Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Libyan civil war (2011). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Japanese sanctions in intro

In the intro it currently says that America has placed sanctions on Gaddafi's government. Further down the article, it says that Japan has too. Surely if one should be put in the intro, the other should be too? Munci (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan is a world power, but not nearly as important as the United States of America on the world scale. If you don't agree with this fact, too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.34.1 (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly that much of a difference. And the size and power of the country really isn't that relevant; either you mention the countries that have done so or you don't. And in any case it now has Britain and France so Japan's clearly fine. Munci (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the US (and Britain, and France, and others...) had scandals against Gaddafi for ages, endorsed by the UN as a whole, and this achieve b-all, I'm not sure the US (or anywhere else) is that important in this context either.

Isn't this a debate for International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New related article Topple the Tyrants (London squatters)

Saw in the news that a group occupied a Qadafi family home in London as an informal "asset freeze". They're calling themself Topple the Tyrants, and they're getting media coverage already, so started a stub article on them and added to the template. Would appreciate any help in augmenting/updating. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First off: OH, LAWL! Hope they find his secret liquor stash. Secondly just search once or twice a day for any new stuff about them. Heck if they did find liquor then it would be interesting to find the reactions in Libya as a truly pious Muslim does not imbibe alcohol iirc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

At the 5:54PM hack here on AJ[1], there's a pic of a banner put up by TtT on the London house. Any idea how best to get a Wikipedian to drop by the neighborhood and snap a photo of the house with banner? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Grim23 for his prompt supplying of an awesome photo of the occupied mansion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Article apparently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Condemnation of imperialist instigation and intervention?

Is this needed? As not seen this anywhere else and seems to be unfounded nationalistic rhetoric seeing how a no-fly zone has been called on by Arab nations to stop bombing of Libyan people by Gaddafi forces and the aid delivered by the UN. --SuperDan89 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly removed this section for the time being, it certainly seems to fall foul of WP:NPOV and I think it would need WP:RS citations before it should be reinstated. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to give a voice to different points of view. This view is quite widespread among leftist activists worldwide, and the section I added does not pretend that it is more than that. It clearly states that this is a view, and offers a rather representative and comprehensive example. Mainstream propaganda and the view of Arab governments do not represent "facts", a "neutral" view, nor the view of the Arab people. Is wikipedia to become just another mouthpiece for states and their propaganda? How do you expect people to determine the facts without all relevant information?

Fair point, but the item as it stood had no references from reliable souces. Wikipedia is about verifiability. If that can be added, then the item would have much more validity. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will provide references, but what constitutes "reliable sources" if what I am offering is a viewpoint? I can offer examples of media fabrications, but that only addresses one aspect of this view. Regards. - Hazem

(Hazem, you can auto-sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end.) Your concerns about providing various perspectives are valid, but make sure they are Reliable Sources (see WP:RS for criteria). In a nutshell, RSs in this case would be reputable news-sites. So not blogs (unless the official editorial blog of a news or government agency), not Facebook, not discussion forums, etc. I would imagine that official statements by the Libyan government, official products by reputable think-tanks, academics, etc. would be admissible RSs. The point is that is that these arguments have to be traced back to someone generally recognised as being in a position of academic, media, or government authority, not just some anonymous or unrelated person who happens to have an opinion. If you can track down some RSs, maybe run them by here to make sure there's consensus the source is reliable, then it'd be a great contribution to make sure different perspectives are represented. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the removed text. As it stood, it was too general "several activits", the quotation marks seem a bit sarcastic "human rights", etc. Plus since there aren't direct quotes, the accusations agains the West aren't clearly NPOV descriptions of allegations vice POV allegations themselves. The source might be RS (second opinion).

Several activists and groups around the world have issued statements condemning "imperialist" intervention in Libya on false pretexts of defending "human rights". These activists claim the pretexts are false not only because of the collusion of the media in spreading misinformation, omissions, and fabrications in order to justify intervention, but that the same western powers that are calling for intervention have either kept silent on, or have justified much bigger violations of human rights in other situations when these violations were committed either by their allies or by themselves. The Arab nationalist activist website The Free Arab Voice has issued a statement to that effect.

Again, it shouldn't be at all difficult to find some RSs from think-tanks, political entities, etc. to demonstrate the fact there are people who believe intervention is imperialist. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Francis Boyle presented his opinion on Aljazeera English this Thursday (March 10th). He argued that U.S. interests in Libya concerned oil and military bases, not the Libyan people or their livelyhood. (I am not the anon contributor above, BTW). Alfons Åberg (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something? When did we put military bases in Libya (or is he talking about setting them up)? Have we even set up and enforced a no-fly zone yet? Also how is it an instance of Western Imperialism when even at the time when this was first brought up, I believe the Arab League was already favouring the NFZ? Is the Arab League an instrument of western imperialism? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ras Lanuf

Reports are that rebels still control the oil refinery and fighting is ongoing even though the main group of defenders retreated and Gaddafi's forces entered the town. I think it should be colored yellow on the map still. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to trust reports from Libyan State Television or their officials so I wouldn't be against coloring it yellow. However, could you provide the reports that say the rebels still control the refinery and that there's ongoing clashes. I think I remember one report where a rebel was quoted as saying they did in fact retreat after heavy bombardment by Gaddafi loyalists. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One link, and another. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ras Lanuf should be green now. (I also believe that Masurata should be yellow at the moment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.135.224 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Al Jazeera, filed at about 14:30 today (12 March): http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131281658181773.html , Gadaffi forces have taken Brega, but the situation is unclear in Ras Lanuf. I don't know how to update the map, so someone else will have to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.61.64 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbian mercenary allegations

I've now had to re-add a reliable source as a reference multiple times because someone is desperate to keep Wikipedia from following WP:NPOV and representing both sides. If anyone disagrees that editorializing to call these allegations "malicious rumors" or "blatant lies" and removing references to reliable sources that claim otherwise does not fit with Wikipedia style or meet NPOV criteria, please let me know; otherwise I'm going to assume consensus and report the next violation I see for vandalism, because I'm tired of having to re-add the same reference and redo the wording just to keep both the Serbian government claims and and the contrary position fairly represented.

