Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

A compleat conpedium of You Tube video war coverage

Warning- The non-official news stuff, video diaries and Gaddafi's government are not WP:RS and may be lying on camera.Wipsenade (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The footage

Warning, very graphic imagery.--Wipsenade (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic Link (Warning, very graphic imagery).
Massacres by the Gadaffites [1][2][3]
Libya Opposition Uses Child Soldiers to fight Gaddafi [4]
Rebels apparently tortured Arab 'mercenaries' [5][6]
Mercenaries in action [7][8][9]
Mercenaries out of action [10][11]
Ethically black Libyan fighters, not merc's [[12]][[13]][[14]]
Col’ Gadhafi’s high-end car [15]
Col’ Gadhafi’s family flees Libya [16][17][18]
Al-Qaida may be getting in to action [19]
Memorial songs [20]
Fighting and rallying in general [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

[32][33][34][35][36][37][38])[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

Col’ Gadhafi’s and Saif Gadhafi’s resent speeches [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

Fighting and rallying in general

Here are a few more form both sides of the rebellion for you (warning, very graphic imagery, except for the blokes being arrested in Bengazi and the Euronews stuff)Wipsenade (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You are like a source-finding machine! O_O (Meant in the nicest way possible) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I ageree :-)!Wipsenade (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan warcrimes

Massacres have been committed by the Gadaffites and the Libya Opposition used child soldiers to fight Gaddafi with. Wipsenade (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mercenary activity

No mercenaries in Libya (apart from Egyptians fighting on rebel side), please change the article about mercenaries. By not changing it you contribute to lynching of black Africans in Libya, please if lynching of blacks is not your goal change it, there are no any evidence of mercenaries fighting for Kadaffi. [[60]][[61]][[62]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.42.109 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That just isn't true. Follow the refs in that section, please. The New York Times, the Malian government, and other WP:RS sources have confirmed Gaddafi has recruited mercenaries. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebels apparently tortured Arab 'mercenaries'

Rebels apparently tortured 'confessions' from 2 ‘wounded’ Arab 'mercenaries' and intimidate a Black Africa 'mercenary', who looks Nigeria-Cameroons born to me, in to saying the same thing. (warning, graphic imagery).Wipsenade (talk)

Torture anyone enough and they'll say they killed JFK if you want them to. Not very reliable I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the beaten up and bullied Arabs and Afro-Caribbeans were found 'guilty' of 'being mercenaries' in a pseudo-'interrogation'. The bloke I accused of being 'Cuban' was only the victim of my racial guess work and he was probably is a merc', since he was not being beaten up and performing to the camera like the others were! Wipsenade (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mercenaries in action

Mercenaries in action, note the bloke with the grey beard holding the gun at the beginning of one of the videos looks a bit like a Cuban to me. Wipsenade (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a nice pointy comment on tube: "And, on the base of what we should believe that those are "mercenaries"? Because, you say so? Btw, there are a lot of Libyans from South and they are very black!" Ihosama (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Guy has a very good point, and it's kind of obvious now that I think about it, there would be obviously Black Libyans closer to Sub-Saharan, but I never thought about it, lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
There are several pictures taken by war photographers in Libya that show black Libyans fighting with the rebels as well. It seems to be east versus west more than north versus south, though there's no question Gaddafi has bought a lot of support from the Saharan tribes around Sabha and there are credible reports, investigated by respected journalists and confirmed by the government of Mali among others, that Gaddafi has imported paid fighters from beyond Libya's borders. Dunno if you can identify someone as Cuban based on their physical appearance, though - that seems like a stretch. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Tuareg are on both sides.82.27.23.120 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I assumed the beaten up and bullied Arabs and Afro-Caribbeans were found 'guilty' of 'being mercenaries' in a pseudo-'interrogation'. The bloke I accused of being 'Cuban' was only the victim of my racial guess work and he was probably is a merc', since he was not being beaten up and performing to the camera like the others were! Wipsenade (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mercenaries out of action

Mercenaries out of action (KIA). Was it worth the $1,000 per kill he got? He's not a Tuareg, he looks a Beninan-Ivorian-sierra Leonie type to me .09:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly they pulled that one of the burning 'Ivorian' ACMAT cross-country and tactical military vehicle detonating a land mine last night. It was login/age restricted due to the graphic content. It was up since March 28th and what it showed was a group of mercenaries that it claimed were from the Côte d'Ivoire and Benin were operating near Al Jawf. It accused the dead mercenaries of being from the Ivory Coast rather than from Benin or a local tribe. The Côte d'Ivoire has denied such claims on a regular basis.--Wipsenade (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethically black Libyan fighters, not merc's

As yet there is not any evidence of only or mostly Black African mercenaries fighting for Kadaffi. The Tombuo, Tuareg and other Black Libyans are also fighting in the civil war. [[63]][[64]][[65]] --Wipsenade (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Col’ Gadhafi’s resent life story

An archive of Col’ Gadhafi’s resent rambeling political speeches- (Warning, bizarre content in the one with the umbrella) .Wipsenade (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's too graphic for me.82.2.65.192 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Col’ Gadhafi’s high-end car

Das auto! Wipsenade (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Col’ Gadhafi’s family flees Libya

By, by!--Wipsenade (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaida may be getting in to action

Col’ Gadhafi’s son warns of a planned al-Qaida rising in Libya.Wipsenade (talk) 09:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Same son who claimed al Qaeda had established an Islamic emirate in Derna a month and a half ago, right? Not exactly an RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I know, but he's saying is all the time, so he might not be crying wolf after all. Mali reportedly has several al-Qaida camps in it's northern provinces.Wipsenade (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Mali does not border Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
AQIM operates in a lot of countries besides Mali. 95.32.96.202 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly that is true. But there are no indications aside from claims of the Gaddafi regime and its ally Algeria that AQIM has any significant presence in Libya. We have already noted their vocal support for the revolt and claims that they have obtained weapons from unsecured depots in Libya, but there are no credible reports indicating they have any strong military presence on either side of the conflict, nor any credible reports that they have significant ties to the NTC. As far as I can tell, this al Qaeda stuff is a smear campaign by Gaddafi, which is using very cleverly calculated scare tactics to delay or defer international recognition of the rebels and the shipment of arms by Western powers into Benghazi and Tobruk. Once I see some WP:RS reports saying otherwise, I might reconsider. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm just pointing that (not) having a common border is not an issue here. 95.32.96.202 (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Tuareg and Berber tribes don't respect the borders on a day to day basis. Only a war or crisis will disrupt their egalitarian oppinions.De Openteeth (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

CIA

The article doesn't seem to mention the cia....Smallman12q (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It could be a false flag operation.82.14.62.131 (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The CIA are in Libya now cia. 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

3rd Battle of Brega

Hello! The following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Brega

Details a major engagement that has lasted multiple days, yet it can not be found in the little side bar thingie which links to the battles in the war 71.227.140.175 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is there as "3rd Brega". The side bar used a purposely shortened nomenclature.Ihosama (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I know how the side bar(I was really tired last night, hence thingie XD) works. I just did not see it- it stopped at Late March Rebel Offensive.71.227.140.175 (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AlJazeera: "Hoda Abdel-Hamid, our correspondent who has been reporting from the frontlines, says that it can be said with a fair degree of certainty that Gaddafi's forces have taken all of Brega, given the intensity of their assault this morning towards Ajdabiya. " Uc smaller (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Col' Gadaffi has launched an attack on the local oil refineries, which are still just in rebel hands.Wipsenade (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are the rebels fighting / what are they fighting for?

The answer to this question is conspicuously missing from the introduction, which reads:

The 2011 Libyan civil war is an on-going armed conflict in the North African state of Libya against Muammar Gaddafi's 41-year rule, with protesters calling for new leadership and democratic elections. The situation began as a series of peaceful protests which Gaddafi's security services attempted to confront on 15 February 2011. Within a week, this uprising had spread across the country and Gaddafi was struggling to retain control. Gaddafi responded with military force and other such measures as censorship and blocking of communications.

As I understand it, the protests were organized by the NCLO and started as a commemoration of the 2006 Danish cartoon protests against the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed. Can we add this to the intro?

The uprising began in Benghazi after a " a small human rights protest, over the massacre of political prisoners from Benghazi 15 years before " (BBC Panorama, Fighting Gaddafi, reporter, Paul Kenyon) . It escalated when the authorities launched a violent crackdown, firing at unarmed protesters. The use of terror that Gaddafi's men used inspired revolt - this is a theme of his rule I believe , -see todays report on Channel 4 also on fate of Zawiya , a 'ghost town' after Gaddafis brutal suppression of the uprising there . Sayerslle (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own well-cited article, Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_uprising:

17 February – Day of Revolt: Libyans called for a "Day of Revolt."[14][15][16] The National Conference for the Libyan Opposition stated that "all" groups opposed to Gaddafi both within Libya and in exile planned the protests in memory of the demonstrations in Benghazi on 17 February 2006 that were initially against the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, but which turned into protests against Gaddafi.[16]

It would seem you are incorrect. Can we get this info into the introduction please? 68.100.4.14 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The timeline itself states it began on the 15th February, not the 17th, with a small protest Sayerslle (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The protests that started on February 15th were by some lawyers who were protesting the imprisonment of their colleague Fathi Tirbil. He was imprisoned by the Gaddafi regime for speaking out on the behalf of families of the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre. Fovezer (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The war is not 'against' the GSPLAJ or any part of it. Would the GSPLAJ itself, which is a combatant, say that? They have said that their interest is in restoring order and opposing corruption of youth by popular drugs and also opposing al Qaeda. The lead needs to highlight that the affair is between the three combatant groups. It is for protection of civilians on behalf of the foreign invaders, it is for secularism and against youth corruption for the GSPLAJ and it is for power and reforms to the character of political representation on behalf of transitions and the Jalilist guerrillas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
If you can find a few sources saying that, it would be welcome. Also, on a side note, I thought Superb was banned-banned, how is he still contributing? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but was there any real fighting or was this just a dictator suppressing an uprising? Also, the lead contains "Gaddafi's security services attempted to confront on 15 February 2011." Um what are Gaddafi's security services? do they have an official name, are they the Libyan Military? More importantly "attempted to confront" did he attempt to confront the protesters but got lost and confronted a bagel shop? I am guessing he confronted them.... in doing so what happened.. I have painfully read the article and there is little information on what actually started this whole thing. One more thing "A collection of states began enforcing the no-fly zone". In the US we call them nations or countries.. I think we should change "states" to "nations"Mantion (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the last bit, "states" is the proper term. Calling them nations or countries would not be as accurate. Just because our founding fathers tricked the US states into thinking they'd be sovereign doesn't mean we should avoid applying the term as it was meant to be used in the English language.
Indeed, if we wanna get into all the technical crap then you'd say that a nation is can be something like a group of people such as the Kurds etc whereas a state has defined borders. As well, while I am myself a Yankee (an actual one a short ways back, but thank God for intermarriage), I don't really see the need to use nation over state as the context would tell anyone that it isn't referring to a state, like Wisconsin. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera journalists

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, demand for release. You could maybe put it in International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV for the title?

Why has the title been flagged for NPOV dispute? Rivkid007 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder too. noclador (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Someone considers the common names (of Civil War or Conflict, judging by the discussion above) to be NPOV and didn't read WP:POVTITLE I guess. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Imma just delete it then... if you object, write it down. John Holmes II (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

Guys someone please update the maps - Brega to Gaddafi, Yafran to rebels (aljazeera live blog). Thx :)Uc smaller (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Brega was initially taken by gaddafi on the 31st, since then, the rebels pushed into the town several times but were unable to completely kick the pro-gaddafi forces out, so the date should still be 31st.Uc smaller (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Civilian deaths included in rebel casualties?

This post regards all the battle articles, but this seems more efficient than posting this in every individual such article.

In the battle article casualty tally, civilians are included in the rebel death toll.

While I can understand that rebels are ostensibly trying to protect civilians, but there is no way of proving that they are not themselves killing non-combatant Gadhafi supporters.

Rather, I propose civilian casualties be grouped in a separate section below those of the combatants, like in most modern conflict articles. This will make it easier to assess the efficiency of the rebel forces and the brutality of Gadhafi forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.164.244.50 (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is good solution to place civilian causalities separately.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New reports about Belarusian mercenaries

Komsomolskaya Pravda writes again about Belarusian mercenaries fighting for Gaddafi [66] (and in English [67]). Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus denies this again. Närking (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is very important information so I believe that it should verified but some independent source above Russian tabloid newspaper.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Added, with source clearly identified. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Civil War Info Box

I don't think NATO is a United Nations member State. The heading of this field should be changed, or the UN nations which have contributed forces should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.65.6 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This editor has a very good point. While all of NATO's members might be UN members, NATO itself is not a member of the UN (nor is it a state for that matter). The heading probably should be changed. We had a similar thing on the International Reactions page where it said states etc and you had Palestine and Kosovo there, so we changed the Level 2 Heading to Governments and the Level 3 to Non-UN Member Governments (thus evading the need to call them states but recognising that they are governments, just outside the UN, which nobody can dispute). Perhaps a similar solution can be implemented here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Off topic a bit, but why is this a civil war? Countless dictators have done far more to suppress protests and uprisings, that were never called civil wars. Was there actually a battle or military actions from the "rebels"? Is there actually leadership in the oppositions that have a plan for a new government? Perhaps we need to give it the name "uprising" or "protests gone bad" or "dictators behaving badly"Mantion (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The article title has been the subject of various long and intense discussions. You can read them on this page. Your point has been made by many others already. Please do not attempt to start the same discussion again on the day it was closed. In addition, you are right, this is very much offtopic. This section of the talk page is about the NATO not being a UN member state. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) john cena chadi mien pasina
Is this still ongoing? I see a lot of links that don't go anywhere on the page you mentioned, and an outline of pros and cons that is completely blank. I would suggest a change to simply "Libyan War" as this conflict has mutated wildly beyond what a civil war would look like. It wouldn't have even amounted to "civil war" without international intervention; just an easily quashed protest. 68.100.4.14 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you didn't click the "show" button on the green "Old requested move content" boxes. If you do, you will see the discussion. You will then also see that your "Libyan War" suggestion has already been made. Numerous times. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's stay on track people, the topic is the infobox. This stuff above can be put in another topic. Let's figure out a solution to this, because as it stands, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Libian civilwar war is 'a orchestrated racket'?

