Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

another side of the story

From the Radio Television of Serbia show Q&A session[1] with Miroslav Lazanski. (translation is mine)

Libya and Gaddafi - overturn of dictator or war for oil?

Answers (A:) given by Miroslav Lazanski most prominent Serbia political-military analyst.

Q: ...Libya claims this is war for oil.

A: Easter part that rebelled was never supportive of Gaddafi, and they say he never loved them or invested in that party of a country. There are those tribes and they say tribes from the east don't like them, he didn't invest enough into development in the area, while central and west part like them more, but its all relative because there are both sentiments within all tribes.

Q: Is it with a reason? Are there elements of dictatorship in that system?

A: It certainly is not democratic from the point of view of Europe. But you find me in that part of the world from Maroco to Saudi Arabia a single Arab country which is completely democratic. Maybe Lebanon which has elections. Every country has military government, or monarchy, or presidential dictatorship. Every country there has one of those, and now only Libya is a problem. Let's look at economics of that social revolt, do you know Libya students who live and study in Serbia what they get: they have paid stay, flat, food, car, books, and get a stipend of 2300 euros a month. Every student from Libya that goes to England, USA, anywhere, gets everything paid by the state. Sure it's a dictatorship, but dictatorship where no citizen of Libya pais for electricity, water, gas, where 1 Euro buys 17 litters of best gasoline, where everyone who turns 18 years gets keys of apartment, that is unbeliavable, where one million is working, 6.4 million exist, there are over 1.5 million of citizens of other countries working hard labor jobs. Unbelievable. I haven't seen in Tripoli a single beggar.

89.216.196.129 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the worst analysis I have ever read. First of all there ARE beggars in libya, just not in 5 stars hotels where Gaddafi's visitors usually reside. Secondly not all Libyans are pampered student like those in Serbia. It is true that Libya relies largely on sweat labourers from Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa and that water is free (a way to show the "fruits" of the Great Manmade River). The rest of his claims are simply not true.

By the way, he forgot to mention a tiny thing about how Gaddafi killed thousands of peaceful demonstrators, which never happened in Egypt or Tunisia. Rafy talk 14:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] does that put above in the perspective? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"some guy commented on some general points of Libyan economy on Serbian TV". I don't think we need to significantly rewrite our article here because of that. Or was there any suggestion on how to improve the article here? --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to ridicule, False attribution, Red herring. Your opinion dab is certainly way less relevant than opinion of leading politico-military analyst from Serbia, a country which lost only 13 tanks [3] during 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Mr. Miroslav Lazanski spoke on TV that west is in Libya because of oil and other economic interests, that mission is not a 'no-fly' zone, but a destruction of Libya military so that rebels would be able to fight Gaddafi forces. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So the west cleverly tricked Gaddafis men to fire on the protesters in Benghazi that sparked this whole uprising knowing it would eventually lead to .. etc - what a pile of mind numbing garbage , like Orwell said about Stalinist disinformation in the thirties - its just a 'line' given out by party hacks - reality is elsewhere. Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

His thoughts are probably influenced by our intervention in Serbia during their genocides (I do have bias against them, yes). He is a prominent expert still, so his opinion should be put in the relevant place. Do we have another source translating it though? No offence, but I'm not sure how it works on translations of things, whether you need an RS translating or not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I notice that the infobox lists the two sides as Libya and Libyan Republic(interm council)*. Now I may be wrong but I don't see anywheres where the council states they are a republic. Shouldn't it be Libya and Interm council.? --Wilson (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

withdrawn, shoulda read a bit closer --Wilson (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's at the top of their website: [4] regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war?

A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war? Fledgling rebel government's behavior so far offers few clues to movement's true nature By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

TRIPOLI — The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?

The answer could determine the course of both the Libyan uprising and the results of the Western intervention. In the West’s preferred chain of events, airstrikes enable the rebels to unite with the currently passive residents of the western region around Tripoli, under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution that topples Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

He, however, has predicted the opposite: that the revolt is a tribal war of eastern Libya against the west that ends in either his triumph or a prolonged period of chaos.

“It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist at Georgetown University who has studied Libya. “It could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with.”

Continued at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/?gt1=43001

---

Interesting in light of discussions on this page. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion but the article currently claims it is a pro-democracy movement because of this dubious edit.--Razionale (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The French air force goes in!

French aircraft are over Libya (BBC) [[5]][[6]]!!!Wipsenade (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada, Qatar, Spanish, German, Dutch, UK, Italian (spy), Belgian aircraft are coming. The USA is talking of using some spy airfaft (BBC)[[7]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada, Holland, France and the UK are leading the way[[8]][[9]]. The USA and Quatar are to join later. [[10]] .Wipsenade (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi sympathising Germany decided to take no role and went neutral, while Italy is only offering base access and a spy plane. [[11]]. France shot a Libyan pro- Gaddafi fighter down at about 16.45. They have shot at a Libyan pro- Gaddafi vehcihel literally seconds ago.Wipsenade (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

first air strike

first air strike against a ground vehicle according to live feed. (source France Info).

Yep, it's destroyed acording to the BBC! Wipsenade (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we add in those countries (or perhaps the UN) under the Rebel "combatants" side? Its very clear their no-fly zone is one-sided, and that there is a very good chance it will escalate to strikes against Pro-Ghaddafi ground forces, even those not directly in combat at the moment. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a precedent for this in Bosnian War. We can also take the Kosovo War approach if the involvement becomes larger. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

French Losses

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[12]][[13]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't confirmed. In fact, most sources say that all French planes returned safely. Sovetus (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New forces coming

Quatar, Spain, Denmark and Italy are esnding planes. Algeria and Kuwaite might join in to (BBC).82.14.51.216 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Situation report

The US lead coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain. [[14]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to Bury the Rebel Plane Shoot down

I'm noticing continual efforts(in the article text and the photo text) to challenge,minimize,bury and remove any referrences to identifying the plane that was shot down over Bengazi as being a rebel plane, that it was shot down(accidently perhaps) by rebels or that it was reported to have been bombing rebel territory.This is very important because the plane has been accused by the pro-Gaddafi forces as having been kn "blatant" breach of the no-fly zone. For npov purposes this event should not be censored out of the article.[15] [16] [17] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It was reportedly a rebel MiG, but was shot down by rebels[[18]].82.14.48.234 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Rebel Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi. It was a rebel acording to the UK's Sunday times and CNN.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fog of war!Wipsenade (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Images of the shoot down. [[19]][[20]][[21]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

French Fighter Shoot down

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[22]][[23]]. this is also being covered up.14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's being wiki censored!Wipsenade (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor event that should't be magnified out of proportions. Rafy talk 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting a lot of this because it's not sourced, and very reliable sources were saying the complete opposite of what our article is claiming. This is not WP:TRUTH, this is WP:V. SDY (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki just are hiding that, Libya is close to win.