If someone truly believes the multiple sources claiming Serbian mercenaries have been used in Libya should not be given the time of day in this article, please present your argument here rather than editing the article to remove links and insert colorful prose about the allegations without consensus. Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence that claimed that "Qaddafi referred to his Serbian pilots". The source supplied to back up that assertion in fact made no such claim. Edrigu (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with removing unreliable sources, but User:Ramanzamn just rewrote the entire section to discredit the media reports, removing references and adding non-germane information about Serbia's policy toward the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions. I'd actually like to request a state of semi-protection, considering some partisans' apparent inability to let Wikipedia mention any POV that potentially puts Serbia in a bad light. And if I sound annoyed, it's because this is literally the third or fourth time I've had to undo someone's attempt to insert Serbian propaganda into this Wikipedia article, deleting relevant references without seeking consensus or even consulting the Talk page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So this article is under attack by Serbian nationalists quite possibly? Oy vey! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

False reference and statement : As stated now "Prothom Alo" is wrong, it is actually Serbian magazine Alo...and not some Bangladeshi newspaper, also that reference (ref 284) goes to wrong page. Please correct it.--94.140.88.117 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you can correct it as well. :) I must recuse myself from editing anything involving Srbija as I have an intense dislike of it bordering on racism for various reasons (How's that for honesty? :p). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

These are completely false allegations. Miroslav Lazanski has pointed out that no Serbian pilots fly Sukhoj models of Libian army!

Timeline

The timeline needs to be trimmed, as there is another separate article for it - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The timeline shouldn't just be trimmed, it should be arranged topically. I suggest something along the lines of:

Protests and regime response
Rebel offensive
Regime counter-offensive

These seem to be the three phases that characterize the conflict so far. At first it was unarmed protesters being shot down by regime troops. Then the protesters became armed rebels and took most of the Gulf of Sirte. Then the regime launched a counter offensive and took back most rebel-held territory outside of Cyrenaica. That's where we stand so far, and with the counter-offensive the character of the conflict has changed from "uprising" (a rebellion sweeping across the country) to "civil war" (two armed parties along a front). --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

do rampaging people armed with bricks, torches and metal pipes really qualify as "unarmed"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.161.241 (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That gets you into the whole mess over whether the people on the Mavi Marmara were technically armed or not. I am not sure there is a set definition as most anything can be used as a weapon. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Map graphic

This graphic is not zoomable (in Firefox 3.6 at least), so it is hard to look at it in detail, and hard to see what's already on it. It would be good if that could be improved. Arfed (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on the image leads to other resolutions, including 2000px. WikiDao ☯ 17:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah so it does, thanks! Is it possible to make it default to one of those larger images, or a larger svg, upon clicking the svg displayed on the main page? This would make it more consistent/intuitive with how clicking normal images works. Arfed (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Below the graphic on the description page it shows "This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px." with links. However, clicking it asks me if I want to save the file as an unknown file type instead of showing me a larger version. Also the default size is smaller than in my preferences. Finally, clicking on any previous version, to see visually how territorial control has progressed, also asks me to save it as an unknown file, not showing me the graphic. Gotyear (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That map is horrible. That enlarged Tripoli, Benghazi and Misurata balls hiding parts of the map are horrible. Further, the text cites small villages like Uqayla and Bishe which are missing, so can someone make a better map? 187.43.236.175 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make a map showing a timeline of the uprising? I think that would be interesting to see the map over the past month or so. NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 20:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a section on the influx of Libyan asylum seekers to Italy?

Before pursuing on the topic, I'd like to ask what general consensus is on including the current influx of Libyan asylum seekers to Italy and the expected humanitarian crisis as Italy expects more to arrive as Libya continues to destabilise. I already have various sources lined up, which I hope is useful is adding to the article. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 (Italian) Link 4 (Italian) Link 5 (Italian) Link 6 Link 7 Thank you in advance! Eug.galeotti (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to address the refugee issue generally speaking, rather than the effects on any particular country. Given the proximity of Italy to Libya, some sources relating to refugees fleeing to Italy would no doubt be relevant in this context, though. Alfons Åberg (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, I suppose that means the floor is now open for people to start compiling a section on the matter. And the refugee crisis with Libya is pretty much only affecting Italy because the Libyans escape to Lampadusa, the closest European territory to Libya. So the Italian coast guard and navy are processing the Libyans. I haven't heard of reports of Libyans arriving anywhere else; this seems to be specifically an Italian problem. But more research would help clarify the matter. Hope to see some information added soon! Eug.galeotti (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So I was thinking the topic could be covered in "International Reactions", under "Refugee Situation" with a breakdown by country/region, e.g. Algeria and Italy/EU. Any comments? Eug.galeotti (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