This page is not a forum, discuss only changes to the article itself -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Ham thinks that the US will send in ground troops (pre-empting people who say we're going to)

This poorly titled MSN piece [68] is about Carter Ham saying he thinks the US is going to send in ground forces. Maybe I read it wrong, but I'm not sure how he came to the conclusion, but from what I read, it doesn't merit inclusion in the article. Anyone want to read it closer? I'm mostly focused on Futurama. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a look a it , it looks underwhelming , - " the U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force, that could aid the rebels...he said " I suspect there might be some consideration of that..thats probably not the ideal circumstance ...And he repeated assertions that the U.S. needs to know more about the opposition forces before it would get more deeply involved..the former U.S commander of the military mission said.." blah blah etc etc - supercilious vapourings imo Sayerslle (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it's good we got this out of the way then before anyone decided to use this story in the article. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brega again

Medias and article about Third battle of Brega clearly say that the city in under pro-Gadaffi control. Status of the city should be chanced on map.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brega

You ought to change the colour of the city of Brega , it is no longer rebel held , the town is no under control of the Libyan aArmy , clashes now towards Adjdabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.157.164 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

According to article Third Battle of Brega this city fallen under Gadaffian forces?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Uc smaller (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it verified from some independent source? If it is I believe that map should be updated.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Brega is still as contested as ever. Latest news from Xinhua says that Gaddafist forces have been largely thrown out of the city: 1. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Even the alJazeera blog [69] does not confirm any significant rebel success in the whole evening. 95.32.159.138 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Noted.16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some reports that are not included in the article (or the Timeline report)

I found this article of Slovene state TV ([[70]]) that says NATO yet again bombed the Rebels, killing at least 12 of them near Ajdabiya (the Loyalists are also bombing the gates to the city). A good week after they killed 13 Rebel fighters and four civilians near Brega. The article is saying also that NATO bombed a Loyalist convoy near Brega, killing seven civilians and wounding another 25. And that Loyalist troops are blaming NATO (and vice versa) for bombing the oil pipeline that connects the largest oil field in Libya with Tobruk. Also, Libyan Energy Minister is said to be defected to Malta.

Ok, its not English media, but pretty reliable IMO. For sure, they arent making things up and far from it that RTVSLO is a tabloid. For those who cant speak Slovene they can use Google Translate, which translates the article so it can be understand well enough. Ratipok (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the article in English (BBC): [71] Ratipok (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I know, I've hered of 2 on the BBC around Brega since last week.Wipsenade (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Move name?

This page is not a forum. This issue cases regular squabbles, flame bating and flaming off. - Engaging 3 day ceasefire 'hat' barrier until 00:01 UTC on the 14th. .Wipsenade (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Move?

{{Requested move/dated|?}}

2011 Libyan civil war → ?

History

There has been considerable debate since the creation of this article about it's title. The page was originally located at 2011 Libyan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was then moved to 2011 Libyan uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and most recently to 2011 Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The archived discussions from previous Requested moves available in the talk page archives.

The Issues

There are several outstanding options regarding the article title.

Year designator

Including the year in the title ("2011") is one issue that is often discussed.

Pros
It has been pointed out that there have been several "civil wars", "revolutions", and "conflicts" within and about Libya over the years.
Cons
Unnecessary disambiguation.

Capitalization

Whether or not to capitalize "civil war" (or "conflict", "uprising", "revolution", or any additional wording) in the title is a subject of discussion.

Pros
Cons

Description

There is considerable controversy over the description being given to events occurring in Libya. Several options are available for use in the title, including:

Civil War
Pros
Cons
Conflict
Pros
Cons
Revolution
Pros
Cons

Discussion

Look at Gulf War, Spanish Civil War and American Civil War. They use proper nouns, and so do some websites about this war: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Therefore I believe this should be a proper noun as well. The 19 sources all reference proper nouns in some way or another. -- 92.4.112.114 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Too Vague pick a specific title or a specific part to change. Having this sort of open ended title discussion will not focus the discussion or be productive. The request should be closed based on it being too broad. -- Avanu (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's shut up about the title for once, this is becoming a insane roundabout! Case closed!!!Wipsenade (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This issue cases regular squabbles, flame bating and . I will 'hat' it some time later today and as part of a temporary 3 barrier on the topic. If it is raised, I will 'hat' it until 00:01 UTC on the 14th. Wipsenade (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Engageing 3 day ceasefire 'hat' barrier.Wipsenade (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can this discussion be closed so it can be archived, I understand if there is going to be a cool down period here for a few days but as it stands this discussion is very vauge and can easily be brought up again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It was originally elsewhere in a sort of storage I think, but then someone moved it here for reasons I don't know. I don't think it's supposed to physically be on the talk page, just linked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The 'hat' point

  • This issue cases regular squabbles, flame bating and . I will 'hat' it some time later today and as part of a temporary 3 barrier on the topic. If it is raised, I will 'hat' it until 00:01 UTC on the 14th. Wipsenade (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Engaging 3 day ceasefire 'hat' barrier until 00:01 UTC on the 14th so people can concentrate on other issues like the 3rd Battle of Brega, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.Wipsenade (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
:-)Wipsenade (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deactivating the reqmove template -- if the discussion is inactivated, so should the template. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding use of the 'hat' collapse template

This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hat

-- Avanu (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Besides, it doesn't look like there is much support for the idea anyway. give it the weekend and if there isn't much more participation I think it could be closed without much controversy.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've re-hatted the move discussion. I have remained neutral on moving the article previously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Being uninvolved is only one of the criteria, Eraserhead1. Collapsing should never be used on legitimate discussions. All it does is reinforce the status quo and suppresses/discourages further change by consensus. These things should play out naturally, regardless of how irritating some editors may find them. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe the problem was not irritating editors, but that this was like 10th discussion about the same topic with newly-arrived editors skewing the results. It is not about closing the topic but about allowing a bit of a heads cool off and respite for some. I myself commented on 4 of the polls/discussions, later now refusing to waste any more time regardless what gets proposed.Ihosama (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It was also being added to another topic that was not move related. As for the undefined move request that it was added to, I would think the proper response would be to ask an admin to close it for being far too vague. -- Avanu (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Was it written for a 'Hogan style' editor.213.81.120.55 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a woeful error for the lead to have said the war is 'against Muammar Gaddafi's rule'

when it is even moreso a war against foreign invasion/intervention and against the power grab of Mustafa Jalil and the Transitionists. That is seen by its results in which we see most of the divisions of Libya returned to the Socialists and only a minority still subjugated to Transitionists— Preceding unsigned comment added by Transitionrenewal (talk • contribs)

It is a common error to think that someone can add anything they want in the article without citing reliable sources WP:RS. Please find some reliable sources so that the edits you are trying to add to the article can be verified per our verification policy WP:V. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The article already includes references in which Muammar Gaddafi defines the government's war aims to encompass resisting foreign intervention and Mustafa Jalil and other 'rats and cockroaches'. Those must be reflected in the lead, not just the war aims of the failed Jalilist uprising.Transitionrenewal (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think your terminology reflects widespread consensus. Plase see WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD as to what can be included in the lead. You should not do this by edit-warring but by discussing on this talkpage. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead must give due exposure to the war aims of the non-Jalilist and pro-Libya/anti-foreign/anti-invasion factions in this conflict. No logical consideration has yet been raised which defeats that imperative. I began this discussion and I'm continuing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Transitionrenewal
Which of the National Transitional Council, Libyan People's Army, Free Libyan Air Force, National Conference for the Libyan Opposition or other groups are "pro-Libya/anti-foreign/anti-invasion"? walk victor falk talk 02:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Transitionrenewal's talk page confirms that they are an alias of SuperblySpiffingPerson. Unfortunately, rather than just work with everyone as a valuable contributor, Superbly keeps ending up getting blocked. This is a shame, because I think they have an interesting point, but we need editors who are willing to find sources and work with others. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The use of Transition in the name also kind of gave it away. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


pov tag

Just so everyone knows where I am coming from on my fresh edits. I did not put this tag up on the article but I am trying to edit asome of the language so that the article will be more universally acceptable as being NPOV and the tag can be removed, hopefully. Maybe others can join in in some way so that we can get the tag removed by consensus, its (the pov tag) been here a long time now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

in the first para Gaddafi 'attempted to confront' - is that a bit euphemistic, grantevans, and then next para 'it escalated into armed conflict' - but didn't it begin with the shooting of the unarmed protesters in Benghazi - it began with armed repression didn't it? Sayerslle (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you about that change from confront to "repress" and also your point about the abstractness of "it escalated". On another point, I see you reverted my change (from Gaddafi forces to Gaddafi military and loyalists). How do we phrase something that reflects that there are also some non-military people,especially from Gaddafi's home town, who are fighting against the rebels without apparently being part of Gaddafi's military forces? RSs are calling them "loyalists" which seems ok to me, what do you think? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
"Loyalists" and "Rebels" is IMO the most appropriate, all-encompassing and neutral naming convention we can come up with. I am making a new section on this as IMO we REALLY need a naming convention on the sides of this conflict. It is very hard and confusing for the uninitiated to reading articles where 3 or even 5 different names are used interchangeably.Ihosama (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

NATO coalition expandable list

Why isn't France on the list from the hide & show button of the UN member states enforcing UNSC Resolution 1973? It's a main actor along with the UK & USA in this conflict 78.122.245.222 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question, I've fixed it. 92.21.199.156 (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well we'll know whether it was an accident or not if disappears again. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This war is a heavily orchestrated racket.

How in the world do "rebels" know how to set up a "Transitional National Council"? How have they already set up a bank? Perhaps because they are being led by the National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition, a small group based out of London with clearly stated religious objectives. It's interesting to note that inside Libya they're promoting religious objectives, while in the Western media the only thing that's emphasized is the goal of democracy and freedom. In actuality we are just using the rebels because of their hatred of Gaddafi, even though our beliefs (of religious freedom) fall more in line with Gaddafi's than with the rebels. And the only reason we now hate Gaddafi is because he's threatening to further nationalize his country's petroleum reserves, which in turn threatens the profits of Big Oil. That and the fact that the Libyan central bank is 100% state-owned and issues its own currency, one of the few remaining countries in the world to do so. This is probably reason #1, although you will never hear it talked about anywhere, unless you do some clever searching. I know I didn't cite any sources, but that's because I know information like this will never make it into the main article anyway. If anyone wants to prove me wrong I will gladly cite everything here. Tike012 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your "clever searching" involves Google and "Libya bank state"? And the first hit evidencing the 100% state ownership is... Wikipedia? If you can dispense with the conspiracy theories and provide actual reliable sources, you may have some points of interest, but coming into a discussion saying "hey I'm right but I'm not going to bother since you're sold on a lie" is not terribly constructive. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I got these links, but the second one is in Aradbic[[72]] [[73]] .Wipsenade (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss the merits of the conflict. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Undid 'hat' edit. If someone is going to 'hat' something in a talk page, they need a better reason than just "I don't like this topic", Talk page edits by Wikiquette standards are supposed to be left alone. Hatting has its purposes, but it just shy of actually removing people's comments. @Tike012, get to a point quickly that relates to this page's purpose directly or let it drop please. -- Avanu (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There didn't appear to be any useful point here that relates to the article. Mentioning your own personal (and unsourced) conspiracy theories isn't generally acceptable. I'm happy to wait a short time longer for a reliable source and for some useful suggestions on content changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you have a good point, Tike012. Nobody seems to have questioned the idea that Gaddafi is the "bad guy" and the rebels are the "good guys". There have been past conflicts where the "good guys" turned out to be not so good after all. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that politics is never black-and-white. Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And without any evidence this is just a conspiracy theory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
If you take the view that anybody who is anti-Gaddafi must be a "good guy" then you are not adopting a neutral point of view. Biscuittin (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made any such claims. Provide evidence or the section will be hatted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh what is all this? Look people, it does not matter who is the good guy or bad guy. That is wholly irrelevant to this article. We are presenting information given to us by the sources deemed reliable, without our personal spin, nothing more. As well, despite our personal opinions we are not and should not be taking sides in our actual editing, so this conversation is pointless. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

|}

And I suppose the Nazi's are in on it to? Perhaps the illuminati then? And I'm sure, at the end of the day, the freemasons are behind it all!John Holmes II (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop the hyperbole. Tike012 made an irrelevant point (as far as this talk page goes) but his point is far from the conspiracy theory examples of yours. He may have used a bit too self-confident tone, but most points he made can be easily retraced to examples in history. As we will not know what really happened there for a few more decades, maybe never, comparing a (bit too) strictly power-based political analysis to Martian invasion and the like is not nice.Ihosama (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, this along with your unsigned new section are highly uncivil. Even if you feel someone's theories are out there you should try to maintain a semblence of civility. It isn't a stretch that some influential group would be manipulating a campaign to install a certain type of government, but there is no evidence it has happened here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

