![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the intro it currently says that America has placed sanctions on Gaddafi's government. Further down the article, it says that Japan has too. Surely if one should be put in the intro, the other should be too? Munci ( talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Saw in the news that a group occupied a Qadafi family home in London as an informal "asset freeze". They're calling themself Topple the Tyrants, and they're getting media coverage already, so started a stub article on them and added to the template. Would appreciate any help in augmenting/updating. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Article apparently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 06:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this needed? As not seen this anywhere else and seems to be unfounded nationalistic rhetoric seeing how a no-fly zone has been called on by Arab nations to stop bombing of Libyan people by Gaddafi forces and the aid delivered by the UN. -- SuperDan89 ( talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You have to give a voice to different points of view. This view is quite widespread among leftist activists worldwide, and the section I added does not pretend that it is more than that. It clearly states that this is a view, and offers a rather representative and comprehensive example. Mainstream propaganda and the view of Arab governments do not represent "facts", a "neutral" view, nor the view of the Arab people. Is wikipedia to become just another mouthpiece for states and their propaganda? How do you expect people to determine the facts without all relevant information?
OK, I will provide references, but what constitutes "reliable sources" if what I am offering is a viewpoint? I can offer examples of media fabrications, but that only addresses one aspect of this view. Regards. - Hazem
Reports are that rebels still control the oil refinery and fighting is ongoing even though the main group of defenders retreated and Gaddafi's forces entered the town. I think it should be colored yellow on the map still. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've now had to re-add a reliable source as a reference multiple times because someone is desperate to keep Wikipedia from following WP:NPOV and representing both sides. If anyone disagrees that editorializing to call these allegations "malicious rumors" or "blatant lies" and removing references to reliable sources that claim otherwise does not fit with Wikipedia style or meet NPOV criteria, please let me know; otherwise I'm going to assume consensus and report the next violation I see for vandalism, because I'm tired of having to re-add the same reference and redo the wording just to keep both the Serbian government claims and and the contrary position fairly represented.
If someone truly believes the multiple sources claiming Serbian mercenaries have been used in Libya should not be given the time of day in this article, please present your argument here rather than editing the article to remove links and insert colorful prose about the allegations without consensus. Thanks. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
False reference and statement : As stated now "Prothom Alo" is wrong, it is actually Serbian magazine Alo...and not some Bangladeshi newspaper, also that reference (ref 284) goes to wrong page. Please correct it.-- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The timeline needs to be trimmed, as there is another separate article for it - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The timeline shouldn't just be trimmed, it should be arranged topically. I suggest something along the lines of:
These seem to be the three phases that characterize the conflict so far. At first it was unarmed protesters being shot down by regime troops. Then the protesters became armed rebels and took most of the Gulf of Sirte. Then the regime launched a counter offensive and took back most rebel-held territory outside of Cyrenaica. That's where we stand so far, and with the counter-offensive the character of the conflict has changed from "uprising" (a rebellion sweeping across the country) to "civil war" (two armed parties along a front). -- dab (𒁳) 11:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This graphic is not zoomable (in Firefox 3.6 at least), so it is hard to look at it in detail, and hard to see what's already on it. It would be good if that could be improved. Arfed ( talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Before pursuing on the topic, I'd like to ask what general consensus is on including the current influx of Libyan asylum seekers to Italy and the expected humanitarian crisis as Italy expects more to arrive as Libya continues to destabilise. I already have various sources lined up, which I hope is useful is adding to the article. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 (Italian) Link 4 (Italian) Link 5 (Italian) Link 6 Link 7 Thank you in advance! Eug.galeotti ( talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article has become clearly biased with the addition of Christopher Hitchens' view in the lede. "Conversely, a critic of the actual, inaction, in the face of Gaddafi regime violence, Christopher Hitchens, has observed : "Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is in fact the adoption of one. 'Neutrality' favors the side with the biggest arsenal. 'Nonintervention' is a form of intervention." especially with the "Gaddafi reginme violence" description of events. The entire article needs more balancing, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think flagging the whole article is misleading, my initial thought was that the whole conflict's depiction is disputed. Is it possible to only flag specific paragraph as disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.115.244 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The specific points pov statements have been removed from lead by now and remaining disputes fall into standard sourcing comments so removing pov hat for now. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Acording to Aljazeera Brega and Ras Lanuf is captures by pro-Gadaffi forces. Please change the colour of the map acordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is reporting that Libyan state TV has reported that rebells are withdrawing from Brega. [1]