POV flag

The article has become clearly biased with the addition of Christopher Hitchens' view in the lede. "Conversely, a critic of the actual, inaction, in the face of Gaddafi regime violence, Christopher Hitchens, has observed : "Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is in fact the adoption of one. 'Neutrality' favors the side with the biggest arsenal. 'Nonintervention' is a form of intervention." especially with the "Gaddafi reginme violence" description of events. The entire article needs more balancing, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think neither Hitchens' commentary, nor James Clappers opinion belong in the lede. Hitchens' commentary is an observation of a very general nature - it might be useful in a discussion of pros and cons regarding intervention in Libya. Clapper's comment has been criticised for resting on the assumption that the outcome can be predicted based solely on the number of tanks, airplanes, soldiers etc. on each side in the conflict, assuming that all other factors will remain the same. Both of them should (IMO) be moved to a different section of the article or, alternatively, removed entirely. Alfons Åberg (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitchens was talking very specifically about the Libya situation in the article linked to - his observation was directed at this specific situation, this specific moment, - whether it belongs at all in the lead is different but it very definitely is an observation pertinent to the Libya uprising , this quote does not emerge from some philiosophical treatise of general maxim like conclusions about warfare or summat. It was written in a spirit of ultra-specificity, for obvious reasons I would have thought.Sayerslle (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think flagging the whole article is misleading, my initial thought was that the whole conflict's depiction is disputed. Is it possible to only flag specific paragraph as disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.115.244 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Usually that would work, but in this case the top section is obviously npov problematic, imo. The first sentence says "Muammar Gaddafi's 42-year rule, which has included tight censorship, torture, executions of dissidents, and restrictions on ordinary life." with no sourcing at all. There are lots of Editors here so it should not be a problem to get the Lede more neutral and better sourced. One thing to remember is that any of the bad things he did in the past should be in pre-existing articles if they were notable at the time and would not need to be repeated here except in quotes and even then balanced off against what his supporters are saying. Gaddafi seems to have some supporters, like the President of Yemen and Louis Farrakhan so maybe that should go into the article. I can not bring myself to include pro-Gadaffi content(I can't stand the guy) but unless someone else can, the article is too biased, unless all the Hitchens type stuff is taken out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Very strange that no one sourced that area. Downright strange in fact as you can find any source, including good ones talking about all of those. As for making it neutral though, find a source that look at him neutrally then it can be more neutral. THe Pro-Gadaffi stuff doesn't fit with WP:NPOV anyway.

Oh, it was on your page that I saw the debate pyramid. Not meant to be an attack on your spelling, but it's kind of a funny (chuckle funny) coincidence that both you and that second one accidently used 'lede' in spelling lead. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No coincidence (from lead paragraph: "The word is often spelled lede in the journalism industry in the USA, but this spelling is also becoming so common in general US English that it is no longer labeled as jargon by major US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and American Heritage". As a Briton, I use it because it avoids confusion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? I have never seen that before. O_O Must not be used in New York (Center of the World as you know). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The specific points pov statements have been removed from lead by now and remaining disputes fall into standard sourcing comments so removing pov hat for now. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The hat is for the article as a whole as I clearly said above; The entire article needs more balancing. Please do not remove the hat until the dispute is resolved. I also do not understand your standard sourcing comments justification for removal, please amplify that reasoning here. I will make a list of pov issues if you wish but some of them are pretty obvious I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

POV issues; the "represive system" section is too anti-gaddafi. It could be balanced with some of the comments by Bush administration officials when Rice went there and took him off of the "terrorist sponsor" list. There is no section showing the support that Gaddafi has received from people like the President of Yemen and Louis Farrakhan. The article is waaaaay off balance imo. Even if I think it is "true", we are not here looking for "truth". There needs to be more bout his so-called "loyalists" fighters as well. I can understand if noone wants to add this type of content, I will not either, but in the meantime, since virtually every Editor here is apparently pulling for the rebels(like me), either the "represive system" type of content needs removing or else the tag should remain. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega and Ras lanuf Taken

Acording to Aljazeera Brega and Ras Lanuf is captures by pro-Gadaffi forces. Please change the colour of the map acordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's correct about Ras Lanuf, but are we sure about Brega?--Yannismarou (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other sources but a throwaway comment on the Al Jazeera liveblog backing up Brega's fall, and I've seen numerous Tweets insisting that only civilians were evacuated as a precaution and rebels still hold the town. But the situation is unclear, so I'd color it yellow. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Reporting that the rebels have withdrawn from Brega http://twitter.com/bbcbreaking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.86.225 (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is reporting that Libyan state TV has reported that rebells are withdrawing from Brega. ^[1]

It is now being reported that Brega is taken back in a night raid by the rebel forces ^[2] Tugrulirmak (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12731079 - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources stated Rebel side and "The statement has not been independently confirmed." In other hand Ajdabiya under shelling. Lets wait for some more news/sources. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Libya

Does the Kadhafi forces control some part in western Libya near Bengazhi or are the rebels in control of the entire western part of the country. And if so it should be shown on the map to give a more complete picture of the general stituation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'am sorry i mean the eastern part of Libya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No wait the western —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.235.58 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Gaddafi forces control the Eastern part of the country they held 100% of it until March 15th when Brega (An Eastern Libyan City) fell to Pro-Gaddafi forces and Benghazi who is currently faces some battles from Pro-Gaddafi forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.26.6 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Arab League recognizes rebel council?

I don't think this is true: "The Arab League also announced it now recognizes the National Transitional Council as the government of Libya.". This is sourced to Aljazeera's news update of March 12th. However, there were several contradictory claims surfacing during the day, so I don't think this source is appropriate in this case. I watched the live broadcast from the Arab League's press conference, and I'm pretty sure they didn't say anything about recognizing the rebel council. So I think this should be removed if we can't find a different source for it (e.g. the official resolutions from the Arab League). Alfons Åberg (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

More like they 'un-recognized' Gaddafi's regime. See Reuters. Flatterworld (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many tags

The article header has too many tags, and its occluding the article's readability. These are the tags currently on the page:

Neutrality disputed - this is nominal for this type of article, and the tag does not help resolve any dispute because it doesnt link directly to the dispute.
Proposed rename - This should be resolved on the talk page. The determination of whether a civil war has started is subjective and should come only when news outlets report the conflict as such.
Current event - This tag belongs
May be too long - The edit view of the article does not show any size warning. This issue may be limited to people using mobile devices, in which case using Wapedia or some better client would solve the problem. - 67.161.54.63 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Submit the NPOV tag be removed unless there's a specific, substantiated NPOV issue argument here on Talk. As it is now, all it does is say Hey guys, this issue is controversial!!! and makes it look like the article is poorly-slanted vice about a complex subject. Isn't there some kind of "hey, this is a controversial issue" tag we can use instead. Agree rename should be removed, since it's explicitly addressed at the top of Talk, and this isn't some simple rename dispute. Current events should definitely stay. For "too long", there's the debate below on how to fork it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look and address the specific issues in the section above headed "pov tag". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian volonteers ?