User:Eraserhead1, what is your authority for closing the discussion started by Tike012? Biscuittin (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

User Talk:Eraserhead1 seems like the right place for this question. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, because I want everybody to see it. Biscuittin (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This seems unconstructive and, in my opinion, could result in a lot of drama. I don't think we want that here. I suggested (and still encourage) moving it to his page as this idea would fit rather well with the concept of Wikipedia:DRAMA#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama. Just my thoughts on it though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have replied on the users talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Eraserhead1 seems determined to censor the discussion started by Tike012. It is legitimate to remove text from the article because it is unreferenced. It is not legitimate to remove it from the talk page because it is unreferenced. There may be people who can produce references for Tike012's contribution but they will not now get the chance. Biscuittin (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be worth looking up and adding info to the article page, if the war has any connections to either the Libyan Central Bank, the Muslim Brotherhood and/or any type of 'oil war' scenarios.Wipsenade (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion on the subject of the article. Please at least try to confine your comments to topics directly related to the article itself. Wipsenade's suggestion in the reply immediately above mine is good advice.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
We are not holding general discussion. We are trying to improve the article, by including a wider range of views, and this is a legitimate use of the talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, why worry, it's not too bad?82.11.101.43 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-Tike012 claims over the 2011 Libyan civil war

Shouldn't the tags below be in the article, rather than the talk page? Biscuittin (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. So I'm going to take them out. -- Avanu (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV!Wipsenade (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I got these links, but the second one is in Arabic[[74]] [[75]][[76]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Google this over the bank- [[77]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate made this English language version of the Arabic N.T.C. web page "Kadhafi enemy No. 1 for Islam" [[78]].Wipsenade (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look up some Muslim Brotherhood and oil related stuff today. If it's good, we can add it later. Wipsenade (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Journalists on the ground say they are seeing no evidence whatever of a strong fundamentalist sentiment among the rebels - for blind hypnotic 'martyr' fanaticism you'd do better to look at the 'zombified groups of 'demonstrators' mobilized by the ||Gaddafi regime' - as you scrabble around looking for evidence of fundamentalism being a driving force of the rebels remember NPOV and mainstream etc. Sayerslle (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to promote a NPOV. The anti-NPOV camp is trying to censor any discussion which disagrees with what is reported in the Western media. Biscuittin (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Look Biscuittin, I understand you're trying to help the article, but you are doing it in a way that seems unnecessarily dramatic, divisive (putting us in two opposing camps), and seems to be tossing assumption of good faith (what with claiming people are trying to censor stuff) to the wind. Please take a look at WP:COOL. Thanks! =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not being dramatic. Eraserhead1 censored Tike012's contribution, by deleting it, without any attempt to seek consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. It is very unusual for anything to be deleted from a talk page unless it is libellous or obscene, which Tike012's contribution was not. Biscuittin (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
What you're saying before seems dramatic. As well I'm afraid you are incorrect about it being deleted. The discussion is closed, but the content can be viewed by clicking the show button. That isn't exactly deletion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me - it's not very obvious. OK, I accept that Tike012's contribution has not been censored or deleted. Biscuittin (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea behind it is that the light red banner attracts your eye and then you are supposed to see the show on the right, but yeah, they could put it next to the banner heading so it'd be easier to see. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a source on the M.B. reference in Libya. They are their, but not all of the N.T.C. is under Islamist Jihadies! [[79]][[80]]82.11.101.43 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Wipsenade (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It is well worthy pointing out that there are plenty of non-Western reliable sources which publish in English, including Al Jazeera, Xinhua and a lot of the Indian press. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
And Russia Today. Biscuittin (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
This section of that Wiki article makes me a bit on the fence about use of RT for things relating to the US gov, it's like using the al-Jazeera for stuff about Israel or Xinhua about Taiwan (Assuming the PRoC polices them on occasion, not sure). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that Russia Today is impartial but neither is any news channel. That's why it's useful to have a range of sources. Biscuittin (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No no, not so much impartiality as reliability. Most sources talking about the US government are not funded by the government of the Russian Federation. We had a wee discussion about it way back when: Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_4#United_States.3F. I'm half asleep though, so anyone have a desire to contradict me on this? (Preferably through use of reasonable Russia Today articles on the subject) =)Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are you talking about the US government? I thought this was about the war in Libya. Biscuittin (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought one of the things we were talking about was US intervention in Libya. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 11:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that the way you see it? I thought it was supposed to be a coalition. Biscuittin (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I see our military as a major part of said coalition if that's what you mean. =) So when I say US intervention I am referring to the US portion of it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not being dramatic, nor am I espousing "conspiracy theories". This article does a pretty good job summarizing much of my point. And despite what I said, I did provide sources for my arguments; the only statement I didn't source was my accusation that we're going into Libya to take down their bank. Stop attacking every possible thing EXCEPT logic and facts. Although my tone was fatalistic in its optimism for getting the data into the main article, it in no way exempts my argument for discussion, and there's absolutely no reason why it should be removed from this Talk forum. Please move it back or provide evidence for why you think this discussion of the proper sequence of events and rationale behind the war should be not be discussed on the Talk page of the Wikipedia Libyan civil war. Tike012 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said. I did not say that you yourself were being dramatic (I believe this is the first time I am addressing you directly), I was referring to Biscuittin, and I pointed out that what you said was not in fact removed, but made smaller. You can find it by clicking the show link on the red banner at the top. Is the Nolan Chart website an RS? All I get when I look up Nolan Chart is the article about the chart itself with a link to the site, but nothing else about the site that I saw at a cursory glance. I also recommend you check out some of the sources Eraser mentioned. As well: "discussion of the proper sequence of events and rationale behind the war should be not be discussed on the Talk page of the Wikipedia Libyan civil war." - Sequence is ok, but rationale is none of our concern in our role as editors as that is discussing the subject itself rather than ways to improve the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sir William, the article already contains statements about rationale, e.g. "Between 13 and 16 January, upset at delays in the building of housing units and over political corruption, protesters in Darnah, Benghazi, Bani Walid and other cities broke into and occupied housing that the government was building". If you use over-zealous interpretation of Wikipedia rules to discourage discussion, you will simply encourage people to put statements directly in the article without any prior discussion on the talk page as to whether they should go in or not. Biscuittin (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Biscuittin, I do not mean this to sound uncivil, but in the context of us talking about WP:FORUM, it should have been clear I was referring to discussion among editors about the rational and merits of this conflict. -- This is the original quote: "Please move it back or provide evidence for why you think this discussion of the proper sequence of events and rationale behind the war should be not be discussed on the Talk page of the Wikipedia Libyan civil war." Tike012 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC) -- There is of course no problem with discussing sources discussing the merits of the conflict, but discussing the merits ourselves (ie. giving our personal opinions on the matter) is a no-no (if that's p much all we are doing). Discuss the content of sources, not your own thoughts on the whole matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (following commment by Eraserhead1 on 9 April, 2011 at 09:04 UTC made in reply to above comment by Biscuittin as well.)
You and I have different views on what it is legitimate to say on talk pages. I'm a fan of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Biscuittin (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:IAR is meant to be used in cases where ignoring a rule will help benefit the article. Having a discussion over our personal feelings on the merits of the conflict won't bring much of any benefit as it will probably quickly degenerate into name-calling and pointless philosophical musing ("All war is evil" and other crap). You should ignore the rules when they get in the way of doing good, but they don't mean just toss them out, you have them for a reason. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "Having a discussion over (my) personal feelings on the merits of the conflict". I'm just saying that I don't like people trying to control what is said on talk pages. Biscuittin (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess I must not be very clear in what I mean. By you I mean editors in general, not you, Biscuittin, specifically (one of the problems with having only form of the second person in our language). The thing about personal feelings and such was originally directed at T1ke if my memory suits me. That's the reason this whole thing is taking place. Eh? Taking control? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not find some reliable sources to backup your claims rather than commenting further here. That will put the matter to bed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't made any claims. I've just been defending Tike012's right to free speech. Biscuittin (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Free speech does not actually exist on privately owned areas of the internet unless the owner of said area (in this case Wikipedia) says so, so it's not really a Right to Free Speech (if you're speaking in the First Ammendment sense), just pointing that out. ^^ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Read this, toafs![[81]]82.11.101.43 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV!Wipsenade (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Here are Muslim Brotherhood/Libya links [[82]][[83]][[84]][[85]][[86]][[87]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm still lookig for oil war and tribalist links.Wipsenade (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wipsenade: your links provide helpful backup to my case; was this your intention? Either way, thank you. Sir William: There is no reason why my comment should be "made smaller" either. Please put it back into the main Talk page or provide evidence for why you think discussion about the Libyan civil war (including its rationale) should not belong on the Libyan civil war discussion page. I have no idea whether the Nolan Chart website is a RS, but why don't you try reading it and telling me your opinion of the credibility of its contents? I think it's credible. The article itself links to multiple "credible" websites including the most important: a link to an article from the actual NCLO website! (Eraserhead, you're like a parrot that only knows one word: "Proof! Proof!" Why don't you debunk this NCLO article before you continue parroting.) Straight from the horse's mouth—you can't get any more reliable than that! Other moderators have already tried every trick in the book to avoid posting legitimate info from my comments into the main article. It has become clear that the reason for this is due to moderator bias, plain and simple: you guys don't want any edits that will cast Gaddafi in a favorable light to ever make it to the main article. This is wrong, even if it coincides with America's military interests. It is paramount that Wikipedia stay neutral, and in most cases (like this one), that involves telling both sides of the story and not silencing discussion, like you are attempting to do. Now, I am calling you out. This is usually when most mods start to ignore me. What are you going to do? Tike012 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wipsenade's intention is to usually be helpful from what I have seen. He is probably the only person I have ever seen better at finding information than yours truly. =p (*pats self on back*) I stated my reasons above. You don't discuss the subject, you discuss the article and just the article and how it can be improved with information from reliable sources. The reader frankly does not care about our own individual opinions about the war, that is why we put in the things stated by the RS. Even though you did say please (which actually is the best way to get me to so something as I respond most positively to politeness) I didn't put it like that, and I am not a reviewer, so I feel no need to change it one way or the other. After looking at this page on the Nolan Chart site: [88], I am going to err on the side of it not being one. It seems to basically be a very large blog. You also can't click the names of the writers to see what their backgrounds are or who they even are, so I can't tell who is a "professional columnist" and who is some teen with too much time on his hands. Please remain civil and do not resort to personal attacks against Eraser, it just makes your argument seem childish. It is much better to attack the central point of someone's argument as there is no recourse if you defeat it. I think you may have forgotten the article from the NCLO. I personally do not mind if there is something showing Gadaffi in a personal light as long as it is from a proper RS. I am willing to write positive stuff about Hitler when necessary (though I of course hate him deeply) if I have good sources stating the facts (like how he hated smoking and such). This is not some big anti-Gadaffi cabal or US military affair (if it were I would expect payment) bent on making sure anything relevant that is positive about the guy is not published. The problem is that most of our RSs hate his guts, and the RSs are not required to maintain an NPOV. As it was said before (much earlier), the best one can hope for in maintain NPOV is to repeat what the sources say exactly. So if you have good reliable sources with good info then by all means show them and put them in. (I have not viewed Wipsenade's yet btw as of this posting. I am stating general stuff for this article). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There are many biased and/or analytical publications out there but we are supposed to be unbiased and non-analytical. It's not easy. 1 thing that Tike does remind me of is that the reality is that none of us really has a clue as to what the hell is really going on behind the scenes in these conflicts and we don't have access to much real information either, so there's probably no point in even trying to figure it out. Wow, I just remembered an old phrase that seems so out-dated in 2011; "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Lmao; in 2011, everybody wants to come. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep, we're all just sitting on our couches (I know I am, with a cat next to me and a delicious GuS soda nearby) and are only basing our personal opinions on stuff we see on the news which has already had its own interpretation put on it. None of us are qualified to give our own opinions based on that and even if we were, we'd be going against one of the pillars of Wiki, which is the one against original research. I also believe that quite frankly most of our opinions fall under that great category of **** nobody cares about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Too many people believe wikipedia is the tail that wags the dog. walk victor falk talk 10:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I checked out Wipsenade's links, so so far we have one decent source which states that the Muslim Brotherhood support the rebels, and if that isn't in the article already I suggest we add it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And its already in the article. PS I don't have to bebunk the claims bought up in blogs here, as blogs don't meet WP:RS so I don't need to waste my time doing so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
O.K., I was just looking for info, WP:RS or not. Oil war, banking and tribalism war are on my radar screen to. :-)Wipsenade (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess its still useful as someone can take those stories and see if a reliable source is stating them as well - as a couple are commentary on CNN that would be possible if anyone is interested in pushing for the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm noteing Libyan central banking issues[[89]][[90]][[91]][[92]][[93]][[94]][[95]][[96]][[97]].Wipsenade (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Tribalism- [[98]][[99]] Wipsenade (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit hypocritical that one editor cannot stop demanding evidence, while another goes through all my sources trying to find some tiny excuse to call it illegitimate, while a third keeps posting links to random websites in foreign languages (ibfsly.com? Is that what you consider a RS?). Meanwhile, the one source I'm daring all of you to contradict, the NCLO article, goes unaddressed and uncontested, except for one statement: "I think you may have forgotten the article from the NCLO." ....No, I did not forget about it. Perhaps you did. Please address it. I also need to remind all of you that I am neither pro-Gaddafi or anti-Gaddafi. I am trying to correct what I perceive is existing bias against Gaddafi on this page and others on Wikipedia, and all of you are desperately trying every tactic in the book to stop me short of ignoring me. Sir William, your grounds for rejecting the article are inadequate. You can't just make up a reason and hope nobody will double-check, especially when your opponent is determined to succeed. You call the Nolan Chart website "basically a very large blog". By your metric, any publication that uses contributing writers is a very large blog, like, say, The Washington Post or The New York Times. The actual link you cited as evidence is completely useless and irrelevant(?!?). Especially when considering the quality of the writing, compared to the quality of some of these others links others are posting, it's clear all of you are collectively holding any pro-Gaddafi evidence to a much higher standard of proof. And you do this while openly admitting that most of the current RS's vehemently hate Gaddafi. Is that your excuse for why the article isn't NPOV? Get over yourselves, kids. Your arguments are vacuous and misleading, and I am wasting my time arguing back and forth with people who clearly have ZERO intention of committing any pro-Gaddafi edits to the main article. Now, in closing, let me simplify the situation for you: the current article is not NPOV. It is biased against Gaddafi. It is your job to correct this, not to think of reasons why you're powerless to do anything unless I spoon-feed you the most perfectly researched, cited, and phrased text that satisfies your every condition. Your move. Tike012 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, I didn't remember you posting this link. Translated version of the opinion piece here: [100] I decided to go back up to your original comment in the overtopic and determined that is what you meant. Typically when you say "this article", it is best to relink it. As for the NCLO, so what? What relations to they actually have with the National Transitional Council? Lynbarn has asked that very question on the talkpage for the Wiki article you linked. Is there a good answer? Your basic premise was that this NCLO is leading the charge in Libya, but other than their religious aims (which just shows they have religious aims), what actual proof is there that they are controlling the NTC? This article you linked is not evidence of that, it is some opinion piece. Do you have anything better? The Times lets you see who the journalists are and oftentimes many of the journalists have their own wikipedia article. (You can also typically find them in a Google search) Nolan Chart is basically like CNN's iReporters afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to clarify the status of Nolan Chart, however I doubt it meets the reliable source criteria - its so poorly known it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I don't think its serious to compare Nolan Chart to an internationally recognised reliable source like the New York Times or the Washington Post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This [[101]][[102]][[103]][[104]]?82.2.71.166 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your all need to calm down!82.2.71.166 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2011?