It is now being reported that Brega is taken back in a night raid by the rebel forces [2] Tugrulirmak ( talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
All sources stated Rebel side and "The statement has not been independently confirmed." In other hand Ajdabiya under shelling. Lets wait for some more news/sources. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the Kadhafi forces control some part in western Libya near Bengazhi or are the rebels in control of the entire western part of the country. And if so it should be shown on the map to give a more complete picture of the general stituation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 ( talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'am sorry i mean the eastern part of Libya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 ( talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No wait the western —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.235.58 ( talk) 14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Gaddafi forces control the Eastern part of the country they held 100% of it until March 15th when Brega (An Eastern Libyan City) fell to Pro-Gaddafi forces and Benghazi who is currently faces some battles from Pro-Gaddafi forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.26.6 ( talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is true: "The Arab League also announced it now recognizes the National Transitional Council as the government of Libya.". This is sourced to Aljazeera's news update of March 12th. However, there were several contradictory claims surfacing during the day, so I don't think this source is appropriate in this case. I watched the live broadcast from the Arab League's press conference, and I'm pretty sure they didn't say anything about recognizing the rebel council. So I think this should be removed if we can't find a different source for it (e.g. the official resolutions from the Arab League). Alfons Åberg ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The article header has too many tags, and its occluding the article's readability. These are the tags currently on the page:
The link to The Mirror page cited as reference only mentions Egyptian Special forces who might have been let through the Tunisian-Libyan border by Tunisian Soldiers. Even if it is true, it does not imply Tunisians fighting on the rebel side, not even limited or alleged.-- 130.228.251.10 ( talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this article really need to go into that much deatil about his situation in Libya? As a whole the article should cover the main points in summary as this has turned into a huge ordeal. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
According to an article here, "all of the Western cities but Misarata" have been recaptured by pro-Gaddafi forces. [2] However, I see that there is an ongoing struggle to recapture a few mountain cities in the West, which are inaccessible by trucks. [3]
Should there be a change in the map? I have a feeling the Western cities that are labeled under rebel control are not entirely accurate.-- Screwball23 talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
time to address article length ( WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:TOOLONG).
article is now well over 180,000 bytes and accessibility is quite difficult. i'm on high-speed ( FIOS) connection with 2 gig of ram but editing is very sluggish.
it generally takes upward of 90 seconds to save (when it does save). i frequently get "wikipedia foundation" error messages when saving.
many citations are missing the 5 core ingredients (author, title, source, date, access date) to avoid link rot ( WP:LINKROT) and keep article within WP:VERIFY. i'm happy to slug through to complete/flush out citations, but now will abandon article until size constraints are addressed.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is too much vandalization and misinformation about this article that I request this article to be under (semi-) protection until further notice. Harmpie ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose. don't really see need. i've been following article for several days during which time blatant vandalism has not been overwhelming and generally been quickly reverted/excised. should vandalism or pov pushing escalate dramatically, that's another discussion.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The article says that airplanes operated by the rebels attacked Libyan government navy ships on March 15. This would be a very major development, but is sourced to "Zurf Military Aircraft". Is that a reliable source? Why don't any mainstream news sources mention it? Google news has no hits whatsoever for "Free Libyan Air Force. Even if they wee non-Libyan planes joining the fray, it would be a major development. This should probably be removed as someone's wishful thinking until better sourced. Edison ( talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
All of of this is a lie, the sources are corrupted and are biased. Poor wiki, with no certainty and too much presuppositions. =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.182.209 ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There are two rumors that are pending confirmation/sourced:
Youssef ( talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done some digging around and I'm forced to conclude "Almanara Media" doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It is only ever cited on the 17th February 2011 website, which has a record of making inaccurate claims, and its sources are never cited. Both sides are going to have their propaganda, and since we have something of a consensus here that Libyan State TV is pro-Gaddafi propaganda, I think we should probably recognize Almanara/17th February as anti-Gaddafi propaganda. No independent media is even addressing some of the present claims w/r/t fighting in Sirte, a kamikaze attack on the Bab Aziziya compound, dozens of Gaddafist soldiers defecting or being arrested, etc. In fact, it's currently unclear who is in control of Ajdabiya. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