If you dislike the way Wikipedia does things, User:Frajjsen, take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an error in the fog of war, A French fighter hit a Libyan, not the other way round.[[24]] Wipsenade (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Point of view.

The whole article need to be updated.. it is not NEUTRAL. Template with the casualties should be edited, as France got one Mirage shot down and Italian ship was detained at Tripoli.[[25]]

I'm intregued, let's look up this Italian ship.Wipsenade (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a neutrality problem, it's a problem with good old fashioned facts. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and trying to stay up-to-the-minute on details will inevitably introduce errors. If it's not clear what's going on (which is very common in a war zone), we shouldn't be reporting blow by blow action from primary sources. Looks like the big boys in the news media can't even get it right, and there's a lot of propaganda that's going to start flying. Stick to what we're sure of. SDY (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Google?15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Author: It was confirmed by Italy officials!! Edit the template.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Augusta firm's offshore supply ship "Asso 22" has 8 Italians, 2 Indians, and 1 Ukrainian crew member aboard, all of whome were aressted on the 19th in Tripoli.They were arrested by Gadaffites on the 19th.[[26]][[27]][[28]][[29]][[30]][[31]] [[32]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... they are CPOW (Civilian Prisoners of War). As I said - the template need update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That ship isn't a casualty, it's a random ship from a shipping company that has nothing to do with the war. Sovetus (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe collateral damage then? Not sure if it applies here though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Casualties

The infobox currently lists Government forces taking 48 civilian casualties and 150 civilians injured from recent Western airstrikes. These numbers come from Libyan State Television which has been spitting out the most outrageous of claims in the past week. Also the fact that State TV said the casualties were "primarily women, children and religious clerics" and also reportedly said that Western forces specifically "targeted schools and hospitals" makes the claim only more outrageous. No news source has been able to verify any of the claims, and this is beginning to look more like propaganda than legitimate news. Its inclusion into the infobox for casualties makes it seem very biased, anyone agree? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-and-allies-launch-libya-force-as-gadhafi-strikes-rebel-heartland-regime-claims-48-dead/2011/03/19/ABhkEdx_story.html

Infernoapple (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

State TV claims are dubious at best. The women, children and clerics, schools and hospitals bit is LDA-approved grade A bullshit obvious to any skeptic or westerner, but which his supporters might believe. So yeah, it's not good to include unless you put that as their claim and maybe a note about their credibility. Expressed in the most NPOV manner of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the fact that today there are reports that pro-Gaddafi forces are moving the bodies of those killed in combat to designated places where they are fabricating their own "bombing of civilian areas". Infernoapple (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose that's been confirmed by an independent source and publish in an RS? Would be a nice addition to the artice imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to object to the phrase used in the casualty box: "Total number of people killed on both sides, includes protesters, rebel fighters, captives executed, government forces killed and civilians killed by NATO bombing". It implies that the only civilians killed (not including protestors) have been through NATO bombings. Though there will (and probably have been) some civilians killed by NATO-aligned countries in their bombing campaigns, I am assuming that the vast majority of the civilian casualties have been caused through the Libyan air/artillery bombardment of populated areas. I recommend removing part of the phrase "by NATO bombing" in its entirety, and if anything should be there it should read "by countries acting on the UN resolution".

And like we said, the only source for those casualties was Gadaffi's state TV. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people here are just biased... if Pentagon said they have shot down 100 planes from Libya - they will add it on the second... if Gadhafi said his forces have shot down 3 planes - it will be deleted or hidden. Strange people right here. Frajjsen (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pentagon is less prone to hyperbole. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you are american.Try to be neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to do with being American (remember that not all of the 300 million Americans think alike, hence the fact that we have political parties and what not). People are more likely here to realise when the Pentagon is BSing (mostly by having it pointed out to them) than the average Libyan watching Libya State TV. They know this and so they can make more stuff up without it being factchecked in the local media. The Pentagon might not be very reliable, but it's not as unreliable as Gadaffi's TV broadcasts. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Uprising."