I'm wondering if the 2011 in the title is really nessecary. There hasn't been any other Libyan conflict that constitues a civil war. 86.7.224.140 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question, but if you have a look at the archives of this page (links at the top) you will see how difficult it is to make any changes to the title right now. I suggest you bring that point back up in a few weeks or so. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, its not needed in the title.Wipsenade (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree. Most people have no idea what has happened in Libya when, and this date is a nice reminder that in a country with a phenomenally complex history, the event that is currently happening is both very recent and also not the only thing that's ever happened in Libya. Once it's over, if it ends dramatically, and the event is canonized as 'The Libyan Civil War', we can change the title. Until then, it's just another major event that happens in a given place at a given time, and we should follow that trailing convention. Regardless, having a date doesn't necessarily make the event less epic, it just tells you when it happened. Ocaasi c 15:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The 2011 denotes specificity to differentiate. Libya has never had a civil war before, so there is no need to differentiate it from another conflict. Drop it, if for no other reason then it makes the title unnecessarily large. ArcherMan86 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There already WAS a discussion on this topic (2 discussions to be precise). Please see them in the archive for the reason why the rename is not a good idea. Long story short: that the other internal conflicts are not well documented on WP does not mean they did not happen.Ihosama (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, there haven't been any uprising in the 2010s yet either!!!Asdfjkl1235 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The simple reason why the year should be removed from the title is that it does not follow the same pattern as those of similar articles, per WP naming conventions. The vast majority of civil war articles such as the American Civil War, Argentine Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, English Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War, Irish Civil War, Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Zulu Civil War, etc don't have dates in the title, mainly because there was only one in each country/region. The dates are clearly explained in each article lead. If there was/is more than one civil war, this is also adequately explained in the title, e.g. First Sudanese Civil War/Second Sudanese Civil War, First Liberian Civil War/Second Liberian Civil War. This article should be changed to simply Libyan Civil War. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Funny, how this has to be explained over and over, but... to be perfectly honest, this conflict has no official name. The idea that people were running around during the American Civil War calling it as such is kind of silly, to be honest. Sort of like people in the Old West saying "Mighty fine day in the Old West, pardner!"
For now, the title is accurate and perfectly fine, and *time* and *patience* will provide the lasting title. It (almost) surprises me how quickly some editors on Wikipedia want things to be given certain titles. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have the people saying "it's not like there's any other Libyan civil war" actually googled "Libya civil war"? As mentioned in Archive 8 a very, very cursory GoogleBooks look shows Libya also had civil wars (or events that could be termed as such) in 1711, 1795, 1835, and 1920. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Must be the lack of Wikipedia articles. See right here there is one for the 1791-1795 war, but it is red. If there have been so many, why not make an article for all of them? Civil Wars of Libya and link this conflict last? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Defintiely would be good to have some articles, but I've been pretty swamped in other wiki-stuff. I just follow this Talk page for kicks. I was just a little chafed that again people were insisting this is the first civil war Libya has had, when a) it's pretty rare that any country hasn't had something that can be called a "civil war", b) it takes literally 3min or less to find good hits on GoogleBooks evidencing previous Libyan civil wars. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention for Opposing forces

It the ongoing PR warfare part of this conflict many WP:RS are interchangeably using various names for the sides of the conflict as it suites them. Commonly even in the same article. In the interest of clarity and preserving WP:NPOV it would be very good if we can agree on some naming convention and adhere to it thereafter (especially in military-focused) articles about this war. Here a list of common names:

Tripoli-centered power base:

  • 1) Pro-Gaddafi forces -- better than above as NPOV goes (however there is no reason to believe all the anti-rebel forces are also pro-Gaddafi)
  • 2) Gaddafi forces -- mostly PR in Rebel-favoring media, it is now clear not only Gaddafi "lovers" fight the rebels(whatever be their reasons)
  • 3) Loyalists/Loyalist forces -- reasonably descriptive and complaint with NPOV
For users unfamiliar with civil war nomenclature, (not) being a "Loyalist" does NOT indicate one's "loyalty" as a character trait. It is a common term used to describe forces loyal to the _pre-existing_government (whatever it is) when its power gets challenged by a rebellion/insurrection/insurgency/revolution.
  • 4) Government forces -- NPOV complaint (but confusing since we have 2 Govs contesting their authority)
  • 5) Libyan Military -- meaningless (since there are serious paramilitary forces committed)
  • 6) Revolutionary forces -- PR in Gaddafi-favoring media (per the "eternal revolution" notion)
  • 7) Mercenaries -- PR in Rebel-favoring media

Benghazi-centered power base:

  • a) Anti-Gaddafi forces -- reasonably descriptive and complaint with NPOV (however not 100% accurate, it is most probable many rebels are better described as anti-secular or royalist than as anti-Gaddafi)
  • b) Rebel forces -- mostly NPOV, reasonably descriptive
  • c) Opposition (forces) -- NPOV, not a proper term for a military force
  • d) Insurgents -- mostly NPOV-complaint, not appropriate considering the conflict is far beyond "insurgence" point.
  • e) Al-Kaida/bandits/mobs -- PR in Gaddafi-favoring media
  • f) Revolutionary forces -- PR in Rebel-favoring media)
  • h) Free Libyan army -- partially PR + meaningless (since those are mostly paramilitary forces)
  • i) Transitionists -- PR from several WP editors gone "Troll"
  • g) freedom fighters -- PR in Rebel-favoring media
  • j) Mercenaries -- PR in Gaddafi-favoring media
Whatever the consensus, there should be no more than 2 different terms used interchangeably for a side and the use of others shall be cleaned up. Please add your opinion and improve my selection as you feel.


EDIT: Please, take this as some kind of an informal poll and state your opinion/preference, optionally why. The suggestion directly below is my POV. Nothing more.Ihosama (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've heard 'loyal' used on BBC but it is not left at that . It is 'forces loyal to the gaddafi regime' etc, kind of thing - i think, 'keep it simple stupid' as the saying goes, - forces loyal to the regime/pro-Gaddafi vs. anti-Gaddafi ( your saying they are better described as 'anti-secular' or 'royalist' , when have you heard the 'anti-secular, royalist rebels',I have not heard them called that once on BBC for example, is that OR ) ,- kim sengupta , the independent, says the rebels are not exactly homogenous, but 'anti-gaddafi forces/rebel forces' is often used in RS isn't it? Sayerslle (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not see an issue with forces loyal to the gaddafi regime as it is a VERY accurate description. But use of such a broad language is not feasible everywhere. It is statements like Gaddafi bombed (really was [which] Gaddafi himself manning the plane/howitzer?) or government controls (which government when the same article earlier mentions there are 2 of them?). So I
  • propose to consolidate the (short-name) nomenclature - let's get rid of the mess when even in a single paragraph one could find even 4 different names used for the same force
  • currently prefer the Loyalist>Pro-Gaddafi>>>other and Rebel>Anti-Gaddafi>> other _short_ forms. Long descriptive forms are not an issue that can be decided en block. A nomenclature cleanup [105] of one of the better-written articles to illustrate.Ihosama (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
When I mentioned "..it is most probable many rebels are better described.., emphasis is on probable. The point being we do not KNOW what are the rebel motives, yet we KNOW they are a pretty diverse group. Smae goes for the other camp.
Summarily slapping an "Anti-Gaddafi" moniker constitutes, IMO, an oversimplification in the same way slapping a Pro-Gaddafi or even Gaddafi moniker on everyone fighting the rebels does. It also tends to reduces the war into a personal affair while modern wars are almost never about persons. (Most) people would not go in the line of fire because they do not like someone.
I prefer the Loyalist/Rebel monikers because they do not include an implicit message in themselves, thus being much more suitable for writing WP:NPOV-complaint articles.Ihosama (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I don't consider it our job to make this kind of determination. The most common terminology in the media I've been following regularly refer to the sides as pro-Gaddafi forces and rebels. This is how we should be referring to them here as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This is right on, but you can also create a #Naming section in the article and source each of these options, including the name(s) of the overarching conflict. Then just go with the one most used by the best RS. Ocaasi c 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A small "dictionary" section is a good idea. Will do so when we close the topic here.Ihosama (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Bit of a clear up, my posts were long so: As stated explicitly, I am generally OK with Pro-Gaddafi/Anti-Gaddafi. However this is a talk page, explaining why do not like them seemed appropriate. Thanks for any point made to prove me wrong.
What I am not OK with though, is attributing specific operational actions of a whole army to a single person, nor am I OK with using ambiguous statements as "government" while stating there are 2 of them.Ihosama (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
(incidentally) lhosama, although your analysis is reasonable, I don't think anti-Gaddafi and pro-Gaddafi is actually not-NPOV. The war clearly centered around the power-leader of the country, Gaddafi, and it is the forces controlled by Gaddafi which have been battling those who sought to overthrow him. I think you're confusing the 'war', Gaddafi vs. opponents, with 'the peace', which of course could go in a number of different directions depending on the complex politics. But right now there's no question who is fighting whom for what immediate purpose. It's to oust Gaddafi or for Gaddafi to maintain control (at the very least of the West). Ocaasi c 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. RSs all the way in this case. =p Btw, when I first saw the topic name, I thought it had been put up by SuperblySpiffingPerson, ha. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, you know, there is a reason I brought this topic here. While fought over multiple-times, It was so far "talked about" mostly in edit wars or flames, with no constructive discussion surviving troll onslaught. I made a small-scale test (linked above) on how would a rename to Loyalists/Rebels look/feel/fare and: 1) felt using only single term it was just-not-right 2) knew that doing such without at least some consensus on any bigger article, regardless my intentions, would make many burst in flames :).Ihosama (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Universalising the terminology as loyal/rebel to comply with this good suggestion of yours has now been implemented so this discussion point can be closed off and put to bed contingent upon our vigilance and effort to uphold the achieved standard.Antiviral (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Antiviral (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No consensus was reached here yet. Nor has anyone proposed such a strict adherence to (whichever) terminology you have tried to apply. Please, stop hijacking my effort to infuse some order in the nomenclature.Ihosama (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is why the edits were reverted and the SuperblySpiffingSock has been banned. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Feb17

It is being called the February 17 Revolution (similar to Egypt's January 25 Revolution and Syria's March 15 Revolt) in the media and the twitter hashtag #Feb17 has become standard reference. Should this be mentioned in the article? - Kylelovesyou (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It is called #the February 17 Revolution (pretty much only) by the rebel media and the #Feb17 hashtag is used (pretty much only) by the rebel supporters. By that same logic, we would need to start referencing the rebels as Al-Kaida, term that has become standard in the pro-Gaddafi media...
By doing either, we would be advertising (one) side's propaganda. This is not our job. Let them hire PR agencies for that.Ihosama (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Refugees

I itis worth adding that over 500, mostly ethnic Berber Libyans, have fled their homes in Libya's Western Mountains and now take shelter in the Dehiba area of south-east Tunisia over the past week[[106]].82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

War obviously staged by France

The war is obviously staged by France with the help of the defector Nouri Mesmari who was head of protocol.