libyafeb17.com is used as a source in this article. but it is a pro-rebel PR website not a reliable source of information . For the sake of neutrality it should be avoided. Srinivasasha ( talk) 02:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that for comparison purposes, in assessing this article's NPOV status, that interested Editors have a look at 2011 Bahraini protests. That article presents an objective and neutral tone with virtually no overt criticism at all of either the current response by the Ruler nor the past conduct of that country's Ruler, in spite of the existence of very critical news reports. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering the defection of Abdul Fatah Younis and the considerable number of troops with him, perhaps the troop numbers (for both opposition and government) should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torred Mirror ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Younis has defected three weeks ago [6]. If you can put a figure to the "considerable number" you mention, you are invited to report it at Libyan People's Army. I feel it is impossible to tell the strength of either side with more accuracy than "a few thousand". I also feel that the deciding factor isn't going to be numerical strength, but ammunition and petrol reserves. It sounds absurd to suggest the Libyans might run out of petrol, but of course you can't run engines on raw oil. Libya has five major refineries: [7]
This explains why the control of Ras Lanuf and Zawiya is essential. Gaddafi must be burning shitloads of petrol sending his troops 1000 km across the desert. The Zawiya refinery shut down a couple of days ago, [8] and the question is whether Gaddafi's side can get it to run again. I have no idea whether the Ras Lanuf refinery is still operable. -- dab (𒁳) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It was Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, not Abdul Fatah Younis :s. Regardless, al-Jazeera estimates he took 8,000 troops with him over to the rebels. ` 122.108.172.183 ( talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The Rebels have been seen to have between 5,000 and 15,000. However that is not including the defecting Air Units no matter how few. Or counting volunteers in small rural villages in the west, or small units fighting in Ajbidya,and Bani Waldi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Accordingly to the article, in March 16, "It was also reported that 2 battalions of Loyalist forces defected in Sirt, taking control of the city's airport.". So, I think that Sirt should be yellow in the map. I also note that Bani Walid is yellow for some long time and no news came from that place. Can someone check the current situation there? 187.43.252.16 ( talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian has a better-updated map, which is frequently updated. In it, by the way, Gharyan is correctly marked as held by pro-Gaddafi forces. I believe that city should be changed on the wikipedia page as well.-- Screwball23 talk 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ajdabiya has not been completely overrun by Gaddafi, he has surrounded it but not eliminated. Its kinda like Ah Zawiya where the Rebels control the inner city and the Libyan army controls the outskirts. 71.251.112.178 ( talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're coming here to start a "requested move", please see
WP:RM for instructions on how to properly list an RM. In particular, keep in mind that you're supposed to "subst" the {{
move}} template. Thanks!
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This encyclopedia can not be deemed serious withouththe acknowlegement of a wide consensus. This encyclopedia can not be reliable for it does not keep up to date with a civil war that has been raging for almost a month. Please spare us the "Oh it didn't match with the wiki rules" for the Wiki rules are very open to indivicual perception and one mans idea of matching the rules is not the other mans... Tugrulirmak ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment There will never be a media consensus on what to call any occurance in the world, consensus on the name must be found here and not within the media. We must also take the issue of a common name with a grain of salt, common names often emerge months or years after an event take place (i.e. world war two was not called world war two circa 1939). More importantly, the common name issue as discussed on the wikipedia policy page (WP:COMMONNAME) does not pertain to this issue as much as some have argued in the past. This policy is to ensure that people do not pull a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "well, that's his name". No one is trying to do that here so lets get on with the issue. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war. Furthermore, France has recognized the anti-gaddafi forces as the sole legitimate gov't, and the Arab League has said they wish to conduct talks with them (tacit recognition). Additionally, multiple major news outlets have called the situation in libya a civil war and google hits for "libyan civil war" now outnumber "libyan uprising". 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Would now support since there are now enough sources to support a renaming. That said, I only weakly support and have few objections to the status quo name because a "war" implies that there have been identifiable battles as opposed to one side largely rolling right over the other. If Benghazi falls without a shot fired the "civil war" title won't fit well.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment, uh oh, best to nip this in the bud. There is one dedicated rename spot for the article, and we don't want another mess. Let's wrap this one up with a nice bow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
On the opener its states the United States is supporting the Rebels and its cited by Youtube. Should that be eliminated until a better resource it found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
My english is very bad.... But how good friend of colonel can say anything. People about you talking, about democracy and human rights? Today economy and oil have full price, rest is coletar demage ....