If we are including France, UK, US et. al. among the "belligerents" in this situation, then we can no longer accurately describe it as an "uprising." Macarion (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See the note I put. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Because foreign countries can't "rise up" against the government of another state. They can intervene, they can invade, they can wage war. Macarion (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They can intervene in an uprising like during the French Revolution. Though what the undoubtedly scared "better" classes called it at the time as it was happening is beyond me. In this case, you just have the West assisting the Libyan people who have risen up. They're still the main combatants remember. They just have our missiles and planes on their side. Also, I'm pretty sure that in the 1600s the Duchy of Prussia rose up against the government of Poland-Lithuania and I think also the Koreans against one Chinese dynasty or another, maybe the Han. So it's possible, just doesn't happen in this day and age as you don't have setups like that anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The original point was that they cannot be listed as belligerents in either an uprising or a civil war, and your reply did not address that point. Sometimes, trying to squeeze the entire article into an infobox no matter what isn't the best idea. They are belligerents in the coalition intervention in Libya, which has its own conflict infobox. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I was just answering it with historical examples, not sure I didn't address it at least a little though. Ofc now you know I'm gonna watch your replies and point out when you don't address the point as revenge! muahaha (nah, I'll probably just forget it). This will address the central point about it being called an uprising. We call it what the majority of sources call it. /discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you don't get to decide when the discussion is over. Secondly, you cited the French Revolution. Notice how it isn't called the "French Uprising." Thirdly, your other examples are not comparable to what's happening in Libya. Lastly, please provide evidence that an uprising is "what the majority of sources call it." Macarion (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, you mean to tell me you've never seen someone put /discussion online? They're not saying the discussion is actually concluded, they are somewhat jokingly (and yes, arrogantly to a degree) saying they have had the final word for which their is no contradiction possible (in their mind). Relax mate. =) Reread what I said about the French Revolution: They can intervene in an uprising like during the French Revolution. Though what the undoubtedly scared "better" classes called it at the time as it was happening is beyond me. --- Meaning for all I know they might have called it an uprising, rebellion, or revolt at the time. I don't know when French Revolution was actually applied as the name for the French Revolution (it might have been later like for World War One and Two. I'm just talking about previous uprisings, lol. Whether they are comparable or not, I leave that to people paid to write books on such topics. Though the examples of Prussia and Corea were with regard to "Because foreign countries can't "rise up" against the government of another state." -saying that indeed they can, though this is somewhat different of course. I am not saying that the definition of uprising is determined by the majority of sources (that is the job of Oxford Dictionary and Webster's), you misread what I was saying I'm afraid. The it I was referring to is this conflict. I was saying that what the majority of the sources it call it is what we call it. As per WP:COMMONNAME in WP:TITLE. Hope this helps answer your questions. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

1st USA losses

A US Air Force F-15 Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed due to mechanical failure in rebel held Libya. The crew ejected. Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the crash is not clear. The US military claims there is no evidence it was brought down by hostile fire. Nanobear (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC News says it is reported as because of equipment malfunction, the plane based at RAF Lakenheath - both crew are o.k. - it crashed near Benghazi, in Free Libya Sayerslle (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I has been confirmed as a equipment malfunction.81.100.118.78 (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is a neutrality tag added to this article. I understand some editions might be biased, but to declare the entire article as not neutral is ridiculous as for the most part the article is nothing but a collection of information from media outlets, newspapers and other sources. I believe that tag should either be removed or moved to the specific section that appears as POV. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a 'this article is partly biased' tag? Besides, my review of the article shows bias throughout. I don't believe it is intentional, and most likely unavoidable based on the type of event being covered. In this editor's opinion, we should alert people to potential bias. It isn't a giant sign saying "DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE", but it does gently remind people that the material from the article is potentially biased. One more thing. The tag is supposed to be left until the 'dispute is resolved'. Most of the editors on this page have seemed uninterested in discussing whether the page is biased, and more intent on adding new material as fast as possible. -- Avanu (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The speed this article is moving is really fast with bias here and there.--Razionale (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a partly biased tag for sections, sentences, etc. Look here: Wikipedia:NPOV#Templates

See:

<--- Place at the end of a sentence

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Damaged Article - Bias is simply rampant

This article was actually not horrible. But, at this point, I'm seeing almost unbelievable bias in the article. I can't even begin to describe what to do to fix it, except maybe roll back a few days to where it was actually reasonable. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years and now for some biased reason, I see the article describing him as 'Jamahiriya', which is a very unfamiliar term, and seems to want to minimize Gaddafi. In addition, a days- or weeks-old 'government' is being called 'transitional' as if it is the legitimate government now. We have journalists in the US and other nations calling this an undeclared and (at least in the US) an unconstitutional war, yet we aren't covering that. In short, this article is a mess. I implore my fellow editors to edit in a manner that is professional and without bias, and to try to recognize bias. This is just sad. -- Avanu (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well on the part about Jamahiriyah, it's the form of government under Gadaffi. The rest like transitional, idk where that came from. Editors should not put their own bias in, the only bias that cannot be dealt with in a situation like this is the bias of the reliable sources. People should make sure though to recognise the line between the source's bias and their own thoughts on the matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". All sources are likely to have some bias. But that is why we have to understand that just because we have a reliable source in hand, that doesn't mean "got a source, all done". -- Avanu (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, you misunderstand me. The central rule (as in one of the main three) of NPOV from all reliable sources is not really made for cases like this where we don't have any (or almost don't have any) reliable sources that have anything other than a negative bias against the subject. All the significant views are against our subject. The problem is we have to copy what the sources say. We cannot try to infer this and that from them as that violates WP:SYNTH. We get the reliable source, see what it says and then put it in. I said it earlier (in a way that was apparently good) in a now archived discussion. Lemme fetch it. Here it is: Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising/Archive_4#For_NPOV_Comparison.