"An Italian Secret Service report details how a former aide to Gaddafi was the man behind the revolution helped by the French secret service Nouri Mesmari was head of protocol of Muammar Gaddafi and had direct access to the Libyan leader like no other official in the country. In a confidential memo entitled Maghreb Confidential the French secret service detailed the events that lead to the revolution against Gaddafi.

October 6, 2010 Nouri Mesmari turned himself to the French secret service and according to the Italians; he masterminded the revolution against Gaddafi. The document was leaked to Italian newspaper Libero."

[[107]]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich on "Southern Storm": "On November 2, 2010 France and Great Britain signed a mutual defense treaty, which included joint participation in "Southern Mistral" a series of war games outlined in the bilateral agreement and surprisingly documented on a joint military web site established by France and Great Britain. Southern Mistral involved a long-range conventional air attack, called Southern Storm, against a dictatorship in a fictitious southern country called "Southland," in response to a pretend attack on France by "Southland". The joint military air strike was authorized by a pretend United Nations Security Council Resolution. The "Composite Air Operations" were planned for the period of March 21-25, 2011." [[108]], [[109]]

Official website: [[110]]

You have a good thier point.82.11.108.31 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebels published kill lists

Translated excerpt from an interview of the German magazine "Der Spiegel" with the secretary general of the National Transitional Council:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it true that a list was published with the names of all Ligan Thauria, a kill list with 7200 people? Basama: There are many lists, you know."[[111]]

They were of great intrest to me and Der Spiegel is WP:RS to.82.11.108.31 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible trolling by Tike012

I believe Eraserhead1 is in an editor-war on this page with, Tike012 who is a possible troll and fell for Eraserhead1's bait and is also baiting Eraserhead1 . 82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I noted that User:Biscuittin, Wipsenade, Mr.Grantevans2 and Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie are being baited and made fools of by them.82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC) DNFTT82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Add User:Ihosama to the baited league.82.14.55.26 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh you! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If I had been baited, then it is by this project. To make it a bit better within my means. It would be nice if you showed me what part of my work is classifiable as edit warring. As far as the talk is concerned, it is here to discuss possibly controversial changes, is it not? Anyway, just because a topic gets trolled, it does not mean all the points raised are irrelevant.Ihosama (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Orly? You know a lot of people tend to misinterpret various different behaviours as trolling. It is quite possible he does believe what he is saying. (and for the purposes of good faith he is) Only the very best ones are truly convincing. (Though if he were hypothetically one of those it would be an honour to have been trolled so thoroughly by an actual good troll.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What's a 'orly'?82.2.74.124 (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep!82.11.108.50 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel as though I'm being baited. The discussion has been very civilized. Biscuittin (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
He's wideing users up on Gadaffi duck's page with his bizzar, pro-Libia cooments82.14.55.26 (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but do not make him feel special for that. There is plenty of the same bizarreness from many editors of both sides of the PR war. A smart person knows how to dismiss content that is not worth his time. By your standard, 90% of media news coverage would have to be banned ... for being too selective and sometimes borderline absurd (to the ones who know first hand).Ihosama (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is "Gadaffi duck's page"? Biscuittin (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Here-Daffy Duck?86.29.74.222 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya's news just in!

On 9 April, a new battle raged in a strategically located Libyan city of Ajdabiya. Local witnesses reported that during the 3 hours of fighting that several explosions were caused by NATO aircraft, but NATO, however, denied any airstrikes in Ajdabiya. A local hospital also told CNN that three of Gadhafi's now dead fighters carried identification cards from Syria, Algeria and Chad.[[112]]Wipsenade (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got it on France 24.82.11.101.43 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

On the 10th, a local insurgent called Hassan Bosayna, said that 8 pro-Gaddafi fighters and 4 rebels were on the 9th. One of the deceased rebels shot by a sniper. A government scout had gone up a telephone mast and was peering towards the rebel held town through binoculars and guiding the ground forces toward the targets he was spying on[[113]]. Another local rebel called Muftah, said about thee previous days battle:- "There are Gaddafi forces inside Ajdabiyah in sand-coloured Land Cruisers and we know there are Gaddafi snipers in civilian clothing in the city as well." [[114]]. The rebels had been firing rockets from converted pick-up trucks (technicals) into the peace of desert that form on the outskirts of the town in a possible attempt to prevent any attempts at a flanking manoeuvre by government forces[[115]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking up the latest details.82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A major rebel arms dump was blown up by Gadaffie loyalists on the 12th .[[116]]82.2.71.166 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A hospital is overwhelmed by local rebel caultees[[117]].

It might need a battel page of it's own to cover the last week's fighting in the town[[118]] .86.29.74.222 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How reliable are "reliable sources"?

Quote from above (not quite sure who the author is): "The problem is that most of our RSs hate his guts, and the RSs are not required to maintain an NPOV". If a source is biassed, is it correct to call it reliable? Biscuittin (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it can be as biased as the day is long. Reliability depends on several things, who wrote it, on how it is used, how it is used in addition to other sources. Almost anything recorded can be used as a reliable source if used in the proper way. (however, determining that can sometimes be tricky.) -- Avanu (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had this argument before, on other pages. The "reliable source merchants" seem to be saying: "it doesn't matter if it's wrong, provided that it's backed up by reliable sources". I think it's better to be right than to adhere slavishly to so-called reliable sources. Biscuittin (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not label other editors like that (it gets rid of the whole team idea). This issue about neutrality of sources is covered in one of the five pillars (the rules that you are encouraged to place above all others). WP:V#Neutrality. Sources are not required to maintain neutrality as the lion's share are inherently biased, I'm not sure you or I are in any position to determine what is wrong in this case. I mean except for things that are obvious hyperbole (or atleast if it seems very unlikely and there is no further evidence to confirm it), only someone on the ground can have some real idea of what's going on, and only someone omnipotent can know what is really going on. That's why we rely on RSs in the first place. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Avanu's comment on 11 April, 2011 at 15:13 UTC was also made in reply to the comment above.)
Common sense has to play a part too. Even if the New York Times says "Aliens have landed", we have a guideline saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And then there is what to do if 2 RS's conflict with each other. A lot of people make the mistake of saying "it was printed in the New York Times" as being equivalent to "it is a reliable source", and as I showed above, anything *can* be a reliable source (properly used), but at the same time, anything can be misused and become an invalid source. -- Avanu (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how Wikipedia can present a NPOV if it relies on sources which editors know to be biassed. This is contrary to common sense. It is slavish adherance to rules which achieve the opposite to what is intended. Biscuittin (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It simply cannot be helped, Biscuittin. When I say all (or almost all to the point of 99.99999999%) sources are biased, I mean it. As an archaeologist you learn that (and before anyone says you're only a third-year student etc. You do need to get educated on the topic before you get your degree remember) the majority of the historical sources you have to go with your material evidence are extremely biased. For instance most of what we know about Constantine the Great comes from his personal biographer. Would he maintain an NPOV about the man? Nope, he'd polish him up and it would be up to use our common sense. (I can give more, but only if requested.) We have to acknowledge and deal with the fact that when it comes to reporting information, Wikipedians are probably some of the few people that actually care about maintaining an NPOV. Most of the sources do not care, because for the most part they do not have any real obligation to. They just convey the information with either an intentional or unintentional spin that varies from writer to writer. If we only relied on sources that we knew were somehow unbiased, we'd have a tough time putting any information on this encyclopedia. It's a sad fact, but it's true. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Because if every English language source on the planet is probably bias, there is very little you can do.
I've already suggested some sources that are non Western that you can use, including Xinhua, Al Jazeera, the Hindu and the Times of India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
What tends to happen in practice is that sources which present an Anglo-American view are labelled "reliable" but sources which present a Russian view are labelled "unreliable". Biscuittin (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thats how it always was:)Uc smaller (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"What tends to happen in practice" doesn't have to happen this time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, just use the sources up yonder if you feel that the Anglo-American ones are not trustworthy in this instance. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've expressed any view on the Libyan civil war so there isn't anything for me to provide references for at this stage. I've just been commenting on the mechanism by which Wikipedia does (or in some cases doesn't) provide a NPOV. I've been watching Russia Today quite a lot recently because I find it refreshing to hear views different from the standard Anglo-American ones. When something relevant comes up, I'll add it to the article with a reference to Russia Today. It will be interesting to see whether anybody deletes it as "unreliable". Biscuittin (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be asured that France 24 and Euronews are neutal , since there are as yet not favoring any side or Qadaffi.81.100.118.70 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Or on Mongolia's Chingi Marhurt and China's CCTV 9 TV staions.82.18.196.30 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would trust the Tripoli Post, their witnessing it first hand, on mass[[119]]!86.29.74.222 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with the sockpuppet's edit?

I'm pretty sure I'm at the line for committing 3RR myself, so can someone else please revert it? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Which edit are you referring to? Biscuittin (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Antiviral's slew of edits. SuperblySpiffingPerson just won't quit. As Avanu said, he has a good POV that could help improve the article, but he has absolutely no respect for the teamwork aspect of Wikipedia and has been making use of socks even after he has been banned for it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Tike ad John holmes his sockpuppetss to?81.100.118.70 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably no. He hasn't been calling for renaming to transitionist, etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It follows us everywhere...

Please keep random, invalid, conspiracy theories off of wikipedia. The weak minded might read the discussion, and fall for your shit.

Could you be more specific? I haven't noticed any conspiracy theories. Biscuittin (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think User:John Holmes II is referring to T1ke's position, but his post is highly uncivil and inappropriate. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they both socks of User:SuperblySpiffingPerson ?81.100.118.70 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit facility

Where is the edit facility (edit buttons) on the main page? What is this now? Propagandapedia? You can't just parrot the obviously biased "western" media. Any credibility this site had is now lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.199.190 (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Were you looking at an older revision of the page? That causes the edit buttons to disappear. Also I am not sure how much cedibility the site had, but as noclador said, this ain't going to dent it. Also, even if no one thinks the site's credible, they sure do come in droves for the information written down here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's because the site is semi-protected - click on padlock at top right of page. Biscuittin (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
the article is semi-protected, because of SuperSpyff's continuous attempts to vandalize it. noclador (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of article title 'civil war'

To use the term 'civil war' is clearly not neutral and follows the propaganda argumentation line from the Gaddafi government.

It's a war alright but it is doubtful if the Gaddafi regime has really many followers (in percentage of the population) so it is actually more of a revoultion or an uprising. Multitudes of reports from areas controlled by the regime indicate that the population in these areas is actually more of a hostage to the regime than really in support of it.

Also, it is only insofar a war as the violence clearly originates from the regime and is directed indiscriminately at the whole population in the areas no longer under regime control as well as at any dissent within regime controlled areas. The 'rebels' or 'freedom fighters' are mostly civilians who only took up weapons because their peacful protests were met by brutal force. To call this a 'civil war' is therefore euphemistic and misleading.

Furthermore, since foreign mercenaries (on Gaddafi's side) and the international community is now involved it is no longer a purely Libyan conflict or war.

This title needs to be changed.

83.77.131.4 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some reliable sources that back up what you are saying? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Bad request. There are truckloads of such claims in WP:RS, and truckloads of counterclaims in often the same WP:RS ... Ihosama (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How about UN Resolution 1973 as 'source' for my argumentation? How about Human rights watch and the International Criminal Court investigations/reports as sources?

By the way: This article's original name was different. Who authorized the change and for what reasons?

Plus: The very string of events described in this article and in the special article about the timeline of the events supports my argumentation, now doesn't it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.131.4 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

A very strange concensus canvassing. Please check back through the archives to see what I mean. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
As petrie pointed out to me on the most recent move request, article titles do not need to be neutral if they are accepted as the commmon name of the event in question. The title was changed because there was a Consensus to move the article title to Libyan civil war, immediately following that there was another move request to change the article title which failed to find Consensus. Please for the love of god do not start another debate over the article title when nothing has changed, we all know its inadequete for different reasons (not neccessarily ones we all agree on, mind you) but the article would be better improved by working on changes outside of the title for the time being. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Afair all reports of HRW and other organisations are based on rebel claims or some anonymous sources (eg phone calls). There were no real investigations or inspections, actually it was Gaddafi calling for them since early march, that's why all the eurohawks were in such a hurry to begin a bombing campaign. 77.45.173.88 (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we had a mini-discussion about this earlier and I, as well, as User:Ihosama agreed, if I remember correctly, that reports of human rights violations should not be put in until afterwards when there has been a UN fact-finding mission. We can't rely on sketchy reports as facts. I don't think anyone voiced opposition to that idea. It's in the archives somewhere, not too long ago. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Eurohawks - that's a useful term - I must remember that. Biscuittin (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Biscuittin 18:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC).
It is a good turm as is Eurodoves on the other hand.81.100.118.70 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign intervention does not make it not a civil war. See Spanish Civil War. This discussion is effectively closed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is a civil war is an ignorant fool. The title needs to be changed back to its correct form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.58.89 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually have a real argument to bring here, or are you just blowing hot air? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better name for it would be a 'civil uprising'. That implies less that it's 2 segments of the population fighting each other, but rather that the source of the push to depose the regime stems from the people, as opposed to the military or individuals (in which case it would be a 'coup'). It leaves room for the fact that there can still be significant portions of the population who genuinely oppose the 'freedom fighters', while avoiding a term that, if plastered all over Wikipedia, paints a picture of the events in Libya based on people's preconceived ideas of a 'civil war'.