Welcome to new world, mr. Orwell you have full right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.207.121 ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
He's got a point, Khadafie is an Orwellian psycho with lots of over-priced oil! 86.24.20.87 ( talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"over-priced oil" ? So we need take it? how pirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 ( talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalis? Wipsenade ( talk) 11:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalis are more honest than the French, English, .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 ( talk) 12:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Clo' Gadaffi's latest spech, a few days back; was rambling, untrue, incohrrent an bezarr. It seemed as HE was on the Al-Queada halusanagenic narco-drinks to me. Dose Colnell Gadaffi need to see Vision Exspress, or what? I dont know how he could mistake his one peoples for cockroches? It it battel fatgue? I dont understand and need help on the deaper aspect of Libyan culter prehaps? -- 82.18.197.19 ( talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
He was cacking a joke, dopy.-- 82.11.94.189 ( talk) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, rats! He called the Libyans "Rats" last month. Wipsenade ( talk) 10:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be left out until reliable sources can vet the claim he said this odd phraze. 75.177.190.19 ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.
Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, who does the reverting to the correct article now? If we all do it at the same time, we revert back to the wrong version all the time!!! noclador ( talk) 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[ [9]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[ [10]]
Nation | United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote | Political Side |
---|---|---|
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
Abstain | Rebels |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
A reluctant abstain | Pro-Gadhafi |
Wipsenade ( talk) 10:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant they always regularly vote 'no' to tough measures, show undue sympathy to Gadhafi, politically softly-softly, and alike ('soft allies' if you like'). At no time do I mean their as far committed as Zimbabwe, who is fighting alongside Gadhafi like ('hard allies', you might say) or worshiping him like the Latin American "revolutionary" leaders. No one is apparently as deluded and as Hugo Chavez! It's all a matter of degrees.
The UK is anti-Gadhafi, but France is very anti-Gadhafi (oil?) and the USA got cold feet since it is worried about a new Afghanistan/Iraq style endless troop commitment crisis. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Roak? 81.100.114.84 ( talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The "sides" was my own POV and was not to be article added unlike the rest. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if it's already there then no problem. I got it as news broke when I turned on my TV this morning. I the Googled up stuff. It was new and I thought I was first. If others got there first, I did not notice it. I just thought the main nations were mentioned, not places like Gabon to. It appears my notice was not a news exclusive, but out of date by several hours. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Wipsenade ( talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many conspiracy theories in the internet. (Some like "Israel supports Gaddafi by 50.000 mercenaries" can be tracked back to iranian Press TV. Others like mustang gas are the product of internet inventions) It is very easy to prove them wrong, but should they mentioned, since many people believe these internet-conspiracy which manage to outcommunicate the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.164 ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources? 81.100.114.84 ( talk) 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.
Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
(WARNING GRAPHIC) Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons used on people. Its VERY VERY GRAPHIC. Not for the weak hearted. if you have a weak tummy, dont open it; if you are pregnant, dont open it; if you have a heart problem, dont open it. Be warned. I couldnt take more the 2 sec. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ( added on March 13 by an unregistered, currently blocked, user) which part in the conflict is not confirmed/referenced, but I'm uncertain if al-Qaeda (added recently by an other unregistered editor) should be retained in the infobox? The only existing references related to al-Qaeda's participation are based upon Gaddafian propagandistic allegations and speculations based on them. I returned al-Qaeda with explanation on which is its inclusion there based upon, but I'm not sure if such an - clearly biased and non-partial - allegation is enough for inclusion in the infobox, even among the "alleged belligerents" (especially as even the reports from non-involved sources are far from being complete and fully objective at this moment). -- Hon-3s-T ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the addition of the US, UK, France, UAE and Qatar to the list of belligerents is a bit premature imo. We only saw a decision by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and none of these countries was mentioned in this resolution. We should wait and see who will actively participate in the military operation that might ensue. -- Rafy talk 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just an update– according to the AJE blog (March 18, 9:10 AM), Norway has also expressed a desire to join in the no-fly zone, though it is not immediately clear whether this will be purely humanitarian or if they will also send military support. Only "air capabilities" are mentioned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This needs further trimming. The Swedish foreign minister has said that Sweden will only even consider participating if asked by NATO, and that it will take a while for them to do so as the Swedish Airforce is not integrated with NATO. Shouldn't only the countries that we know will participate militarily be listed as belligerents?-- 212.107.151.249 ( talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The tag itself does not point to any specific discussion or issue, so I think the tag is vague and unnecessary. - 67.161.54.63 ( talk) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The article has become clearly biased with the addition of Christopher Hitchens' view in the lede. "Conversely, a critic of the actual, inaction, in the face of Gaddafi regime violence, Christopher Hitchens, has observed : "Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is in fact the adoption of one. 'Neutrality' favors the side with the biggest arsenal. 'Nonintervention' is a form of intervention." especially with the "Gaddafi reginme violence" description of events. The entire article needs more balancing, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think flagging the whole article is misleading, my initial thought was that the whole conflict's depiction is disputed. Is it possible to only flag specific paragraph as disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.115.244 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The specific points pov statements have been removed from lead by now and remaining disputes fall into standard sourcing comments so removing pov hat for now. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Another more recent example of pov by omission was the almost ignoring of the Cease Fire announcement last night which is always a big deal in any conflict. Look, most of us would like to see Gaddafi go, noone more than me, but that's for our blogs and sources to be pushing; this encyclopedia only has distictiveness when we set aside our personal feelings. A cease fire is a big deal and the fact it was so poorly represented in the article is just 1 more example of why the article is not NPOV at this time, in my opinion. The other more extreme issue is the wording of the section titles and the entire "Repressive system" section. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Somehow the biased section titles and other slantedness seems to have dissipated so I'm removing the hat. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever is erasing Hugo Chavez, Castro, Morales and Ortegas support for continuity of governance throughout Libya guided by the leadership example of Muammar Gadaffi is removing sourced content.. those dictators and totalitarian regimes are supporting their "friend". Do not erase sourced material, keep your POVs away from the article. They supported him, now they are gonna be held accounted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is being given as a source for some current content in the article: "11:11 Al Jazeera Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the Libyan Interim Council, tells Al Jazeera that residential areas in Benghazi are under attack by artillery and tanks. He also said that the plane shot down belongs to the rebels." with this being the "publication" [23]. Does anyone know whether the Rebels' planes are allowed to fly and drop bombs under the terms of the UN Resolution? If not, does theis mean the rebels are in violation of the resolution? Also, what do others think about this source? It does not seem like a Reliable source to me. The story is also repeated here [ [24]] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The caption for the picture reads as follows: "Libyan Air Force Mig-23 flown by the rebels, shot down over Benghazi by the rebels." I believe that the original author made a mistake. This was a Lybian aircraft flown by the rebels shot down by Pro Ghadafi Forces... I am correcting the caption to say "Libyan Air Force Mig-23 flown by the rebels, shot down over Benghazi by Gaddafi forces." Dreammaker182 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
This is something we need to talk about. We have a fox news story [25] saying thta the plane which was shot down (now identified as a rebel plane) was "bombing their(Rebels) eastern stronghold." How are we to deal with this? As Dreammaker points out, none of this makes sense unless there is some kind of False flag operation in play. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it's eiather abuse of ID marks as a ruse of war or he's changed side like that bloke who ejected out of his pliane and joined the rebels last mont.15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a False flag? 213.81.117.33 ( talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Its being widely reported now that the rebels have air power. I did not know they had airpower, did you? That means that the assumption being made that expolosions heard at night or bombs dropping from the air out in the desert came from government planes; it could have been the rebel plane trying to mislead the world's media, we really do not know, do we. So we must be extra careful about assuming, as an Editor does above, that when a CNN reporter hears an explosion that the explosion was a cease fire violation by Gadaffi's side. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll look up a source for yesterday's clime on the BBC that the rebels had a add hock Mil Mi-2 (?) helicopter gunship. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a rag-tag malitia[ [26]][ [27]][ [28]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently they have a few MiG-25s. They did have a plane once [ [29]] and a tank still gose on [ [30]], but I cant finde the Mil Mi-2 hellie's source. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It is well kown and shown on the BBC that they have a few suport vehicels like trucks, AK47s, AA guns and S-75 Dvina/ S-125 Neva/Pechora SAM missiles[ [31]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw long time ally president afewerki of Eritrea sent 200 commandos to help the pro-gadaffi side. There is also a youtube video with a libyan guy talking about them in arabic I just thought it should go in the belligerant section. I also heard some rumors of Syrian forces as well but that I can't confirm
I saw long time ally president afewerki of Eritrea sent 200 commandos to help the pro-gadaffi side. There is also a youtube video with a libyan guy talking about them in arabic I just thought it should go in the belligerant section. I also heard some rumors of Syrian forces as well but that I can't confirm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.105.67.61 (
talk)
18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Numerous eyewitnesses and identity documents of captured soldiers show that Gaddafi is employing foreign nationalities to attack on Libyan civilians. None of the African mercenaries' governments support Libya and Chad has traditionally been at odds with Libya over the Aozou Strip.