While the actions of people like Hitler and Stalin can be examined from a more neutral standpoint because it is historians and the like writing of them (Hell I can write about Hitler in a neutral manner (with disgust inside of course) even though he killed seven of my ancestors), in this case, all we have is the news media and a few experts giving opinions people want to hear about Gadaffi, and what they want to hear is negative. If all they're giving us is negative, we can't really help it right now. If you can find reliable sources giving a neutral opinion, you're more than welcome to present them here (all negative sources isn't a good thing after all). =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a lot of jingoistic media. No matter how loud, a large number of these do not equal neutral point of view. Determining what is 'significant' or what is 'fair' or 'proportional' is a matter of editorial judgement. For example, a matter of *weight* would require us to *wait* before we declare Gaddafi off of his pedastal and declare a 2-week-old ragtag group his new successor (aka transition government). Gaddafi has been in power FORTY-TWO years. This is not in line with NPOV no matter how many news outlets scream it. Declaring that various governments are engaged in military action (and having nothing more) leaves out the significant viewpoints of representatives in those various governments, whether in the same party or the opposition. Not describing the goals of the various agents in the conflict with some degree of detail makes it appear like pointless and arbitrary bloodshed, characterizing the players as cold-blooded killers. I could easily go on, but in order to remove bias, we have to be vigilant in every single edit. -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine points indeed (not being sarcastic, I agree with what you said for the most part, including the hawkish media (though I am mostly getting it from the sources people post, I haven't really watched TV since August, and I assume it is much more apparent there)). The only problem is that the jingoistic media is what we normally consider to be the RS's, and we don't really have more reliable info coming from elsewhere. For the most part anything Gadaffi says is presented on his state TV network (and occasional interviews from what I've seen) and most dismiss it as propaganda and ranting, even though it would indeed give his viewpoint. His viewpoints from what I have heard so far however appear to just be odd verbal attacks on the rebels, and if you go all the way back to the first archive you'll see it was shown he was blaming the conflict on every group imaginable. The rebels (who though I like them, I don't know what the long-term intentions of their leadership really are) have only stated their goal to remove Gadaffi afaik, without conditions, and Gadaffi to crush them brutally (as he has also said on state tv). As for the waiting bit, it's a nice thought, but as we saw with the Civil War renaming, people around here don't like waiting to see what happens oftentimes. So yeah, if you have the time, see if you can bring the article back in line with WP:NPOV. It's going to be a difficult task though from what I can see. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A for the western media: "Their viewpoints from what I have heard so far however appear to just be odd verbal attacks on the Gaddafi regime, and if you go all the way back to the first archive you'll see it was shown he was blamed for every atrocity imaginable." My 2 cents.Ihosama (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced three instances of "transitional" with "anti-Gaddafi" - the catch is that the opposition movement calls itself the "National Transitional Council" so "Transitional" is more than an appelation. Equilibrium007 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we call them that when this whole thing started? Does seem like the best name. When was it changed exactly? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it happened a bit earlier, when the editor, SuperblySpiffingPerson, went through and changed quite a few things, to my mind, adding bias, and also changing naming (without consensus) from uprising to 'Civil War' in several articles. They appear to be a *very* new user, but are showing talent in moving and creating new pages. Not sure what to make of it. -- Avanu (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD and read up on how to edit properly before editing maybe? I'm sure if something were said about leaving anti-Gadaffi though, he would leave it as is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that Jon Stewart from the Daily Show pointed out in his last show was that the United States (and other governments') responses seem to vary according to the military/strategic goals or percieved importance or relationship to those same governments. It would be easy but forbidden SYNTHesis for us to point it out, but The Daily Show (which could be percieved in the proper context as a reliable source) has made the case that the only reason we are bombing Libya is because of their oil reserves and hostile (to us) leader, compared with a place like Bahrain/Saudi Arabia where the killing of protesters merits the US government simply calling for 'restraint'. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart is quite possibly one of the most intelligent BS-free commentators on current events I have ever had the pleasure of hearing in person (event at my uni last year, so awesome they got him, Robin Williams the year before). I think it could easily be argued that even though his job description is that of a comedian, he is definitely a very noteworthy, intelligent reliable political commentator (much better than the ones on CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc), even if he denies it. So his opinion should maybe be added somewhere. His actual analysis isn't much of a stretch ofc. The idea that we won't leave without a establishing a nice little base and garisson and some lucrative contracts for their sweet crude (as opposed to sour crude in Saudi Arabia, and yes these are real terms, people) seems almost silly to me. We don't do stuff for free after all (sad fact about our country). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth noting somewhere here that Gadddafi was already selling westerners most of his oil - [33] Equilibrium007 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Little known fact I guess? =p We want to make the pink slice larger then (my bit of synth)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Media from countries of involved parties have an inherent bias greater than media from other countries. So maybe more sources are needed outside of USA, England, France, and Libya. Currently USA/England news dominate the article. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I found something along the lines of what I was talking about earlier, looky here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources_and_neutrality. You could find some more sources I guess, re: other national news. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isralie media reports are in an islamaphobic frezy these days10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mostly just Arutz Sheva (though it's always been that way), and a little on YNET and some on JPOST, but not really all that much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The oil thing is quite right and worth adding!Wipsenade (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

note about why intervene in Libya and not Bahrain or Saudi Arabia: I haven't yet seen the Saudi military use self-propelled 155mm artillery against cities, nor the Bahraini airforce bombing cities. noclador (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.Wipsenade (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Bahrain, it might also have something to do with Naval Support Activity Bahrain. Imagine bombing the Fifth Fleet by accident, now that would bring down some US wrath. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wednesday’s situation report

Germany's cabinet is due to pass a bill later today on approving the sending troops to crew NATO surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan, but will withdraw AWACS staff from the Mediterranean to avoid military involvement in the war with it’s closet-ally Libya. Germany already has 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and a few dozen in Kosovo[[34]].Wipsenade (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

They are a bunch of boonie hats!81.100.118.78 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DMZ?

Will Libya have a possibly of a DMZ (division of West and East) in the future? --McAusten 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A fair point.Wipsenade (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but that isn't what either side wants - they both want all of Libya! Lynbarn (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, and I'm pretty sure you're thinking about the Korean War, in that case you had North Korea backed by China and the USSR, and they stopped MacArthur (who wanted to use nukes and invade China if necessary) from taking over the DPRK. In this case you have us helping the Rebels and no one helping Gadaffi. In all likelyhood it will be winner take allbut to speculate on such things goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Hope that answers your question. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Including Libyan Civil War as an also known as in lead

Any opposition to including Libyan Civil War as alternate name in the lead. I personally oppose the page move but there is certainly enough usage to warrant it's inclusion as an alternate name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is still under discussion as a move above, but really, I personally think the current title is adaquate, no one seems to really know *what* is actually happening in Libya, and so, to me, it seems impatient and premature for us to declare such a title when we don't have super reliable information. -- Avanu (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil war is what Gaddafi types want to portray - I've heard rebels say it is a fearful populace that in some places can't do what it would like - there are Gaddafi hired soldiers and a few choreographed rallies - is there evidence of roughly equal warring sides yet ? it may be a rebel spokesman who said yesterday 90% of the country is anti-Gaddfafi is looking through rose tinted spectacles but looks still like room for doubt it is a civil war and not just a repressive regime seeking to wipe out dissent and keep the populace nailed down - 'conflict' would cover all bases. BBC news which for a long time had 'Libya Uprising' as its backdrop headline title now has Libya conflict.92.4.126.73 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A "revolution"?Wipsenade (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a 'international crissis' now!81.100.118.78 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about renaming just if including it as an "also known as" in the lede. The only reason I bring it up is becuase it keeps showing up in lede edits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