The link to The Mirror page cited as reference only mentions Egyptian Special forces who might have been let through the Tunisian-Libyan border by Tunisian Soldiers. Even if it is true, it does not imply Tunisians fighting on the rebel side, not even limited or alleged.--130.228.251.10 (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Make an article for Gaddafi's situation

Does this article really need to go into that much deatil about his situation in Libya? As a whole the article should cover the main points in summary as this has turned into a huge ordeal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All but one Western city (March 14)

According to an article here, "all of the Western cities but Misarata" have been recaptured by pro-Gaddafi forces.[2] However, I see that there is an ongoing struggle to recapture a few mountain cities in the West, which are inaccessible by trucks.[3]

Should there be a change in the map? I have a feeling the Western cities that are labeled under rebel control are not entirely accurate.--Screwball23 talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

time to fork/split article

time to address article length (WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:TOOLONG).

article is now well over 180,000 bytes and accessibility is quite difficult. i'm on high-speed (FIOS) connection with 2 gig of ram but editing is very sluggish.

it generally takes upward of 90 seconds to save (when it does save). i frequently get "wikipedia foundation" error messages when saving.

many citations are missing the 5 core ingredients (author, title, source, date, access date) to avoid link rot (WP:LINKROT) and keep article within WP:VERIFY. i'm happy to slug through to complete/flush out citations, but now will abandon article until size constraints are addressed.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just had this issue as well when I attempted to open the edit. I think even Longcat would agree this is too long. [4] (apologies to Longcat-lovers for my crappy use of Paint). How do you fork an article? Do you make mini-articles of the section or...? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it, easiest way seems to be to move all the "Reaction" stuff into its specific articles, with maybe just a paragraph (or just a link) remaining behind. To seriously fix the issue, I think we'd have to move the whole Timeline to the Timeline article, and instead of having any daily play-by-play, just have maybe a paragraph per week describing the broadest trends. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Its very bloated and needs aggressive trimming; cut out all of the propaganda and speculative content and it will not need forking. There is also a whole lot of non-notable information. This is nobody's fault, its just the result of a lot of interest and contributions, but at some point it must be reigned into a concise article worthy of an encyclopedia. It looks a lot like a facebook page right now; to me at least. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting article protection.

There is too much vandalization and misinformation about this article that I request this article to be under (semi-) protection until further notice. Harmpie (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good idea since contidutors might not realize that editting under a username is much less traceable to using your ip, strangely making edits more anonymous in the real world yet easier to have a discussion thread in the wiki world. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

oppose. don't really see need. i've been following article for several days during which time blatant vandalism has not been overwhelming and generally been quickly reverted/excised. should vandalism or pov pushing escalate dramatically, that's another discussion.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Free Libyan Air Force"

The article says that airplanes operated by the rebels attacked Libyan government navy ships on March 15. This would be a very major development, but is sourced to "Zurf Military Aircraft". Is that a reliable source? Why don't any mainstream news sources mention it? Google news has no hits whatsoever for "Free Libyan Air Force. Even if they wee non-Libyan planes joining the fray, it would be a major development. This should probably be removed as someone's wishful thinking until better sourced. Edison (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a topic about this that just got archived. I don't think it was determined whether Zurf is reliable or not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazing statements referenced only to a source of undetermined reliability do not satisfy WP:V, so the claim of an airstrike by the "Free Libyan Air Force " should be removed from the article until other news sources report it. Any objections? Edison (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The original Zurf post is at [5] and says a Libyan rebel news service "Libya al-Youm" reported it. Zurf says Reuters and Al Jazeera reported that Mig 23s and helicopters sank 2 Libyan warships. Further clarification is needed, since some Libyan warships near Benghazi have reportedly defected to the rebels, and the simple reporting that planes attacked ships does not establish whose planes and whose ships. Links to the Reuters and Al Jazeera were not provided by Zurf, and are badly needed. Edison (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AP says "two antiquated warplanes", out of a "handful of 'very old' warplanes" controlled by the rebels were used to attack government ships. The claim sounds ok, more refs should be added to the article. Edison (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lie!!!

All of of this is a lie, the sources are corrupted and are biased. Poor wiki, with no certainty and too much presuppositions. =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.182.209 (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So none of the events described actually happened? Remarkable conspiracy on the part of all the world's news media, the Libyan government and the rebels. Edison (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the fighting in front of you? If you haven't then you can't really know if it happening or not. It is clearly a conspiracy by Obama to undermine the governments of the Middle East so as to steal their oil and hummus.(File this one under lulz.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 21:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen Obama in front of me either, but you seem unreasonably certain that Obama exists. Are you sure he's not created by computer-generated animation? Those CIA devils can do anything. Aris Katsaris (talk)

Hmmm, very good point, wait... what if we're living in a computer-generated world itself?! My cat is currently using her litter box, she's playing innocent, pawing the side of the tub like it is litter, but I'll be she's up to something. A planted spy no doubt making sure I am kept blind, watching and waiting, lest someone reveal the truth of the world to us.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending confirmation

Hi. There are two rumors that are pending confirmation/sourced:

Kamikaze attack on Bab Aziza compound, the headquarters of Colonel Qaddhafi
The airport of Sirt has been bombarded and damaged.