I don't think the literal meaning of a civil war, in the sense of any part of the population of a country against another part, no matter what the ratio can ever be applied. Clearly a certain percentage is required here, but there's no agreed upon exact percentage point we can use. When the Bader Meinhof Group conducted it's campaign against the establishment in Germany in the 70ies, it wasn't a German civil war, just because it was a few Germans against the rest of the state. A true civil war also has to have segments of the population opposing the insurgents, without them being paid off by the regime or being members of military of paramilitary forces.

What is making it hard to come to an agreement here is that we don't really know how the amount of people truly supporting Gadaffi and those that are either paid fake protestors, conscripted into the army to fight the freedom fighters, tricked into attacking them under false pretenses, or flat out too scared to show anything but support in public. Another criteria for a true civil war should be whether leading up to the outbreak, there was already an obviously visible delineation of the different factions, either by race, occupation, religion etc. This doesn't seem to be the case here either.

What I don't agree with is arguing against not calling it a civil war because opponents of the term can't provide reliable sources stating that it isn't. The burden of proof lies on the person who wants to call it a civil war to do so. Jschuur (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC))

Listening to the recent "eurohawk" talking, i think it's going to be called simply "2011 Libyan war" very soon ;) 95.32.105.194 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Listening to the recent "russodove" talking, i think it's going to be called simply "2011 Gaddafi zawiya-misrata-benghazi massacres" very soon ;) 92.4.48.102 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
You make no sense. Besides the only "massacres" so far were murders of the black africans in rebel Cyrenaica. 95.32.92.186 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You are putting isolated incidents of untrained militia acting out of impulse and fear over trained soldiers sniping children and cluster-bombing civilians. Oh wait, those last ones never happened, did they? Because all english-language RSes are just propaganda mouthpieces for the evil democratic government in Benghazi. Because only Libyan State TV and Russia Today report the WP:TRUTH, and everything else is falsehoods aimed at tarnishing the golden image of The Guide Of The Revolution. Shiber shiber! Bayt bayt! Dar dar! Zanqa zanqa! Ferd ferd! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, "isolated incidents" everyone was filming on their cellphones (out of impulse and fear, no doubt) - but no videos of Gaddafi planes bombing "peaceful demonstrations" yet. And let's look at another place of alleged "massacre", namely Misrata - a 500,000 pop city suffering 50 days of fighting. According to chief of the city hospital there was 257 confirmed deaths (combatants included) by April 10. That is: 500,000 people, 50 days of "heavy fighting", 257 dead. Even if the real numbers are twice as big, that's only about 10 deaths per day. So you call the fighting in Misrata "massacre"? I call it "all is quiet on the Western Front". Furthermore, out of 949 wounded there were only 22 women and 8 children registered. Therefore i'm not buying these scary tales about Gaddafi snipers deliberately targeting innocent children (what's the point for the sniper doing this anyway? it's not even an ethnic conflict like Yugoslavia) 95.32.7.120 (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
But actually, how many blacks have been killed in this organised campaign of racist killings (for that is the alternative to 'isolated incidents')? If this has no elements of an 'ethnic conflict', then surely your point about the racism of those evil rebels doesn't follow that reasoning? Why does it have to be an ethnic conflict for civilians to be killed? Death tolls from Misrata rage up to 700; it is difficult to exactly ascertain. Get a real argument. Yes, abuses of human rights have been committed by the rebels. Such is war; both sides do horrible things. The Soviets committed massacres and other human rights abuses during WWII (exponentially worse than a bunch of rowdy irregulars who can't maintain a front-line acting on base prejudices), but they are still remembered as 'the good guys' of the war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear ip - I replied to your snidey remark about 'eurohawks' saying it could become the '2011 massacre article' if Gaddafi-ites , 'Russodoves', were left a free hand - didn't say it was already that, - it hasn't degenerated into that thankfully because the kind of cynicism you exemplify has been opposed - dont know about the Soviets are considered good guys. 92.4.62.196 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ahaha, actually i didn't mean these edit wars at all, i was talking about the recent NATO spokesperson attempts to legalise the mission creep in Libya. Nor i'm going to start another war here about the good guys and innocent victims of WWII. 95.32.128.54 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ras Lanuf?

Some guy on the Al Jazeera Blog said that there was rocket fire heard inside Ras Lanuf around the mosque and port area. Can someone please confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.141.72 (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"some guy" is not a good source unfortunately. if it were true, there would be confirmation in the mass media by now.Uc smaller (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It could be to do with this RPG in Ras Lanuf on March 31 [[120]], or this assult on March 10th [[121]].86.29.74.222 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the egyptday1.blogspot.com RS?86.24.13.239 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Try 이혜진우예슬!86.24.26.22 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I did'Wipsenade (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As of the 15th [[122]].81.100.112.241 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Situation in Misrata

Apparently Misrata Have been divided into two sides since more than one month. ITV news have been able to infiltrate the rebel held side from the sea to film this excellent report (contains shocking images). I think the article needs a section dedicated to this city.--Rafy talk 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there were no "shocking" images. Not to anyone who knows what a war is. EDIT: There is already an article Battle of Misrata Ihosama (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, compared to some of the other things seen in other warzones (dismembered people those with shrapnel wounds and compound fractures), there was nothing that would really count as shocking. There was not even blood. (not that the people are not suffering of course) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
have you seen the boys ripped open side at 7:04? Shocking or not; firing mortars in a city is a crime, no matter who does it. noclador (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Well now that I knew what to look for, yeah I saw it. That's about it for the shocking bit and it is only shocking if you ever never seen a maimed human being before. Tragic yes, but not shocking. Someone really fired a mortar on Downing Street? PIRA was insane. What are you getting at by saying it is a crime and citing a 1991 terrorist attack in London? I'm not seeing the legal connection to Libya. As someone with an Israeli loved one though, I do agree it is awful. (Though I am getting into WP:FORUM at the moment.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Firing mortars in urban warfare is not a crime per law (moral one for sure). It would be if fired at a peaceful demonstration. But it would fit a war crime definition only if it was fired at random into known civilian-occupied areas or deliberately targeting know civilian concentrations (that are not used as a human shield at the same time). We might not like it but that is how the international law is on these matters. (As for internal laws, harboring militants is grounds to be fired upon in most of the world ... Again I too do not like that that is the way it is.)
I'm all for defining any violence as a crime, but that is not feasible in this world, a world where might makes right.Ihosama (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes there was certainly blood at that point, and that is a terrible thing happened - Misrata as a western city of defiance is very important in the narrative of the uprising, obviously irritating the tyrant - BBC said last night the port area was under attack again last night, 13 killed, tens of casualties, - and gaddafi 'stinking with madness and corruption' (C.Hitchens) does not withdraw 'regime forces to barracks' and just kills and maims civilians.Sayerslle (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It was hard to spot I'm afraid. When he said shocking, I assumed he meant something that would shock a society that has been desensitised to everything but the most unspeakable images. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Stealing - now thats a crime. War is not a crime. If it was, everyone would be guilty. Uc smaller (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of a little thing called the Geneva convention?
I find it very curious how almost all pro-Gaddafis are Eastern Europeans. I know that Gaddafi had warm relations with Serbia and Russia, so could it be that people are influenced by their media which is more or less controlled by the state? Just wondering...--Rafy talk 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not confuse above average immunity to propaganda with Pro-Gaddafi stance. You know, as the years go by, I am getting more and more convinced that the main difference between mass media in the West and East was that the West complacently believed what their media said, while the East did not (in the later decades).
When there is a society-wide consensus on the mass media lying wholesale, people tend to me more active in developing skills to counter it. It just happens such skills are as useful in capitalism as they were in communism. My 2 cents. Ihosama (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Another point is, when you have lived through Democratization (read as systematic society destruction) and Liberalization (read: systematic economy destruction), you lose all kinds of illusions about the motives of any movement marketed as democratic of freedom-loving by the western power base.Ihosama (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Praise be! Tell the WP:TRUTH as you see it, not as what those news sources considered to be reliable across the wikipedia propaganda mouthpieces say it! Shiber shiber! Bayt bayt! Dar dar! Zanqa zanqa! Ferd ferd! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Guys, even though I did it too, we're getting into violating the rule against WP:FORUM now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
0/10 troll.Uc smaller (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
He-con by Hincon!81.100.112.241 (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Report of United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

I wanted to tell everyone that this Report has been issued. I'd like to take your opinions about it. 

[[123]]

Beatrice.rfb (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The report seems to mostly confirm the Gaddafi camp's claims - it indicates that foreigners are leaving Libya throughout while Libyans leaving only the rebel-occupied-and-under-attack territory.
The most suspicious claim is of many Libyans leaving Benghazi. This would indicate that either the claim is wrong and those people are actually from Ajdabiya, or the claims of pro-Gaddafi families escaping reprisals got an indirect confirmation. I do not believe that rebel-sympathetic population has any real motivation to leave now (if they didn't a month ago). Ihosama (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
"Indirect confirmation"=confirmation bias=WP:OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I have just pointed out that people fleeing a claimed-to-be-free-and-peaceful area would be an indirect confirmation of reprisals if the report is correct in identifying those people as Benghazi residents. Indirect confirmation == a fact does not contradict something.
I would not buy into the story of families escaping a humanitarian catastrophe considering the area has secure supply lines via sea and land and thousands of foreign workers fled long ago vacating a huge amount of accommodation resources for any internally displaced persons.
In sum, people fleeing Benghazi could mean 2 things: Either there are reprisals or the TNC is unable to provide basic security to the population. Whole families would not leave a home (for a much poorer country like Egypt) just because tap water does not run etc.Ihosama (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my machine can't use PDF or read PDF. Got a HTML type document instead?Wipsenade (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no HTLM version out there. I have copied the text to a temporary wiki page: [[124]]. You really should get a PDF reader.Ihosama (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the official site it is given as : http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher/OCHA.html It is the 3rd document there. But this also seems like a PDF, so I hope you can open it from here :/. Beatrice.rfb (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Crisis: Humanitarian Snapshot (as of 28 Mar 2011) - Snapshot won't open.Wipsenade (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also readie [[125]]82.11.111.177 (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cluster bombs

On April 16, Gaddafi's forces were reported to be using cluster bombs by rebels in Misurata. [[126]].Wipsenade (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch have accused Gaddafi forces of using these bomb cluster type bombs, said it saw some of these type of bombs explode over the city 92.4.74.186 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw an unexploded cluster bomb on TV. The wording on it was in English which suggests it was made in Britain or the USA. If we object to the use of cluster bombs, why do we manufacture them? Biscuittin (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Trying to remember accurately what it said on the news last night, I think it said the cluster bombs were old stock stashed by the gaddafi regime - part of his huge stockpile - they were spanish the ones used as part of the Gaddafi bombardment of Misrata, I think they said 2006/2007 made - I don't think they are being made anymore, illegal now. Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If they were Spanish, why did they have English wording on them? They are not illegal in all countries. According to Convention on Cluster Munitions the convention has not been signed by the US, China and Russia. Biscuittin (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The media don't exactly make a good case for themselves. In this reference [127] (which is used in the Wikipedia article) the claim is about the use of MAT-120 cluster bombs but the photo is of an M85. Perhaps the picture I saw on BBC news was not one of the actual bombs found in Misrata. Biscuittin (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Look at Al Jazeeras report: it is clearly a MAT-120 [128]; however the guy doing the talking is not very informed about the MAT-120 - after 15min the bomblets become inert. noclador (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Jafw

What happen in Al Jafw? Map show that there are combats in this area bu in medias I haven't seen any mention about fights in this city?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The town was run by the Libyan opposition and not the government of Muammar al-Gaddafi. [(Reuters via London South East)][(Reuters), 20 February 2011.]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be marked as rebel controlled town not fighting area.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been reports of substantial army presence in the town in Arab media sources. The map's page in commons contains more details.--Rafy talk 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

please add template "

" to top of "references" section (i.e., just below section header). the citations include some 20+ bare URLs. these are in addition to some two to three citations already labeled as "dead links". thanks.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Why? ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
see request above. although box on right is marked "answered", some twenty-two hours later, the edit does not appear to have been done (and the 20+ bare URLs remain potentially to rot). thanks.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
3rd request. see original request above. if there is reason to reject the request, so state. not good to just ignore.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No need anymore. It has been fixed.--Rafy talk 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebels hold Nalut, Zintan?

I noticed some blue at the west edge of the map, and with a search I found [129] : "His forces have hammered away repeatedly at Misurata as well as the rebel-held Western Mountains area, which includes the cities of Zintan and Nalut." Also [130] : "The fighters in the town of Nalut have repulsed the (Gaddafi) brigades and defeated them..." (seems to suggest Zintan also but doesn't say so in words)

Is that enough to warrant red circles for those two cities? Nalut is currently blue and Zintan has no circle at all. Wnt (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, also sounds like Yafran is rebel held, part of the same Western Mountains area [131] : "Forces loyal to Gadhafi killed seven rebel fighters and wounded 11 in attacks on the town of Yafran in western Libya on Friday, a rebel spokesman told Al Jazeera television. Yafran is part of the Western Mountains region, an area inhabited by Berbers who are ethnically distinct from most Libyans."