From a military standpoint, this is not an Uprising anymore. Uprising implies disorganized revolt that ends quickly or else moves on to another phase. Once you have organized military units on the field of battle, the conflict is something else. The names throughout history are various. Civil War, Revolutionary War, War of Liberation and so on. The one unifying term of course being "war". Everyone in the media, in government, and in public discourse is referring to this as a war. Because it IS a war. Name it whatever you wish, but continuing to deny that this is a war is incredibly moronic. ArcherMan86 (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It keeps appearing, partly because I keep (well, twice) adding it. My text was:

Many outside observers consider the uprising to have become a civil war,
but neither side actually involved in the armed struggle are using that term.

Which I do believe to be a valid point. regadless of what wikipedia calls it, Gadhaffi calls it, or the rebels call it, that IS what many others are calling it. I don't think the article name needs to be changed, just to acknowledge the truth, that some are calling it civil war. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable with having the lede read something along the lines of "The 2011 Libyan uprising, also known as the Libyan Civil War, is an ongoing armed conflict...." I don't feel comfortable employing "Many outside observers" because it's a weasal term and in this case POV given there are a great many (and currently more) not employing "civil war" (see naming debate above). Would this work?--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fully support Labattblueboy.Ihosama (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, numerous reliable third party sources are now using the description of civil war, although uprising still seems rather more common.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Six Libyan villagers were reported to have been shot by US troops as part of one of the rescue operations

I haven't seen this on any of the extensive I've seen on this raid and it's mentioned nowhere in the NYT article that is being used a citation.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Try some of these:

• Washington Post
• NYTimes
• Guardian
• BBC News - Live: Libya crisis
• U.S. Africa Command Home
• NY Times
• F-15 crashes in Libya; crew ‘safe’
• Marines Face Questions About Rescue of Officers in Libya |publisher=The New York Times
• Daily Mail
• Channel Four TV
• Business Insider - REPORT: U.S. Marines Shot Six Villagers While Rescuing Downed Pilot
• MSNBC
• DoD Press Briefing

regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Qatar

It's ridiculous to see Qatar in the infobox considering they commit 6 planes, no ships and no bases for the air exclusion zone. There are other countries far more involved that aren't present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.131.191 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

All combatans shound be listed, whether it baces, planes or ships.Wipsenade (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Most are listed, but in order to not have the box occupying the whole page they are divided between "main" (shown always) and "others" (shown if clicking). The "main" are supposed to be the most involved in any given conflict. The number is arbitrary but it is usually 4 or 5. Now, going by the article on the no-fly zone, we have the following numbers for committed forces:

United States: Several planes (no number given), 11 ships (including submarines) - listed as "main"

France: Several planes (no number given), 6 ships - "main"

United Kingdom: 14 planes, 2 ships, 1 submarine - "main"

Canada: 14 planes, 2 ships, 1 helicopter - "main"

Italy: 10 planes, 3 ships - "main"

Netherlands: 11 planes, 1 ship - not listed

Belgium: 6 Planes, 1 ship - "other"

Spain: 6 planes, 1 ship, 1 submarine - "other"

Greece: 1 plane, 1 ship, 1 helicopter - "other"

Romania: 1 ship - not listed

Denmark: 7 planes - "other"

Qatar: 7 planes - "main"

Norway: 6 planes - "other"

UAE: Up to 24 planes available but not yet deployed - "other"

In addition France, Greece, Italy, Spain, UK and USA commit bases.

As you can see, Qatar is one of the countries contributing less to the no-fly zone and judging by the alledged article its planes have not even seen action yet. I see no actual reason why it is listed as a "main" at all. I see also Saudi Arabia listed as an "other" despite being completely absent from the article on the no-fly zone (map included) and Egypt being listed twice as an "other" and in "alledged/limited"; no mention of it in the no-fly zone article either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.28.53 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about main and other. Thanks for finding the Romanian ship for us, I had not found it yet.Wipsenade (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be more inclined to see no individual countries mentioned under those enforcing the UN resolution. It not only becomea too difficult to identify what merits being a "main" participant but the infobox is alreayd so large that adding additional "main" participants will only make the infoxbox bloat worst. Have "United Nations member states enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973" and if need be an expansion option to show those members.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

O.K.Wipsenade (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Updated infobox to reflect the NATO takeover of the command. remvoed the commanders as its not clear who is (or will be) currently commanding the mission now that it falls under the NATO organization.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible criteria for using the term "civil war"

One only has to look at Naming the American Civil War to see that the use of "civil war" has some implications. The North, which was the established government and was victorious, never allowed it to be officially called a "civil war" because of its obvoius bias and historic struggle to keep the rebel government from being recognized. Avoiding issues about the qualities of established government and the rebels (good guys, bad guys, tyrants, whatever), it seems to me that there are a limited number of easily-quantified and measured parameters that we can use as a guideline to help build consensus on what a "threshold for civil war naming" might be. Here is a short list:

• Civil war - provides guidelines based on number of casualties, etc. Notions of "at least 1000 per year" are mentioned. It perhaps subtly implies that the conflict should be at least one year old. The Libyan conflict has 2,000 to 10,000 in around one month.
• List of civil wars#Ongoing civil wars - the others conflict that appear on this list are measured in years. Of course, if the conflict is resolved and resulted in a revolution, then is is often granted the name "civil war", but only after the fact.
• National Transitional Council#Recognition - To be a civil war, the rebellion has to control territory and to form a government with that region. There is probably a notion of when is this list "long enough" to support the notion of civil war. This list probably incorporates lots of other factors such as the rebel government having a "good enough" armed forces, leadership, cohesion, etc. As of March 24, 2011, only four nations recognizing the rebel government.