"French-speaking" fighters apparently come from neighbouring African countries such as Chad and Niger. However, some have urged caution, saying that Libya has a significant black population who could be mistaken for mercenaries but are actually serving in the regular army. [4] Also, many Chadian soldiers who fought for Gaddafi in past conflicts with Chad were given Libyan citizenship. [4]
On 18 February, it was alleged that "armed forces with military members from Chad" were operating in Benghazi, having been "paid for 5,000 (Dinars) and the latest car models just to get rid of demonstrators." [5] Twelve people were killed on the Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi when forces opened fire. [5]
On 19 February, several Chadian mercenaries were captured in eastern Libya.
[6]
On 21 February a lawyer working in Benghazi said that a local ‘security committee’ formed by native civilians on the 21st took control of the city had arrested 36 “mercenaries” from Chad, Niger and Sudan who were hired by Gaddafi’s body guards or ‘Praetorian Guard’ to fight in the city. [7]
On 22 February, there were reports of mercenaries from Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and possibly even Asia and Eastern Europe, fighting in Al Bayda. A 21-year-old university student called Saddam claimed mercenaries had killed 150 people in the previous two days in the city of Al Bayda. [8] Various other accusations told of Chadians operating in Southern Libya, Benghazi and Tripoli. [9] Mercenaries from Chad, Mali and Niger were reportedly working in the rest of eastern Libya on suppressing the protests in Libya. [10]
On 23 February, there was a report that Gaddafi had deployed French-speaking mercenaries from nearby countries such as Mali, Niger and Chad. [10] Hired killers from Chad and Niger were reported to be in Bengazi and other eastern cities [11] on the 23rd.
On 24 February, the Aruba School in the coastal town of Shehat became the prison for almost 200 suspected pro-Gaddafi mercenaries from countries such as Niger and Chad. [12] They were reported to be part of Libya's " Khamees' battalion", the well-equipped 32nd brigade led by Khamis Gaddafi. [12] It was confirmed on the 24th by Col Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Malian, Nigerien, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping the besieged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi fight off an uprising. [13] He said that the mercenaries were jobless ex-soldiers and officers who were enticed to Libya's civil war by the offer of money. [14]
On 25 February, speculation that members of the Zimbabwe National Army were covertly fighting in Libya to help prop up cornered Colonel Muammar Gaddafi grew as Zimbabwe’s Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa avoided giving a straight answer to a question posed in Parliament about it. [15] On the same day, the Foreign Ministry of Chad denied allegations that mercenaries were fighting for Gaddafi, although he admitted it was possible that individuals had joined such groups. [16]
The Serbian Ministry of Defence denied rumors that of any of its active or retired personnel participating in the events in Libya as "total stupidity". [17] Gaddafi, in Serbian interview from Gaddafi that was the first one granted to foreign press, day before BBC and ABC interviews, pointed as an example of propaganda that a Serbian officer refused to lie for money and claim that Sebian plains and pilots are involved, confirming that there are no Serbs involved in the conflict. [18] [19]
Many eyewitnesses have documented how mercenaries have taken over ambulances to kill injured protesters. [20] [21] [22] Wipsenade ( talk) 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
belgrade-tripoli
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In the intro it currently says that America has placed sanctions on Gaddafi's government. Further down the article, it says that Japan has too. Surely if one should be put in the intro, the other should be too? Munci ( talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Saw in the news that a group occupied a Qadafi family home in London as an informal "asset freeze". They're calling themself Topple the Tyrants, and they're getting media coverage already, so started a stub article on them and added to the template. Would appreciate any help in augmenting/updating. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Article apparently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants. Thoughts? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 06:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this needed? As not seen this anywhere else and seems to be unfounded nationalistic rhetoric seeing how a no-fly zone has been called on by Arab nations to stop bombing of Libyan people by Gaddafi forces and the aid delivered by the UN. -- SuperDan89 ( talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You have to give a voice to different points of view. This view is quite widespread among leftist activists worldwide, and the section I added does not pretend that it is more than that. It clearly states that this is a view, and offers a rather representative and comprehensive example. Mainstream propaganda and the view of Arab governments do not represent "facts", a "neutral" view, nor the view of the Arab people. Is wikipedia to become just another mouthpiece for states and their propaganda? How do you expect people to determine the facts without all relevant information?