Youssef (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is abuzz with reports of revolt in Sirte as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, certain Twitter hashtags tend to function as echo chambers. No independent media has so much as mentioned these rumors yet, as far as I can tell. It's driving me crazy... -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this report which tells of a planned assault on Sirte. Unknown whether or not this is to support any local rebellion or if it is just hot air... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Almanara Media

I've done some digging around and I'm forced to conclude "Almanara Media" doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It is only ever cited on the 17th February 2011 website, which has a record of making inaccurate claims, and its sources are never cited. Both sides are going to have their propaganda, and since we have something of a consensus here that Libyan State TV is pro-Gaddafi propaganda, I think we should probably recognize Almanara/17th February as anti-Gaddafi propaganda. No independent media is even addressing some of the present claims w/r/t fighting in Sirte, a kamikaze attack on the Bab Aziziya compound, dozens of Gaddafist soldiers defecting or being arrested, etc. In fact, it's currently unclear who is in control of Ajdabiya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it a little time, I'm sure we'll get confirmation some way or another... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

libyafeb17.com not a source

libyafeb17.com is used as a source in this article. but it is a pro-rebel PR website not a reliable source of information . For the sake of neutrality it should be avoided. Srinivasasha (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the website can be used to present rebel claims as new events emerge, just as Libyan state TV can be used to present government claims prior to confirmation. But the information contained in both should not be treated as anything more than claims and rumours – and certainly not fact. Reliable news sources should be used for confirmation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)02:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For NPOV Comparison

I think that for comparison purposes, in assessing this article's NPOV status, that interested Editors have a look at 2011 Bahraini protests. That article presents an objective and neutral tone with virtually no overt criticism at all of either the current response by the Ruler nor the past conduct of that country's Ruler, in spite of the existence of very critical news reports. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Libya gets more coverage and Gadaffi wasn't exactly Mr. Popularity before he decided to start slaughtering innocent people. In fact, is there anyone here who does not wish shall we say great misfortune on the guy? Of course the other problem is that while we try to maintain NPOV, the sources don't feel much of an obligation to do so themselves, not really anyway. I don't even know who is in charge in Bahrain, only that it's an island, we have US CENTCOM there, and just last night that Saudi Arabia apparently sent soldiers in, to which my reaction was a very audible "what the f*ck?!" as I didn't realise that they would actually intervene nor had I heard a hint they were going to, in the news. Mind you I read the Jerusalem Post and YNet mostly, so it's very how should I put it? Levantocentric and pays a good deal of attention to the happenings in the Muslim world in the Maghreb and in Arabia as well. Libya is well, Libya. That evil rogue state next to Egypt. No offence whatsoever against the good people of Libya, that reputation here only belongs to the swine currently controlling Tripoli. I am an American btw, in case anyone thinks I'm Israeli. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

you've hit the nail on the head, here. Look, for us as editors, I think that "maintaining neutrality" is simply following the sources. If we repeat what our sources are telling us, then we're basically above reproach. That is the essence of NPOV, regardless. We don't speak with our own voice, but with the voice of those who we are citing. We're an encyclopedia, after all, not a news organization. If our coverage is slightly slanted, simply because our sources are all slightly slanted, then so be it. There's nothing really wrong, on our end, with that situation (it would be nice if our sources were more... er, "balanced" [full congnizence of the FOX News tagline is here, but being ignored in this case]; but that issue is largely beyond our control, as Wikiepdia editors).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Numbers

Considering the defection of Abdul Fatah Younis and the considerable number of troops with him, perhaps the troop numbers (for both opposition and government) should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torred Mirror (talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Younis has defected three weeks ago[6]. If you can put a figure to the "considerable number" you mention, you are invited to report it at Libyan People's Army. I feel it is impossible to tell the strength of either side with more accuracy than "a few thousand". I also feel that the deciding factor isn't going to be numerical strength, but ammunition and petrol reserves. It sounds absurd to suggest the Libyans might run out of petrol, but of course you can't run engines on raw oil. Libya has five major refineries:[7]

Ras Lanuf export refinery, 220,000 bbl/d
Az Zawiya refinery, 120,000 bbl/d;
Tobruk refinery, with crude capacity of 20,000 bbl/d;
Brega, 10,000 bbl/d;
Sarir, a topping facility with 10,000 bbl/d of capacity.

This explains why the control of Ras Lanuf and Zawiya is essential. Gaddafi must be burning shitloads of petrol sending his troops 1000 km across the desert. The Zawiya refinery shut down a couple of days ago,[8] and the question is whether Gaddafi's side can get it to run again. I have no idea whether the Ras Lanuf refinery is still operable. --dab (𒁳) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, not Abdul Fatah Younis :s. Regardless, al-Jazeera estimates he took 8,000 troops with him over to the rebels. ` 122.108.172.183 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The Rebels have been seen to have between 5,000 and 15,000. However that is not including the defecting Air Units no matter how few. Or counting volunteers in small rural villages in the west, or small units fighting in Ajbidya,and Bani Waldi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sirt and Bani Walid

Accordingly to the article, in March 16, "It was also reported that 2 battalions of Loyalist forces defected in Sirt, taking control of the city's airport.". So, I think that Sirt should be yellow in the map. I also note that Bani Walid is yellow for some long time and no news came from that place. Can someone check the current situation there? 187.43.252.16 (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are persistent, detailed rumours about rebellion in Sirte, but these have not been verified as of yet by independent news sources.