Can anyone else think of other such parameters? This is not a vote but an attempt to build a knowledge base and consensus (as opposed to the above vote-that-is-not-a-vote).--189.17.38.252 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Four nations? I thought it was still only France? Lynbarn (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First the above should be in the discussion above about the article name. Second, while interesting the above points are mostly irrelevant. Other current internal conflicts also meet your checklist and aren't called civil wars. A case in point is the Naxalite-Maoist_insurgency in India and the Colombian_armed_conflict_(1964–present). Both of which actually have lasted longer with more casualties than the present libyan conflict. We don't go with the technical definition of an event - we go with the most commonly used name by sources. Otherwise, the Boston Tea Party would be known as the 1773 Boston Revolt. DigitalRevolution (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Most commonly used" is, of course, the de facto criteria, but it does not seem to be leading to consensus in this case. Words also have meaning and the poster seems to be suggesting the sometimes specific criteria that we are more likely to agree with might be the basis for consensus when "most commonly used" fails.--118.97.164.79 (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Combatant3: UN forces?

Hi, should the UN forces not be moved to the combatant 3 column? While one could argue they are supporting the rebels, the UN resolution states the air strikes and no fly zone are to protect the civillians hence would appear to be possible justification for 3 columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous proposals in this sense were soundly beaten, and although I personally believe that there're enough distinctions between the international coalition and the rebels (not entirely the same aims of their actions - which would be more and more markedly seen as the combats progress; different means; and the combat actions of rebels are clearly not covered by UN SC resolution) there are (as yet) probably not enough sources justifying such a differentiation. We're still mostly in the phase "the coalition against Gaddafi, helping the rebels." --Hon-3s-T (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

fair enough : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson's POV pushing continues ad nauseam...

I'm glad someone else undid you just as I was trying to. "warlord"? "Jalilist guerillas"? "uprising civil war"? All your edits today are throwaway edits of no value, you just came off a block, don't push it. Nobody will let nonsense stand, here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperblySpiffingPerson strikes me as an editor who potentially could bring an interesting and educational view of things to this page, but I hope they might start by simply giving us a story or a few paragraphs about why they have these views that the majority of others (in the West at least) seem to entirely lack. I agree that they need to learn to work with others a little better :)

I just hope the lesson gets learned before we lose them as a fellow editor due to Superbly's incredible zealousness. -- Avanu (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not 'Gaddafi's' Air Defences, they're the Libyan Arab Republic's air defences

It's an entire community that's standing up to the aggression of the saboteurs, not to be conflated with the name of one family or one person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Why do all his cult of personality followers shout that slogan the whole time then '..muammar,..libya' thats all you need - why do they not shout with you 'its us, the entire community, not to be conflated with the name of one family, or one person..libya.. thats all you need,' Superbly Spliffing Person? How wrong can a person be? 92.4.54.195 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's air defences. The country hasn't been known as the Libyan Arab Republic for quite some time; I am surprised you didn't know that.

Well Done

I know this is slightly irrelevant! I would just like to voice my approval of all those who have done their best to keep this page up to date, relevant and neutral. This has been achieved despite scant available souces and even less unbias ones, criticism from users and fast changing situations. So a huge well done to one and all. 81.129.55.37 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)RS 24/3/11

Neutral? Where is the criticism against the intensity of the bombings? Where are the African Union and Arab League worries? Where are the possibility of Libyan civilian causalities merntioned?Mange01 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mange01, there is too much on this subject to put it all in one article, so it splits out into others that are there to cover different aspects. See for example Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya, International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya and the like.

Over all the articles on this subject as a whole, I do think you will find a fairly balanced view, but feel free to add your own information, with suitable reliable sources, where you think it is lacking. I look forward to your input. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I added sourced criticism twice, but it was removed. Mange01 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources and the criticism please? If they were from RSs and relevant, there is no reason for them to be removed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Arab League approved the no-fly zone on 12 of March, but on 20 of March secretary general Amr Moussa criticized the intense bombings and the civilian casualties.

And then straight away afterwards made it clear he still supported the U.N mandated action. BBC journalists asking to be shown evidence of civilian casualties from U.N mandated actions have been shown nothing that convinces them it is a fact - Amr Moussa wobbled, then got back on board at once, that is the story is it not? [35] Sayerslle (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eman al-Obaidi

Hi. I started an article about Eman al-Obaidi. I do not know if it can be covered in this article. -- Youssef (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega and Ras Lanuf

Pro-democracy fighters now say they have moved past Brega further to the west. And that they are heading towards Ras Lanuf - another oil-rich town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.178.102 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for this? 92.4.114.187 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

• Adding Saudi Arabia to the list of parties to the no-fly zone is getting too ahead of ourselves. There has not been any firm commitments and this page will go beyond its capacity if it starts off with a "proposed particpation" section - like the military intervention page.

• Even the 2011 Military intervention page - does not have Saudi Arabia in it.

• The link provided also just states that nations that might help in the no fly zone include Saudi Arabia --> But ever since there have been "0" confirmations on it, no comments either!

• Please delete Saudi Arabia for now!

--Pranav (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli Shock: Libyan minders Snatch 'Rape Victim'

Where should this dramatic event be included ?