OK, I will provide references, but what constitutes "reliable sources" if what I am offering is a viewpoint? I can offer examples of media fabrications, but that only addresses one aspect of this view. Regards. - Hazem
Reports are that rebels still control the oil refinery and fighting is ongoing even though the main group of defenders retreated and Gaddafi's forces entered the town. I think it should be colored yellow on the map still. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've now had to re-add a reliable source as a reference multiple times because someone is desperate to keep Wikipedia from following WP:NPOV and representing both sides. If anyone disagrees that editorializing to call these allegations "malicious rumors" or "blatant lies" and removing references to reliable sources that claim otherwise does not fit with Wikipedia style or meet NPOV criteria, please let me know; otherwise I'm going to assume consensus and report the next violation I see for vandalism, because I'm tired of having to re-add the same reference and redo the wording just to keep both the Serbian government claims and and the contrary position fairly represented.
If someone truly believes the multiple sources claiming Serbian mercenaries have been used in Libya should not be given the time of day in this article, please present your argument here rather than editing the article to remove links and insert colorful prose about the allegations without consensus. Thanks. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
False reference and statement : As stated now "Prothom Alo" is wrong, it is actually Serbian magazine Alo...and not some Bangladeshi newspaper, also that reference (ref 284) goes to wrong page. Please correct it.-- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The timeline needs to be trimmed, as there is another separate article for it - ArnoldPlaton ( talk) 06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The timeline shouldn't just be trimmed, it should be arranged topically. I suggest something along the lines of:
These seem to be the three phases that characterize the conflict so far. At first it was unarmed protesters being shot down by regime troops. Then the protesters became armed rebels and took most of the Gulf of Sirte. Then the regime launched a counter offensive and took back most rebel-held territory outside of Cyrenaica. That's where we stand so far, and with the counter-offensive the character of the conflict has changed from "uprising" (a rebellion sweeping across the country) to "civil war" (two armed parties along a front). -- dab (𒁳) 11:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This graphic is not zoomable (in Firefox 3.6 at least), so it is hard to look at it in detail, and hard to see what's already on it. It would be good if that could be improved. Arfed ( talk) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Before pursuing on the topic, I'd like to ask what general consensus is on including the current influx of Libyan asylum seekers to Italy and the expected humanitarian crisis as Italy expects more to arrive as Libya continues to destabilise. I already have various sources lined up, which I hope is useful is adding to the article. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 (Italian) Link 4 (Italian) Link 5 (Italian) Link 6 Link 7 Thank you in advance! Eug.galeotti ( talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article has become clearly biased with the addition of Christopher Hitchens' view in the lede. "Conversely, a critic of the actual, inaction, in the face of Gaddafi regime violence, Christopher Hitchens, has observed : "Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is in fact the adoption of one. 'Neutrality' favors the side with the biggest arsenal. 'Nonintervention' is a form of intervention." especially with the "Gaddafi reginme violence" description of events. The entire article needs more balancing, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think flagging the whole article is misleading, my initial thought was that the whole conflict's depiction is disputed. Is it possible to only flag specific paragraph as disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.115.244 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The specific points pov statements have been removed from lead by now and remaining disputes fall into standard sourcing comments so removing pov hat for now. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Acording to Aljazeera Brega and Ras Lanuf is captures by pro-Gadaffi forces. Please change the colour of the map acordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera is reporting that Libyan state TV has reported that rebells are withdrawing from Brega. [1]
It is now being reported that Brega is taken back in a night raid by the rebel forces [2] Tugrulirmak ( talk) 07:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