As for Bani Walid, I have not seen updates from the city in some time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A Better updated map

The Guardian has a better-updated map, which is frequently updated. In it, by the way, Gharyan is correctly marked as held by pro-Gaddafi forces. I believe that city should be changed on the wikipedia page as well.--Screwball23 talk 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Map updates on Wikipedia are truly slow. Brega and Ajdabiyah should be green hours ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.135.224 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. From the news I've read, Ajbadiya is now in Qaddafi's hands.--Witan (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya has not been completely overrun by Gaddafi, he has surrounded it but not eliminated. Its kinda like Ah Zawiya where the Rebels control the inner city and the Libyan army controls the outskirts. 71.251.112.178 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Want to change the article title?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If you're coming here to start a "requested move", please see WP:RM for instructions on how to properly list an RM. In particular, keep in mind that you're supposed to "subst" the {{move}} template. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is just great, isn't it? For the contributors who oppose the move to Libyan Civil War, I mean. Because, while the move request may not have been exactly in keeping with official guidelines, there was overwhelming support for moving the article to Libyan Civil War, with just a few dissenting opinions. Now this request gets simply closed and a message posted saying we should do the discussion all over again, this time "properly". Now that's just ridiculous, isn't it? Guidelines or not, a blind man could see that there was consensus. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We are helping to run an encyclopedia here, not the state of Florida. Even if there was major consensus that it should be changed, the way it was done was so flawed and messy that it just became a bad joke. If you want to open up a new one you are welcome to. Just click up on WP:RM, I'll put my little notice back in place, others will put the other notices and then maybe we can have a proper concensus. =p As well, this is not a competition between people that oppose and support. It is really the differing opinions people who think it is a civil war logically and want to add it without following the wikirules (quite a few of the supporters), and people who want to abide by the core rules and wait until civil war is the most commonly used term (even though they themselves, for the most, feel it is a civil war. But let's try to not make this a pissing contest between two sides, eh? People actually do read this encyclopedia and take it seriously (whether they realise it or not), and it's our responsibility (which we have voluntarily taken up) to convey the information as best as possible, and that is the reason for the guidlines and wikirules in the first place, to facilitate that.

Also, to Ohms Law, I checked and Libyan Conflict is also popular in the news (slightly more so than civil war apparently), and there is only overlap of about 150 for Libya Chad conflict. Uprising is still on top though it seems. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This encyclopedia can not be deemed serious withouththe acknowlegement of a wide consensus. This encyclopedia can not be reliable for it does not keep up to date with a civil war that has been raging for almost a month. Please spare us the "Oh it didn't match with the wiki rules" for the Wiki rules are very open to indivicual perception and one mans idea of matching the rules is not the other mans... Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This army of editors has kept the content quite up to date I would think. The title is the only real point of contention. WP:TITLE, (specifically WP:COMMONNAME), WP:VOTE, WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH), WP:DUCK (revised), and WP:V. So I trust you have read all these and have a full understanding of what ways they are to be interpreted then in this case? It appears the editors who cited them have a very different set of interpretations. Best to sign with 4 ~'s btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment There will never be a media consensus on what to call any occurance in the world, consensus on the name must be found here and not within the media. We must also take the issue of a common name with a grain of salt, common names often emerge months or years after an event take place (i.e. world war two was not called world war two circa 1939). More importantly, the common name issue as discussed on the wikipedia policy page (WP:COMMONNAME) does not pertain to this issue as much as some have argued in the past. This policy is to ensure that people do not pull a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "well, that's his name". No one is trying to do that here so lets get on with the issue. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated before though, it's not a full concensus, just whatever term they use the most at the time, which really doesn't change all that often (I'm afraid that's a bit too much in the way of faith in the individuality of the sources). It is important nonetheless to use it for recognition purposes. Did they really do that? Lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war. Furthermore, France has recognized the anti-gaddafi forces as the sole legitimate gov't, and the Arab League has said they wish to conduct talks with them (tacit recognition). Additionally, multiple major news outlets have called the situation in libya a civil war and google hits for "libyan civil war" now outnumber "libyan uprising". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Would now support since there are now enough sources to support a renaming. That said, I only weakly support and have few objections to the status quo name because a "war" implies that there have been identifiable battles as opposed to one side largely rolling right over the other. If Benghazi falls without a shot fired the "civil war" title won't fit well.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment, uh oh, best to nip this in the bud. There is one dedicated rename spot for the article, and we don't want another mess. Let's wrap this one up with a nice bow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

United States?

On the opener its states the United States is supporting the Rebels and its cited by Youtube. Should that be eliminated until a better resource it found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, I thought that as well at first. Then I clicked the link, it's a YouTube video of a news report from 'RT', not sure what the initials stand for, but it is a news report by their service's YouTube account. The guy didn't put anything in the way of a good citation though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to all - I hadn't read this discussion, but removed some suspicious "limited/alleged belligerents" anyway - the youtube clip dealt with Proposed Libyan no-fly zone UN resolution and other possible measures, such as weapons shipments to the rebels being considered on part of the Western powers (and Saudi Arabia). The alleged involvement of the Netherlands was "referenced" by link to the article dealing with release of a helicopter crew, seized during the evacuation operation of EU citizens on February 27, which was hardly any involvement in the conflict against Gaddafi.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

p.s.:'RT' stands for Russia Today TV Network.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are indeed rather dubious. To be honest, I only looked at the first 20 seconds. Glad to see someone else was a lot less lazy than I. =p

Ah, that makes sense. Russia_Today#Controversies_and_criticisms - Doesn't seem very popular abroad. Can we trust it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