It would also be interesting to know why this particular racial divide is so important, since so far I haven't heard so much about race being important in this (apart from the possibly-not-foreign mercenary issue) Wnt (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All the cities in the Nafusa mountains are being essentially besieged by Gaddafists; there is an active effort to seize these towns. All three cities in region on this map have red circles encircled by blue rings to indicate that they are rebel-held, but loyalists are trying to capture them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh - I see they're marked red in the middle when I closeup the picture. I don't really make out the red just looking at the preview, even though it's there. Wnt (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yes, and I finally noticed the note at the top of the page! But since I was just not seeing things, I think I can close this here. Wnt (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair treatment for Gaddafi

Like Tike012, I am neither pro-Gaddafi nor anti-Gaddafi but I think Gaddafi is entitled to fair treatment. The Western media are clearly anti-Gaddafi so, if we rely on them, we are presenting a "standard point of view", not a "neutral point of view". Biscuittin (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's already been said, if you don't like what the US and British media are saying, use the english-language media from China, India etc in your editing. You also have that old business about WP:DUE (I cite these things here 'cause they're helpful atm for this situation). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I think the anti-Gaddafi view might even originate with Western people ourselves. Most of us never liked anything about the guy and wanted him to pay personally for the Locherbie murders. Hell, our own article on Pan Am Flight 103 places the responsibility squarely on his shoulders. Most of us were disgusted by the way the Bush admin. let him off the hook and tried to transition his status from "terrorist" to "being rehabilitated". So, this might be one of the few instances where the demonization point of view is emanating from the bottom up (from the people to the politicians to the media). Actually, If so, it might be a good thing; at least it would be adding an element of democracy to media content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point. Biscuittin (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Gadaffi did make some achevements, but over all, it was bad for the eastern ptovince and good for the western and souther ones.82.14.55.26 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
How exactly it was "bad" for eastern province (besides deposing the senussite king)? Did he demolish something there or what? 95.32.135.70 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see 愛登里.82.2.74.124 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could link that in English (or translate the linked word) and make sure it is linked to something? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps making this article display less western bias would be less about fair treatment of Gad, and more of not going along with the free ride the rebels are getting from some nations sources....ie, mentioning they're consistently defying the no fly zone, & the lynch mobs. 92.21.195.147 (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually any evidence that the Gadaffi regime has been attacking unarmed civilians? The rebels are armed with guns so they are not "unarmed civilians". I'm not trying to make a political point, I'm just asking a question. Biscuittin (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There are reports coming out of Misrata that Gaddafist snipers have been indiscriminately sniping anything that walks on two legs, even children. Watch this video, for example. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
There are reports and even pictures (just check militaryphotos.net) of child soldiers on the rebel side. 95.32.135.70 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Links, or it didn't happen. Are we sure that these are actually child soldiers, or just kids waving look-alike weapons next to their fathers, as I have seen? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but a link to some footage is not a proof something happened or not. Yours including.Ihosama (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is correct, but no supporting links makes for a very spurious argument. My request was a reference to this meme, not an assumption of truth/non-truth. The link I provided is from AJE, which is a reliable source, I'm sure we can all agree. And while I do think that we should wait until this thing is over to really get into the human rights abuses, these claims and the supporting footage from Misrata are actually relevant to the conflict at hand (i.e., main reason why NTC requests NATO to do more), it would be poor encyclopaediography (if that's a word) to outright ignore such claims as of now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Presumably he bombed them. Now, I'm not saying he didn't bomb them, but could someone find an article with reporters having seen his aircraft bomb civilians? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Are we applying different standards to Gaddafi from those we apply to ourselves? We've killed innocent civilians (by accident) when we were trying to kill armed men. Couldn't Gaddafi equally well claim that civilians killed by his forces were killed by accident? Biscuittin (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are, but remember- "motives determins war".86.29.74.222 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Were you trying to be funny or what? (sorry, but what is too much is too much) Ihosama (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The motive is oil and gas.82.18.197.32 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean like, the east of Libya 'a deep feeling of resentment at losing out on a share of oil wealth' - so you could be right, then again in MIsrata where there is prosperity, they hate gaddfi there too - because they want more freedom it must be - as for civilians being shot at - in todays 'independent' 'deadly struggle for survival is waged in west of Libya' p.22 - from misrata ' part of the long thoroughfare is a snipers alley for the regime, where civilians, including quite a few children, have been shot by regime forces' - and in ZAwiya Alex Crawford , from Sky news and colleagues ,saw ambulances fired on by gaddafi forces and civilian residences, with women and children casualties - and the uprising began in benghazi where yellow helmeted gaddafi men fired at unarmed civilians , where saadi gaddafi was in charge, and its on film, biscuittin, so a bit difficult to deny, or say it was 'by accident' ,because it was de-lib-er-ate -anyway, notforum, biscuittin why don't you just try and improve the article instead of chucking up wistful thoughts about how jolly unfair it is on gaddafi that some people seem to be ever so harsh on him etc etc...ad nauseam Sayerslle (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to defend Gadaffi, I'm just trying to establish a NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You're a bit vague on details though. To be honest, I don't understand what you intended when you started this section. I don't think anyone else did either and that's why it has veered off into personal opinions and theories. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it is like the idea that we said we are creating a "no fly" zone, and yet somehow this no fly zone means that we attack tanks (which cannot fly), we arm civilians (who cannot fly unless they have a plane or maybe some Wonka fizzy cola), and we're freezing assets, and pretty much fighting a war. All of those actions are certainly not about just enforcing a no fly zone, they are about changing who runs the nation of Libya. So are we acting righteously or neutrally or honorably or dishonestly? What is 'fair' in this situation and where do we sit when trying to cover it all in a NPOV and Verifiable way? -- Avanu (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If we peer through your smart-alecky rhetoric, we can clearly see that you have a feeble understanding of UNSCR 1973, which "[a]uthorizes Member States [...] acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This can be quite easily interpreted to mean "bomb tanks and artillery shooting at or around civilian-populated areas". It's not just a no-fly zone, silly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Our personal opinions, like the ones you just expressed, are irrelevant in terms of the article. The answer to your question is an easy one, outlined in Wiki's general policies about reputable sources, due weight, etc. We are not here to make moral judgements. "Righteously, honorably, etc." are subjective determinations, and have no place in our consideration of article content. We are here to provide verifiable, encyclopedic content. We are not here to get on our personal soapboxes. Obviously this is something many people feel strongly about, and want to influence one way or another. Unfortunately, that's not what wikipedia is for. Reputable sources, due weight, NPOV. Everything you just expressed are your opinons. Nothing wrong with that as logn as it's in regard to the article, but we can't base content in the article on your personal judgement of the situation. Find and suggest reputable sources. Easy as that.Jbower47 (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Who are you talking about? -- Avanu (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I would say, Bring to the talk page paragraphs, sentences, sections etc that you think most egregiously go against NPOV and then state your problems , why you think they are unfair or whatever , can't you be precise,- above you just make an ultra general observation about, how do we write up the entire subject? mixed with a load of your inane personal lucubrations. Sayerslle (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not planning to say any more on this page for a while. There is no way the two sides are going to understand each other. Biscuittin (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post - an interview with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi [132] 77.45.134.2 (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

April's military and political devlopments

this section is very unclear - which places are being discussed when - its a right mess, incoherent, poorly written - it should be tagged maybe with - a 'this section may not meet wps standards of clarity NPOV etc.Sayerslle (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tinkling about with it. It was rough and ready since I was not at my computer much, but I will fix it up today. See it in 'fixed' form tomorrow afternoon.Wipsenade (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved that other guy’s stuff about Berber refuges to the humanitarian part.Wipsenade (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk)

Done? It's hard to follow , absurdly sketchy, - 'at dawn a small group of activists staged a demo in tripoli ' - why? what activists? what connection with the previous statement about the african union trip to benghazi? - ' and issued a statement that was filmed.' oh, really. Sayerslle (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Las primeras manifestaciones comenzaron el 15 de febrero de 2011 con demandas de reformas políticas y económicas hacia el gobierno de Gadafi, que llevaba 41 años en el poder. Las manifestaciones fueron creciendo en magnitud siendo reprimidas fuertemente por el gobierno y la policía secreta, alcanzando en pocos días más de una decena de manifestantes asesinados en enfrentamientos.82.11.104.30 (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming

Keeping with NPOV and the practice in war articles, can someone add that Tripoli-based media refer to the conflict as the Crusader Colonial Aggression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.217.162 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

While that's not surprising, we'll need to have sources showing that. In this case it can be some of those sources calling it such. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a link to Reuters [133] Biscuittin (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That is Gadaffi himself, not Tripolian/Triopolitain? news sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Here, Libyan Jamahiriyah Broadcasting's web site. Pick any report about the conflict. In Libya Gaddafi's name for a thing is the name for it. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but we would have had to have had the B (the Tripoli media calling it that) to bridge that gap between A (Gadaffi calling it that) and the conclusion of C (Gadaffi's name for it is their name for it), I mean we all know it's the case, but we need to have sources to put it in, and so thanks for supplying the B (many B's in fact) for us. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added both references at Muammar_Gaddafi's_response_to_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war#Government_media_campaign. Biscuittin (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tim Hetherington in the infobox

I can't believe someone put his name in the infobox next to 8000 unnamed civilians. I mean I'm sorry for his death but don't you think writing "8000 plus Tim Hetherington" in the casualties section is a little bit off?--Rafy talk 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It should say two foreign civilians killed as it says in the 2008 South Ossetian War article that was cited. I know it's not the editor's intention, but to name the guy rather than just put foreign civilian or something and not name Chris Hondros who died as a result of the same attack just looks dickish (especially when, as you said, you have it next to X number of other civies). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There have been many African sweat-workers who also died in the conflict, that will make the number of foreign casualties much more than two I'm afraid. How about making a new section for those journalists?--Rafy talk 23:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Alright, sure. According to some CNN email I just got, two other journalists were wounded in the attack. Could someone find a source for this? I am going to sleep right now and do not have the ability to sleep edit (yet) I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the article already too long. I removed the "Tim" part and added "including 4 international journalists". That should suffice - but I still believe these journalists should be added to the foreign casualties part (what if some person from an African nation was working for a press agency in Libya and was killed by rebels for being a mercenary just because of his color - hypothetical situation it could be - but then he is journalist too, even though he was not practicing then ...just saying)--Pranav (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
When I added his name to the article under causalities, I didn't intentionally make out that his death was a greater loss than the civilian casualties. I added it as I believed his death was notable. However we now unfortunately have the death of another journalist and other previous deaths of journalists which at the time of my edit I wasn't aware of. I approve of the edit which says "including 4 international journalists", if more journalists die (which I hope not) we can say "X journalists". IJA (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Advisors and Qatar military aid

Tell me if i am wrong, but I have not found on this article or on many other articles (except the Libyan People's Army article (which I ended up editing for these facts) about the Qatar government supplying AK-47s, bulletproof vests, and MILAN anti tank missiles, even camouflage dressings - photo in this article clearly shows it (its quiet intriguing ) -http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201141942947854663.html And I could not find information about the planned aid from USA worth 25 million dollars. Also info about The British, French and Italian advisors.

Its not on the military intervention page either. And since its a major thing - because the Rebels are so disorganized and in massive need for weapons and foreign aid, and in context with the foreign advisors - the TNC has been so very against foreign boots on the ground! So these facts are of grave importance I must say. Somebody could probably add them and stuff--Pranav (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a section about the British, French and Italian advisors at "Political developments of April 2011". Biscuittin (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Supported by" section

Forgive me if it's already been discussed, but I find the "supported by" section in the factbox under "combatants" to be highly redundant. All of the states that appear in that section are part of the UN coalition mentioned in the same part of the factbox. What's more, "support" is a highly vague term. Botswana, Trinidad & Tobago, and Singapore have also expressed "support" for the rebels, but they haven't contributed militarily - nor has any other country that isn't part of the coalition, except for (allegedly) Egypt and Tunisia on the opposition's side and (allegedly) Syria and Algeria on the jamahiriya's side. "Support" can range from anything from the symbolic proclamations of ministers in a small developing country (the way Honduras supported the World War II Allies) to the commitment of full military assets (the way the U.S. supported the South Vietnamese). It's far too vague, and considering that all of those countries are mentioned as part of the coalition just a few lines down, it seems redundant anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The only way I could see the supported by list being appropriate in the infobox is if we are moving the UN to a 3rd combatant situation. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
While I think that would have its merits, every member of the coalition has been vocally critical of Gaddafi's regime (I believe all of them have explicitly called for Gaddafi to step down or else be removed by force, with the possible exceptions of Jordan and Romania, just off the top of my head) and the coalition has generally acted in support of rebel forces, despite its occasional bellicosity at being treated as the rebel military's air and naval divisions. I don't think we're obligated to accept the official stance of the UN that the mandate and its enforcement are impartial considering that the reality is indisputably that the mandate was adopted to prevent Gaddafi from (bloodily) winning the war and it has been enforced in such a way as to destroy Gaddafi's military capabilities while several of the wealthier member states officially enforcing this impartial mandate have been collaborating with and equipping rebel forces. And if that argument against changing the infobox to a three-combatant format is taken, then the "supported by" section seems to have scant justification. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of text

