yet. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the title, I think it's OK to have a somewhat synthetic title on an article that documents a timeline of historical events that may not have a common name. I don't think I like the word "interfactional" either. I don't think you should change the title to "Interfactional violence in Libya" unless you intend to turn this into an article of all the events outside of the civil wars (i.e. update it with stuff that occurs post-2nd war). Regarding the actual RfC here, I think the Benghazi attack was one of the most notable events between the wars, and should be in the lede.

I saw this at requests for closure, but I have recused myself from closing Libya related RfCs so that I may offer mostly neutral opinions and guidance and get involved in the discussions themselves, as this is a controversial area and there aren't a whole lot of editors involved in these discussions. This discussion is really too sparse to have an outside closer offer a consensus reading anyway. I hope this input helps. Keep in mind if you do come up with a clear consensus you don't need a closer to rubber stamp it, as long as all parties accept the outcome (even if they might not fully agree with it), you can just go ahead and implement it. Gigs (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current title

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Folks in full agreement that a name change is needed for the article title. There are a lot of options on the table, but it seems to me that consensus favored explicit mention of the duration and a preference for "factional fighting" rather than using the term "interfactional." Editors seem to be agreed that many options were workable here, so let's start with Factional violence in Libya (2011-2014) and go from there. I can take care of adjusting double-redirects; I will let the rest of you address the lead, if any changes are needed. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Does the current title of the article adhere to related guidelines and policies, like WP:NCE and WP:AT? If not, what name do you suggest? --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Names Libyan interfactional violence and interfactional violence in Libya came up, although neither "inter-civil" nor interfactional violence exists as articles. A word interfactional is acceptable in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which requires an internet subscription right now, but I don't see it in Oxford Dictionary. What about 2011–14 Libyan insurgency or 2011–14 Libyan conflict? --George Ho (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This takes place after the civil war so that doesn't seem appropriate. Interfactional doesn't fit because this isn't violence taking place in one faction. Also since you're not speaking in general but about a specific instance of violence in Libya the name isn't appropriate. How about something to the effect of Factional violence in Libya following the civil war. Perhaps Factional violence in Libya (2011-2014)-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Factional violence after 2011 Libyan Civil War? At least I don't mind factional violence in Libya. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Libyan factional violence... I mean, Libyan factional fighting until the history logs, but they show Libyan factional fighting (2011–present) and 2011–present Libyan factional fighting. --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Clarify: "Interfactional" refers to fighting between factions; "intrafactional" would be violence taking place in one faction. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is right. That was a mistake on my part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that the factional fighting has technically stopped and is now a Civil War. So probably not 2011-present. But alot of those could work. Here's another Factional fighting in Libya (2011-2014).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already proposed the same title, no offense. --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fart. Sorry meant to put in Factional fighting. Changed it above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article named Factional fighting in Libya right now. Why not 2011–14 Libyan factional fighting or 2011–14 Libyan factional violence? --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine to. The reason I put the date in the () is just personal preference. There's really nothing more to it. Many of the titles suggested are workable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011–14 Libyan factional violence is short and seems to describe the subject better than inter-ceivil war, ect.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't start out with the dates, though. I suggest Libyan factional fighting 2011–2014 or something similar. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - Title is confusing. Suggest Factional fighting in Libya, 2011-2014 or some similar form. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is already a "survey"; subheading may be unnecessary unless the discussion is getting longer. I would put it above the first vote/comment if I were you. --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Legobot summoned me to this RfC, my first thought was "that's a clumsy title for the article." On Google News, "factional warfare" and "factional violence" seem common. However, I'm not really familiar with the topic, and all I've done are simple Google searches. Factional violence in Libya or Interfactional violence in Libya would seem alright. A year range would seem alright, too, if deemed necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Inter-civil war violence in Libya → ? – Libyan interfactional violence or Libyan factional violence or Libyan factional fighting or other names mentioned in #Current title and #Rewrite lede? I have no objections ~~or raves~~ for date-inserted titles like Libyan factional fighting 2011–14, but I prefer dateless titles. Any other suggestions? --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate what the problem seems to be with the current title. Dekimasuよ! 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title itself looks awkward at best, and there is no article named "inter-civil war" or "inter-civil war violence". --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about violence that occurred between two civil wars in Libya, and the title conveys that clearly. The article is about "violence in Libya" during a certain time period, the "inter-civil war" period. The title contains the amount of information necessary to be recognizable and precise. Dekimasuよ! 09:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fitzcarmalan:, who moved the article to the current title. Dekimasuよ! 23:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it looks awkward. I guess I prefer Libyan interfactional violence, but any of those listed above would be quite acceptable. This is what most of the reliable sources on Google News seem to call it. But maybe someone else can suggest a better title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Libyan interfactional violence since 2011 on the basis of UCN. It needs to be clarified when the violence occurred, and if a year range is given (ie 2011–2014) it will need to be changed in a few weeks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the article is specifically about violence that occurred between the Libyan Civil War of 2011 and the Libyan Civil War of 2014, not during either of those conflicts--thus, "inter-civil war." I'm still not sure what the problem is with the current title; Libyan interfactional violence or Libyan factional violence without a date range or with a range that includes the present would represent a change in the scope of the article. Dekimasuよ! 09:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote for 2011–14 Libyan interfactional violence or 2011–14 Libyan factional violence. --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be less clear than the current title, which indicates the scope precisely, since "2011–14" includes periods during the civil wars themselves. Dekimasuよ! 09:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is inter-civil war? It was previously post-civil war, but they changed "post". So what is your definition of inter-civil war? Even the current title suggests that it includes both civil wars. --George Ho (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always, "inter" means "between." It was previously "post-civil war" because there was only one civil war involved, the Libyan Civil War of 2011, and the article involved things that happened after it. Now that there is a new civil war involved, the Libyan Civil War of 2014, this article is used to describe violence between these two conflicts that did not rise to the level of civil war. This violence occurred during the period between (inter-) the end of the first civil war and the start of the second civil war. Dekimasuよ! 10:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Libyan inter-civil war violence? --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine with me, but I'm not sure why it would be an improvement. Because it saves one letter? Dekimasuよ! 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be slightly less proper than the current title, because there is nothing about the violence that's "Libyan," it's just violence happening in Libya. Dekimasuよ! 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typing either "inter-civil" or "Libyan" first matters. Which one is more convenient to type? --George Ho (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that makes it clear to everyone that the article is discussing events that took place between two civil wars, temporally, and not between various factions during various civil wars, is fine with me. I prefer the current title, though. Dekimasuよ! 23:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2011–14 Libyan factional fighting As Dekimasu says, date needed to distinguish between the two different civil wars as a between-war period. EkoGraf (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with any of the above proposals, though I do prefer this version somehow as it is simple. If the problem is due to having no date, then how about something more precise like Inter-civil war violence in Libya (2011–14) or 2011–14 inter-civil war violence in Libya? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of Fitzcarmalan's titles would be fine with me. My main concern about the more generic titles proposed is that they would imply that this article covers events that didn't happen between the two wars. Gigs (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Factional violence in Libya (2011–14). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130601223115/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162-57331665/tunisair-suspends-tripoli-flights-due-to-security/ to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162-57331665/tunisair-suspends-tripoli-flights-due-to-security/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Factional violence in Libya (2011–14). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Factional violence in Libya (2011–14). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Factional violence in Libya (2011–14). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There is a discussion talking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]