• Sky: Tripoli Shock: Minders Snatch 'Rape Victim'
• eerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695023/posts Fr eerepublic: Tripoli Shock: Minders Snatch 'Rape Victim' (copy of Sky?)
• Herald online: Libyan claims rape by soldiers, is dragged away

In short: Libyan woman from Benghazi is picked up at a checkpoint in the city. Gets shackled, tortured and gang raped by 15 men for two days because she is from Benghazi. Neighbors in the area helped her to escape. She burst into the breakfast room of one of two hotels where the international journalists stay. Police minders waded in, smashing a camera and pointing a gun towards the journalists trying to speak to her. The police minders tried to physically shut her up. 15 minutes later she was dragged out to car. Electron9 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

already done: Iman al-Obeidi noclador (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Link from 2011 Libyan uprising perhaps? Electron9 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What a farce. 217.64.195.236 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda, LIFG and mercenaries

User noclador keeps reverting information based on reliable source. This article [36] clearly states that LIFG and Al-Qaeda are involved (LIFG is well-known for its longtime activity in the area and please note that i put Al-Qaeda in "Limited/Alleged" section). Also, all reports of mercenaries on Gaddafi side are based on rebel claims and little else so they should be considered "Limited/Alleged" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles around that clearly state that western journalists have seen mercenaries with their passports/id cards...either dead (in army unifroms) or alive and apprehended by rebel forces! --Pranav (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles claiming Gaddafi bombed peaceful crowds and not a single picture of numerous airstrike victims yet))) There are plenty of articles claiming rebels were arresting any dark-skinned person without any evidence (there are even claims of outright massacres of dark-skinned people in Eastern Libya). Even if someone seen foreign passport on some dead body this makes "alleged" mercenary involvement "limited" at most.

The sources says "... he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya."; it does nowhere say that either LIFG or Al-Qaeda are active as an organization in Libya, nor that they are involved with the Libyan uprising, nor that the "some of them" are actually members of LIFG or Al-Qaeda. You are misquoting. noclador (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Source says "...HE had recruited" these men. They are not all of the LIFG manpower, it's just HIS men. And he himself is depicted as rebel LEADER. You really should read LIFG article to know more; and please check this [37] for some further insight. Also, al-Qaeda pillaging military arsenals qualifies at least as "limited" involvement as well.

Exactly - they were probably members of Al Qaeda in the past - that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is actually fighting Gaddafi nor does it mean that Al Qaeda is organising in any way in Libya! Also the eastern parts of Libya have had a terror history, there have been people from around these areas who have taken up arms and joined terror cells abroad, but that once again doesn't mean Al Qaeda is in Libya itself! I think the rebel council is the organiser and the main party from the rebel side, and thats all to it!--Pranav (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So how can al-Qaeda pillage these arsenals (as article claims) while not being there? :D

As far as the mercenary condition is concerned, alleged and limited is a term we cannot use. There have been enough articles from many respected organisations and media outlets on finidng credible information that rebels had captured "merceneries for sure" and it was not planted evidence. And furthermore these very media outlets are the ones that also reported on "the sense of insecurity thats leading to any dark colored person being captured" and "such people being massacred" - so lest you wanna say these media outlets have gone crazy - you are welcomed too - but all they say is that both sides are making mistakes, and gaddafi IS using mercs! In fact Gaddaffi has had mercenaries from ages in his army! And there was this commander who controls them all, read an article.--Pranav (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, alleged or limited is exact term to be used regarding the mercenaries. Anything without firm proof is "alleged". Anything under a few hundred is "limited". Referenced articles use terms "alleged" and "suspected" as well. So there is no firm proof of significant mercenary numbers on Gaddafi side, and thats all to it!

Well, since there are no more sensible arguments, i'm putting my edits back (this time LIFG goes into the "limited" section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

there is no discussion anymore, because your edits are factually wrong and will never get into the article. the claim you make that LIFG al-Qaeda have a "limited" role in the Libyan uprising is NOT supported by the source you give and actually flat out denied by the original article, on which the telegraph article is based. noclador (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Then all these claims about the mercenaries are equally "NOT supported by the sources given", as all of them only repeat unproven claims of the rebels and offshore anti-Gaddafi organisations; they're no more credible than Gaddafi speeches! If you trust them about the mercs and don't trust official Tripoli about al-Qaeda then you're BIASED here. Also as i said, the articles use terms "alleged" and "suspected" in abundance, and the last one mostly deals with possible immunity 'from prosecution for war crimes' and nothing more. So i'm putting this edit back again as you didn't answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

the original article

[38] if one reads the original article, one can see that the writer at the telegraph did a horrible, sloppy crap work! The original article has interviews with people in Derna and a much longer chat with al Hasadi; and nowhere it says that he has ties to al-Qaeda, it says he wasn't in Guantanamo, it doesn't say he is a rebel leader, it says there is no al-Qaeda active in Libya, it says that Gaddafi himself claimed that al Hasadi was a member of al-Qaeda, also al Hasadi condemns the September 11 attacks and condemns bombings against civilians, it says that only a few of the 25 fighters that went to Iraq returned and half of the article is dedicated to other persons in Derna (a member of the rebels, an Iman, an Italian nun, an officer), who all deny that al-Qaeda is active in Derna. noclador (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The original article states that famous terrorist and jihadist is in charge there, no matter what he says; btw he says things like "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, lets see: what is wrong in your last statement: 'The original article states that famous terrorist and jihadist is in charge there, famous terrorist = wrong, jihadist= wrong, in charge there= wrong. regarding "and are fighting against the invader" - it doesn't say where - so you conclude this is Libya?? lets make this simples: stop adding wrong information to the article. EOD. noclador (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

famous terrorist and jihadist = true "fought in Afghanistan, caught in Peshawar, handed over to the Americans, held a few months in Islmabad", "sent 25 mujahideen in Iraq", calls al-Qaeda "good muslims". in charge there = true, rebel minister quoted him as such several times. "fighting in libya" - i can conclude this, as the part about al-Qaeda pillaging military arsenals is absent in the original article but present in Telegraph as a quote of Chadian president. And pillaging an arsenal IS military involvement, so al-Qaeda has to be mentioned in "limited" section at least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