A large amount of text was removed from the article between 21 April and 22 April 2011, including reference to the use of cluster bombs. I have always been sceptical about the cluster bombs for the reason I have given at Talk:Cluster_bomb#Labelling_of_cluster_bombs but I didn't remove it. Editors might like to check to see what else has been removed. Biscuittin (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If it was in the section that was formally named something like military developments of April I summarized a great deal of the text. It was previously written as a timeline rather that summary style.Labattblueboy (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you remove the reference to cluster bombs because you are sceptical about them too, or was it a mistake? Biscuittin (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't be skeptical about the cluster ammunitions - it is definitely a NATO produced 120mm mortar round with submunitions that the various news reports show i.e.. How Libya got their hands on so many MAT-120 rounds I guess we will have to ask the Spanish government. noclador (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
How did Libya come into possession of NATO weapons? Somebody in NATO has some explaining to do. Do bombs have serial numbers? Biscuittin (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a saying "Truth is the first casualty of war" and I am sceptical about everything I read in relation to war. Biscuittin (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
See Arthur Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby of Shulbrede. Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
no-no, these are not NATO weapons! NATO per se has no weapons. These are Spanish produced weapons and Spain has to do the explaining. Either the Spanish government allowed the export of these weapons to Libya or the Spanish company Instalaza sold them to some country, and then this country shipped them to Libya. NATO has nothing to do with this; NATO just sets the standards for weapons produced and used in member countries. The export of weapons falls under national authority and the Spanish government does know exactly when and how many of these mortar rounds have been shipped out of Spain. The only surprise here is that no major news source has until now gone to Spain to ask question about who allowed these weapons to be shipped out of Spain. noclador (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that Spain sold these cluster bombs to Libya in 2007, before the Convention on Cluster Munitions came into force, so the sale would have been legal. Since Libya has not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions their use by Libya would also be legal. There is, therefore, nothing for "major news sources" to investigate because everything is technically legal. Biscuittin (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Are there any weapons that are banned without individual countries having to agree to the ban? Biscuittin (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Uff, this question goes so deep in international law that I have no idea what the answer to this might be. sorry. noclador (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

In short: No. In long: applicability of every single international law (except UNSC rulings) is based on state's explicit consent. UN Charter including.92.52.55.29 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Army pulls out of Misrata

BBC has reported that the Deputy Foreign minister of the Gaddafi regime said the army has pulled out of Misrata. Can we please change the colour on the map Army Pulls Out Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, as long as there is no evidence that the Libyan Army has actually pulled out of Misurata, we should not change the map. Talk is one thing, events on the ground a totally other thing. noclador (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Lower bound of total deaths

It's still set to 2000, with quite an old reference for that number. Surely nobody thinks it's still that low. Can we find a new lowest estimate? 99.251.196.72 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, i saw you said there are alleged links to Al Qaeda but you have written down that the rebels have denied it, I think its should be edited to include this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.60.73 (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And another Osama-bin-Ladens-buddy rebel commander killed recently around Brega is briefly mentioned here [134] 77.45.134.2 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the first was discounted in the original discussion for reasons I don't remember. As for "The Omar Mukhtar brigade commander, until he was killed on Friday in an attack on Brega, was Abdelmonem Mukhtar Mohammed, a man with long experience in the armed opposition movement known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who had also spent time in Afghanistan and had met Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to the Los Angeles Times." I don't think that really makes him buddies with the guy or even an associate tbh, he just met with the guy which could mean they said hello at some point or maybe there was some handshaking recieving line. Anyone disagree and think this is worhty of mention? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
as for the first: we had that discussion already twice; the result: a) the headline is NOT backed up by anything in the article b) this is to insignificant a person to mention it c) the original article of Il sole 24 ore actually contradicts the headline of the telegraph. Therefore the article is discounted. as for the second: I agree with Flinders Petrie that this does not merit a inclusion of al-Qaeda in this conflict. noclador (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Then again, tall tales about the mercenaries on Gaddafi side aren't any better. So why "foreign mercenaries" are still there in the infobox unlike LIFG or al-Qaeda, and even "limited/alleged" note was removed (thus stating significant mercenary presence as a proven fact)? 77.45.134.2 (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so your the same guy from Voronezh who is bringing up the same article from the telegraph for a third time! a tip: move on! EOD. noclador (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really from Voronezh, i provided a different link this time, and you're clearly evading the question about the mercenaries!! 77.45.205.127 (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"Echoing sentiments expressed by US Senator McCain with regards extremist or al-Qaeda elements fighting alongside Libya's rebel fighters, US Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military's joint chiefs of staff, said during a trip to Baghdad: We're watchful of it, mindful of it and I just haven't seen much of it at all. In fact, I've seen no al-Qaeda representation there at all."here at 12:04pm al-Qaeda= only in Gaddafis world. noclador (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
So, is NATO chief in Europe admiral Stavridis living in "Gaddafis world" too? :D And again, WHAT ABOUT THE MERCENARIES? 77.45.228.211 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
What is EOD? I've seen it in several places now and looked it up under EOD. It's not Explosive Ordinance Disposal ofc, does it mean End of Data here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I picked EOD up at the endless naming debate at South Tyrol (thank god it is over now!) it stands for "End Of Discussion"; a more colorful expression for the same is the Wikipedia:Snowball clause :-) noclador (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Always fun to deal with irredentists (Italian-speaking Austrians after all). Alrighty then, now I get it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong naming of article

This is clearly not a civil war, as most of the "professional" bombing is done by external aggressors and weapons.

Could the article please be accordingly renamed to "2011 Libyan World War"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest just 2011 Libyan war, compare Iraq War. Biscuittin (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I duggest just Libyan war. --Alexmilt (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the request to remove "civil" from the title is a reasonable one. It may have started off as a civil war but it has developed into a western-backed "regime change" war like the one in Iraq. Biscuittin (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ, were are the ground troops if this is like Iraq??? noclador (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
They haven't arrived yet but the "military advisors" are there already so I expect the ground troops will not be far behind. Biscuittin (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not a civil war. Whoever put that in has no ideas what a civil war is or what's going in Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.204 (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Spanish Civil War is called a civil war despite all the foreign intervention going on there.--94.175.92.59 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As said over 100 times before, we use whatever the WP:COMMONNAME at the time is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I figured I would toss in my two cents. would this be similar to the AMerican Revolution or French Revolution. Or even The American civil war. The American Revolution had assistance from the french. ANd really the only deifferance between it and the civil war was a matter of who won. Has the south broke off it would have been a revolution of a sort for the southern states. They are fighting for independance from a dictator with intentions of revolutionizing their government. I could see it as either. Where the names ends up I don't really care to be honest. I would have to say that calling it the Libyan World War would be a bit off. This would suggest to me the Iraq and Afgan wars should be World wars too. And shouldn't the two known world wars be the German world war and the Japanese/German world war? I suggest waiting with where it stands an see what it will be when the dust settles. 64.134.235.85 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think "Civil War" works okay for reasons stated, though Libyan War is probably better and is probably the name that will prevail historically. For that reason alone "Libyan War" may be more provident. This war is not typical in that it began as a bona fide civil (largely inter-tribal) war with little more than foreign approbation. When the rebels were on the verge of committing the ultimate war crime (losing) the decision was taken by NATO to intervene to insure the installation of a regime to their liking. The war has now transitioned to a proxy war wherein a rebel force which is not remotely viable in nature is being wholly preserved and fostered in attempt to accomplish NATO's tacit political ends--which presumably coincide to the rebels' to some degree. (Had the war started out this way, "civil war" would be particularly inapt for it.) As it is, there is no one name that is perfect. Indeed, in the past, overlapping have been used, e.g., "French and Indian War" vs. "Seven Years' War," for different faces of the same conflict. However, unless you are going to divide this into two articles, you need one name that works validly for the whole beast. Since, due to the progress of events, the war will probably be viewed by history as at least 51% UN/NATO action, I think "Libyan War" does this best. Still some will say that the Libyans alone are on the ground, so it is their civil war and NATO is just supporting them. This ignores reality. This war is as surely a NATO versus country X war as the Kosovo War was. There would be nothing but an asymmetrical insurgency left but for NATO. In short, while it is desperately denied by the parties, the rebels are, militarily, agents of NATO power, not vis versa.

Why do we need the year?

The civil war is clearly the only one is happening. I think it is important enough to not include the date in the main article title. TheWilliamson (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

nato planes losses

nato planes losses are enough to be shown on the intervention page.--93.137.128.208 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you could add it to 2011 military intervention in Libya. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
you don't see it?--93.137.96.83 (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Repeated unconstructive edits by dynamic IP

I have put in a request for semi-protection, as we've had a rash of dynamic IP users coming here and trying to turn the page into a propaganda leaflet or something. Just a reminder to editors to be vigilant against this sort of thing; I've run into problems with it on 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey and the main 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Oh my, I didn't realise the Kurds were protesting, thanks for linking this article. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the IP vandalism at this point is so fast reverted by us, that we do not need semi-protection. Also if we do a semi-pro we keep out one of the most helpful editors [135], who only works as an IP. I think it would be better ask people on the other 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests to help by cross-watching all the articles that are repeatedly vandalized. noclador (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Fairly good point. I'm watching over the Kurdish Protests article now. Glad to see they're back in action. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
That's actually an older version of the article that a user keeps reverting to...I'd revert it (he/she was blocked for edit warring) but I'd be breaking the 3RR. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Number of Casualties on both sides should be updated. Last few days dozens of people have been killed on both sides.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, do you have some sources with reliable casualty figures? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
According to RTS medical authorities from Misurata say hat on April 28 Gaddafi forces killed at least 12 people ([136] ); Same source write about friendly fire victims on April 27 that 12 anti-Gaddafi soldiers have been killed by NATO ([137] Same information published New York times about friendly fire, and other information is by Reuters.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(I think that Googletranslate can help about translation).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Press TV report on Israeli Weapons

This was added to the article, and we discussed how to deal with it a while back: Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_8#Pre-empting_al-Jazeera_report_about_Israeli_weapons, where we would include that YNET says that the images shown on the original al-Jazeera report did not include anything that looked Israeli. Please note that YNET is privately owned by the way and that the Israeli government has no say in what they publish (something I probably should have brought up in that topic). It should also be noted that an NPR fellow, Andy Carvin (the last two paragraphs on his Wiki article are directly related and somewhat related respectively, though the article needs work), and his twitter followers apparently identified the so-called Star of David there as the symbol for air burst or something similar, however the places this story were put in are not RSs afaik (then again neither is PressTV for something like this of course). He did write about it himself on storify: [138]. It's talked about on other sites, but idk about them: [139] Kind of a blog, but links to good sources for this: [140], which was reposted on multiple sits. So it seems kind of clear cut, but how to use them without violating WP:SYNTH (with the images and the NATO manuals), and sites that while they might not RSs are presenting info that appears to be factual?

This is related and from a source about as reliable as PressTV's I guess: [141] -- Apparently a rebel claims a Palestinian fellow has been supplying Israeli weapons (this is in conjunction with the claim about their being Israeli weapons in the first place mind you). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PressTV is the mouthpiece of a dictator theocratic regime. News reported by them should be viewed very carefully.[142]--Rafy talk 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Well there was that too, but I didn't want to say anything. (We already had a big RS discussion earlier) :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're having such trouble fining sources on the issue, it is probably a relatively minor one and doesn't deserve mention in the article per WP:UNDUE. Although I haven't looked into it myself. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
It is only reported in two notable sources afaik (outside of the Muslim world where I can assume it's more widely known), but yeah for our purposes, we just have al-Jazeera making a claim and Iran parroting it, with YNet refuting it and then this NPR fellow (who appears to be significant when it comes to verifying stories) saying it is all hogwash. If we're going to have it at all, it needs to give due weight to the side saying it is BS (would this be covered under WP:FRINGE?, or not be included at all as it is a flimsy claim like the 50.000 Israeli mercs thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I think FRINGE is more for well-developed theories. This is just a rumor for now. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It does tie into the whole Israel/Zionists/Jews in general are behind/did/are responsible for (insert noun here) body of theories. (Only thing I was behind was that delicious Passover turkey) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Press TV report is utter nonsense and should be treated as such. It should certainly not be here. The report is based on Al-Jazeera footage available here which shows six pointed stars on several shells. All very ominous, except for the fact that the six pointed star is standard NATO designation for illumination flares. You can see it in a NATO manual here, page I-1-7. Just because Press TV is uninformed is no reason for us to propagate their nonsense. Poliocretes (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ya, it was mentioned in one of those things by the NPR guy, but I didn't know how to go about using it without synthing, but I thought it would be helpful nonetheless
That settles it... I took the liberty of [removing] the whole section.--Rafy talk 10:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

News-wise, Al-Jazeera can be a trusted news source. I think its called, "the CNN of the middle east". Even though it it headed by the ruler of Qatar, Its one of the freest news organization in the world. Now Press TV on the other hand is one of the mouth pieces of the Iranian regime and plus all tv stations in Iran are run by the government, no private stations are aloud in Iran. Plus most of its news is twisted from the truth so any news from Press tv needs to be checked very throuarlly before posting it on any Wik page. Nhajivandi (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Normally, yes, al-Jazeera is quite trusted, but for news on Israel, well they can't really be relied upon to relay accurate info. It then becomes like relying on Arutz Sheva for info on Palestinian activities. Particularly (and I mean this half jokingly) after one of the Israeli higher ups (maybe Daylan) said those rather rude things about him (the Emir) revealed in the Wikileaks. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that normal for Al-Jazeera Beirut bureau chief to resign over biased coverage of ME revolutions? See [143] 77.45.228.211 (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, didn't see this. Is there anymore news on this story? It could go in International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)/Archive_9&oldid=1172276191"