...sometimes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, and this is just my opinion, how do we know it's not Putin (through Medveadev) manipulating reports? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the reports that they would be reliable for, would be reports where their generally apeing what everyone else is reporting. Which, in this day and age of 24-hour cable news, unfortunately isn't much different then how we treat pretty much everyone else (especially with political coverage).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RT is not a reliable source for claims about US foreign policy. I might add that according to the NY Times, "Privately, some European officials expressed frustration with the Obama administration, with one saying he believed it was supporting strong measures [supporting the rebels] in an attempt to draw a veto [against any measure supporting the rebels]."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is less one of RT's reliability than verifiability and weight. The article should not be based off of YouTube videos. Even if RT is reporting this on its website, the sheer fact that no other outlet (well, no serious news outlet anyway) has made such claims means at best it should get a single-sentence mention as "according to RT" followed by things like the NYT report you mention. Even then it would be questionable whether we're giving undue weight to what is likely a fringe theory unless other sources agree. Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Again Orwell (Plz teach - shoud be :) )

WP:NPOV

My english is very bad.... But how good friend of colonel can say anything. People about you talking, about democracy and human rights? Today economy and oil have full price, rest is coletar demage ....

Welcome to new world, mr. Orwell you have full right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.207.121 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He's got a point, Khadafie is an Orwellian psycho with lots of over-priced oil!86.24.20.87 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"over-priced oil" ? So we need take it? how pirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalis?Wipsenade (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Somalis are more honest than the French, English, .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Insects and peoples

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.Wipsenade (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Clo' Gadaffi's latest spech, a few days back; was rambling, untrue, incohrrent an bezarr. It seemed as HE was on the Al-Queada halusanagenic narco-drinks to me. Dose Colnell Gadaffi need to see Vision Exspress, or what? I dont know how he could mistake his one peoples for cockroches? It it battel fatgue? I dont understand and need help on the deaper aspect of Libyan culter prehaps? --82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A young Benghazian carrying King Idris' photo. Support of the royal Senussi dynasty has traditionally been strong in Cyrenaica.^[3]
A cockroach soon after ecdysis.
A laboratory rat strain known as a Zucker rat. These rats are bred to be genetically prone to diabetes, the same metabolic disorder found among humans.

He was cacking a joke, dopy.--82.11.94.189 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to cite Dr. Montana as a precedent for this sort of thing: "Okay, Sosa. You wanna fuck with me? You fucking with the best! You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You little cockroaches... come on. You wanna play games? Okay, I'll play with you. You wanna play rough? Okay! Say hello to my little friend!" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, rats! He called the Libyans "Rats" last month. Wipsenade (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be left out until reliable sources can vet the claim he said this odd phraze. 75.177.190.19 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre- and post- UN mandate decision

I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.

Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to the correct form!

Ok, who does the reverting to the correct article now? If we all do it at the same time, we revert back to the wrong version all the time!!! noclador (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 vote of March 18

Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[[9]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[[10]]

Nation	United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote	Political Side
France[BBC News] [[11]]	Yes	Rebels
Bosnia-Hercegovina[BBC News] [[12]]	Yes	Rebels
Colombia[BBC News] [[13]]	Yes	Rebels
Gabon[BBC News] [[14]]	Yes	Rebels
Nigeria[BBC News] [[15]]	Yes	Rebels
Lebanon[BBC News] [[16]]	Yes	Rebels
Portugal[BBC News] [[17]]	Yes	Rebels
South Africa[BBC News] [[18]]	Yes	Rebels
United Kingdom[BBC News] [[19]]	Yes	Rebels
United States[BBC News] [[20]]	Yes	Rebels
Brazil[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
Germany[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Rebels
India[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
China[[The Guardian Live Blog]	Abstain	Neutral
Russia[[The Guardian Live Blog]	A reluctant abstain	Pro-Gadhafi

Wipsenade (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What sources describe Russia and Germany as pro-Gadhafi? Surely their positions do not come close to lining up with Latin American "revolutionary" leaders who still idolise the guy... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant they always regularly vote 'no' to tough measures, show undue sympathy to Gadhafi, politically softly-softly, and alike ('soft allies' if you like'). At no time do I mean their as far committed as Zimbabwe, who is fighting alongside Gadhafi like ('hard allies', you might say) or worshiping him like the Latin American "revolutionary" leaders. No one is apparently as deluded and as Hugo Chavez! It's all a matter of degrees.

The UK is anti-Gadhafi, but France is very anti-Gadhafi (oil?) and the USA got cold feet since it is worried about a new Afghanistan/Iraq style endless troop commitment crisis. Wipsenade (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Roak?81.100.114.84 (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this table something more suitable for a users sandbox? The key information is already in another article, using a well established formet: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "sides" was my own POV and was not to be article added unlike the rest.Wipsenade (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if it's already there then no problem. I got it as news broke when I turned on my TV this morning. I the Googled up stuff. It was new and I thought I was first. If others got there first, I did not notice it. I just thought the main nations were mentioned, not places like Gabon to. It appears my notice was not a news exclusive, but out of date by several hours. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.Wipsenade (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

conspiracy theories

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Wipsenade (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many conspiracy theories in the internet. (Some like "Israel supports Gaddafi by 50.000 mercenaries" can be tracked back to iranian Press TV. Others like mustang gas are the product of internet inventions) It is very easy to prove them wrong, but should they mentioned, since many people believe these internet-conspiracy which manage to outcommunicate the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.164 (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

here's a good conspiracy element for you (and a note to others), if strikes begin on March 19, it would be very interesting.--93.137.21.190 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be mentioned per WP:FRINGE unless they become a part of the narrative in reliable sources. Gonfaloniere (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

These are not 'outcommunicating the truth', the only place they are being reported at all are on internet communities, where fringe theories tend to get more attention than they in the real world where few people have heard of them. Internet ≠ general populace. 66.183.11.233 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources?81.100.114.84 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Israel, Jews, Zionists, the US, the Welsh, etc are blamed for everything. Like it was said earlier, unless it becomes a significant part of the story, don't include it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre- and post- UN mandate decision

I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.

Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons?

WP:RS.Wipsenade (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(WARNING GRAPHIC) Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons used on people. Its VERY VERY GRAPHIC. Not for the weak hearted. if you have a weak tummy, dont open it; if you are pregnant, dont open it; if you have a heart problem, dont open it. Be warned. I couldnt take more the 2 sec. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

They removed it. I probably could have handled it. Once you've survived the offended page on ED, you can handle pretty much anything. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Is there any other place with this video and do we know it is specifically a Swineddafi-ordered attack? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also is there a news article that can confirm this? Because YouTube isn't that reliable source . Spongie555 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this article Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan uprising it does mention mustard gas although I do not think he was for using it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the video. [21] Surprisingly I did almost feel the urge to vomit, so disregard what I said earlier. Warning, it actually is pretty graphic. I put a request for the fellow who put it up to give us a sauce for the vid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the video, and I agree with Spongie555. I also think the video doesn't prove anything, it just shows two dead men who have suffered severe physical trauma. They could have been killed by artillery or bombing or any number of violent ways. I didn't see anything that showed that they were killed by chemical weapons. I think it should be left out until reliable sources can vet the claim. 75.177.190.19 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, someone could have easily put this video up of two dead men who died from other causes and is promoting the video saying that the cause was Prohibited Chemical Weapons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been kicked off You-tube, but is still here[22]. I have seen it and it is indeed VERY VERY GRAPHIC! The men have suffered severe physical trauma, like thay had been blown up by a bomb or shell. One guy was also partially burnt up (the black and charred corpse on the right). He was probably napalmed. Chemical weapons don't burn with fire or blow people up! -Wipsenade (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes i have seen the video, its sad, sometimes i start to think how could people could do those things, using that horrible weapons. Good for the people that filmed it and posted it at the internet. These horrible things have to be known to the world. Gadhafi its a monster the same kind of Saddam, hitler, stalin, bush and nixon. Hope this sh!t end fast. Poor libyan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the above comment extremely offensive and I don't know what it's doing here... saying "Gadhafi its a monster the same kind of Saddam, hitler, stalin, bush and nixon." 1. How is this relevant in anyway 2. This is extremely biased and offensive and 3. Who let this person on the internet? 198.37.17.200 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. At least keep it partly related to the article. Gadaffi and maybe Saddam would have had the potential to be as bad as Stalin or Hitler given the resources, but Nixon and Bush are hyperbole and yeah, they have no place here. In answer to question #3, Peter, King of the Internets (and various parts you do not to talk about). Now, back on topic, anything new on this vid? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS. Is it a reliable source or a propaganda article using 2 dead guys out of a local house fire, car crash, whatever..... Wipsenade (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents - alleged/limited

I removed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (added on March 13 by an unregistered, currently blocked, user) which part in the conflict is not confirmed/referenced, but I'm uncertain if al-Qaeda (added recently by an other unregistered editor) should be retained in the infobox? The only existing references related to al-Qaeda's participation are based upon Gaddafian propagandistic allegations and speculations based on them. I returned al-Qaeda with explanation on which is its inclusion there based upon, but I'm not sure if such an - clearly biased and non-partial - allegation is enough for inclusion in the infobox, even among the "alleged belligerents" (especially as even the reports from non-involved sources are far from being complete and fully objective at this moment). --Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Moot, by default. My apology to Seleucus, as I was not aware that he was actually moving LIFG to the "alleged" section.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the addition of the US, UK, France, UAE and Qatar to the list of belligerents is a bit premature imo. We only saw a decision by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and none of these countries was mentioned in this resolution. We should wait and see who will actively participate in the military operation that might ensue. -- Rafy talk 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that it will be just the UK and France that will be involved at first, possibly tomorrow already. I think Denmark and the US can be removed, for now at least. David (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion - if there is already existing some understanding between these nations, that they are going to participate in the resolution enforcement and/or preparing for it, that they could be listed there - even prior actual operations started. But participation in such an agreement must be backed by a reliable source, not just only newspaper speculations.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous media reports citing senior officials and diplomats seems pretty credible to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well - I believe that a serious media report makes just good, if it verifies that given country agreed to participate/is preparing to, even if it hadn't actually took part in any action yet, but I don't think some nation can be included solely upon basis of information kind like 'they are among possible participants' or something like that. Just for the wp:Verifiability and wp:NOTCRYSTAL sake.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard rumblings of doing to Gadaffi what we did to Milosevic (our finest war-related hour since WWII). I think we should wait until we start turning his crummy tanks into slag to add the US as a real beligerent. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed the belligerents list. In particular those under the UN mandate. Other than France, none have actually taken a pro-opposition stance or allied themselves with the opposition. Either way, the infobox was getting so large that it was pushing down images from sub categories. I thikn it would be helpful if we did our best to keep the amount of content in the infobox under control.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just an update– according to the AJE blog (March 18, 9:10 AM), Norway has also expressed a desire to join in the no-fly zone, though it is not immediately clear whether this will be purely humanitarian or if they will also send military support. Only "air capabilities" are mentioned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This needs further trimming. The Swedish foreign minister has said that Sweden will only even consider participating if asked by NATO, and that it will take a while for them to do so as the Swedish Airforce is not integrated with NATO. Shouldn't only the countries that we know will participate militarily be listed as belligerents?--212.107.151.249 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the NPOV disputed tag?

The tag itself does not point to any specific discussion or issue, so I think the tag is vague and unnecessary. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no NPOV discussion here, so I'm going to get rid of the template.202.180.108.82 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You two may have just arrived at the discussion page and the discussion was mistakenly archived. I have reinserted it below. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pov Flag