it was Gaddafis deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim who said he is a rebel leader; as for the first part of your statement: that's just your conclusions, as to what constitutes a "famous terrorist" and "jihadist". as for pillaging weapons depots: Idriss Déby is one of Gaddafis closest allies and actually came to power with Gaddafis help. Do you think he is a serious source??? noclador (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He's no less serious than any anti-Gaddafi source without factual proof, so please either stop removing it, or delete any mercenary reference as well! Wasn't wikipedia supposed to be NEUTRAL? As for LIFG, as you see, i'm not putting them back YET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Please keep it, hehe. One source is as good as another to me; besides it's so cool to see al-Qaeda and NATO on the same side (again) 217.64.195.236 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism, noclador! If Egypt and Tunisia are mentioned as "Limited/Alleged" belligerent, then al-Qaeda should be there too! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

you're the only one, who says so. What is your source for that? It says it nowhere in your article. Egypt is delivering weapons to the Rebels and has sent Special Forces to train the rebels; actually Tunesia has done neither of that; so Tunesia needs to be taken out here. However regarding al-Qeda there is 0 proof that they fight with the rebels. If I find an article that says some of a former group of 25 Russians are fighting with Gaddafi, then we add the Russian federation to Gaddafis allies - is that ok with you?? noclador (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Pillaging military arsenal is act of war! These were bombed by Libyan planes and some of them were lost in the process, that's called FIGHTING! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

will you respond to arguments above or just continue coming up with new and personal opinions all the time? noclador (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no sensible arguments above. The details of Egyptian involvement are unclear as well; that's why it has been put into the alleged section. And your talk about some russians is pathetic; there are well-documented examples of british and us citizens fighting for Taliban as individuals, that doesn't mean yet another Civil War 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

that is the point! even if some british and us citizens fight for the Taliban, that doesn't mean we add the USA and UK as limited co-belligerents to the Taliban. so why add al-Qaeda? noclador (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it was referenced in the source as an organisation, not as individuals or split/former members. 85.25.120.163 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly ;) 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

show me that line. noclador (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here: "as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries" [39]. You can google "Idriss Deby"+"al-Qaeda" to get similar result (and more) in other sources. 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

and where does it say in this line that al-Qaeda is collaborating with the rebels? noclador (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And why it is so necessary or where it is said that ALL anti-Gaddafi forces are collaborating (small western berber towns for example, btw they appear to me as much better fighters than eastern libyans). It is said al-Qaeda attacked Gaddafis military assets, that's enough to put them into the box. 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

because to put in the box without a source stating "al-Qaeda (as an organization) is collaborating with the rebels" or "al-Qaeda attacked Gaddafi forces/bases/troops" (which it doesn't say in the line!), you put some original research and conclusions YOU made into the article! and this is absolutely not allowed on wikipedia. (see: Wikipedia:No original research). Therefore I suggest you remove al-Qaeda from the article. noclador (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear statement about the organised terrorists pillaging military installations is NOT original research! No more than suspected infiltration of egyptian special forces (never seen by anybody). Gaddafis allegations about al-Qaeda backing the protesters is NOT original research! If you don't know what's allowed in wikipedia you should not mess with it! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

An as i said, therefore al-Qaeda should be mentioned exactly as "Gaddafi black mercenaries" are mentioned: either put them BOTH as primary combatants, or move them BOTH into the respective limited/alleged sections, or remove them BOTH! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"pillaging military installations", didn't you say all the time they were cooperating with the rebels??? and Gaddafis claims - propaganda/fringe theories; and it's not backed up by any reputable source. and please moderate your tone. noclador (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

no, he didnt say that and rebel claims = propaganda/fringe theories as well, and they not backed by any reputable source 95.32.159.217 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

77.45.136.241 at least get an account before you start with your rhetoric. Tunisia is allowing volunteers to flood Libya and Egypt is supplying and training the rebels! Egypt has had a very shaky relationship with Gaddafi you see ever since the peace treaty with Israel! Now as far as this al-qaeda goes, are you dumb - do you actually think that the rebels are so dumb as to take in al-qaeda support and then ask the west to help them get rid of gaddafi and get in place a no-fly zone.Also are you dumb as to not see that, France and USA and UK, all scared as sh*& from Al Qaeda wouldnt have evaluated this question before, or also the question of arsenals getting into hands of Al Qaeda which can then carry them through "porous" borders of Libya to African countries and take out "US/Western" targets. Hell they must have. They sure don't want an Al Qaeda fallout like in Afghanistan (see Charlie Wilson's War). Just get over it...there is no AL QAEDA HERE! Thats the consensus...its you vs Many who dont stand by this topic!...AND DONT MAKE CHANGES....GET THAT...WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT FAIR AND SQUARE! and also PLEEASSEE get us more sources if you are so keen as to this AL qaeda thing --Pranav (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All i see everything you mention is equally unconfirmed. At least president of Chad is not an anonymous source like those telling about the egyptian role. 85.25.120.163 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA, because those attacks really harm any argument you try to make. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

look, it is worth noting that Al Qaeda would like to support the rebellion and has done so verbally. But it is also worth noting that they cannot, because they have no foothold in Libya worth mentioning. So this isn't terribly relevant to the article. Al Qaeda has about the same notability as Hugo Chavez in this, they both made an announcement and left it at that. Al Qaeda is just afraid they're going to lose such popular backing as they once had in the Arab world, because people woke up and realized they don't need religious fanaticism to stand up to the tyrants. This will be relevant in Al Qaeda's article, most likely under the heading "decline", but it isn't more than a footnote in this one. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Move requests

Can we move request protect this page or something? Or at least take the move request tag off the article since it's been there for a month? A user above said "I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out" and I'm getting sick of looking at that move request tag when I read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.salin (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2011

It does seem like the article is approaching the point where a separate subpage dedicated to the name will be necessary. To answer your question, the article has been move protected since 3 March; there's no such thing as "move request protection" to my knowledge, though Wikipedia does have "sanctions" (a regrettably ironic name). I agree that the practice of making new requests as soon as, or even before, the previous one ends needs to stop, though the unusual circumstances mean an arbitrary break such as a month or six months is less tenable As for the tag on the article page, it's optional and I don't see a problem with its removal if another move request is opened after the current one. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with the removal. The article is posted at WP:RM, so it's out there for those who follow such things.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)