All sources stated Rebel side and "The statement has not been independently confirmed." In other hand Ajdabiya under shelling. Lets wait for some more news/sources. -- 94.140.88.117 ( talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the Kadhafi forces control some part in western Libya near Bengazhi or are the rebels in control of the entire western part of the country. And if so it should be shown on the map to give a more complete picture of the general stituation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 ( talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'am sorry i mean the eastern part of Libya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.211.105 ( talk) 15:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No wait the western —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.235.58 ( talk) 14:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Gaddafi forces control the Eastern part of the country they held 100% of it until March 15th when Brega (An Eastern Libyan City) fell to Pro-Gaddafi forces and Benghazi who is currently faces some battles from Pro-Gaddafi forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.26.6 ( talk) 23:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is true: "The Arab League also announced it now recognizes the National Transitional Council as the government of Libya.". This is sourced to Aljazeera's news update of March 12th. However, there were several contradictory claims surfacing during the day, so I don't think this source is appropriate in this case. I watched the live broadcast from the Arab League's press conference, and I'm pretty sure they didn't say anything about recognizing the rebel council. So I think this should be removed if we can't find a different source for it (e.g. the official resolutions from the Arab League). Alfons Åberg ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The article header has too many tags, and its occluding the article's readability. These are the tags currently on the page:
The link to The Mirror page cited as reference only mentions Egyptian Special forces who might have been let through the Tunisian-Libyan border by Tunisian Soldiers. Even if it is true, it does not imply Tunisians fighting on the rebel side, not even limited or alleged.-- 130.228.251.10 ( talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this article really need to go into that much deatil about his situation in Libya? As a whole the article should cover the main points in summary as this has turned into a huge ordeal. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
According to an article here, "all of the Western cities but Misarata" have been recaptured by pro-Gaddafi forces. [2] However, I see that there is an ongoing struggle to recapture a few mountain cities in the West, which are inaccessible by trucks. [3]
Should there be a change in the map? I have a feeling the Western cities that are labeled under rebel control are not entirely accurate.-- Screwball23 talk 12:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
time to address article length ( WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:TOOLONG).
article is now well over 180,000 bytes and accessibility is quite difficult. i'm on high-speed ( FIOS) connection with 2 gig of ram but editing is very sluggish.
it generally takes upward of 90 seconds to save (when it does save). i frequently get "wikipedia foundation" error messages when saving.
many citations are missing the 5 core ingredients (author, title, source, date, access date) to avoid link rot ( WP:LINKROT) and keep article within WP:VERIFY. i'm happy to slug through to complete/flush out citations, but now will abandon article until size constraints are addressed.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There is too much vandalization and misinformation about this article that I request this article to be under (semi-) protection until further notice. Harmpie ( talk) 00:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
oppose. don't really see need. i've been following article for several days during which time blatant vandalism has not been overwhelming and generally been quickly reverted/excised. should vandalism or pov pushing escalate dramatically, that's another discussion.-- 96.232.126.111 ( talk) 13:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The article says that airplanes operated by the rebels attacked Libyan government navy ships on March 15. This would be a very major development, but is sourced to "Zurf Military Aircraft". Is that a reliable source? Why don't any mainstream news sources mention it? Google news has no hits whatsoever for "Free Libyan Air Force. Even if they wee non-Libyan planes joining the fray, it would be a major development. This should probably be removed as someone's wishful thinking until better sourced. Edison ( talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
All of of this is a lie, the sources are corrupted and are biased. Poor wiki, with no certainty and too much presuppositions. =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.182.209 ( talk) 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. There are two rumors that are pending confirmation/sourced:
Youssef ( talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've done some digging around and I'm forced to conclude "Almanara Media" doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It is only ever cited on the 17th February 2011 website, which has a record of making inaccurate claims, and its sources are never cited. Both sides are going to have their propaganda, and since we have something of a consensus here that Libyan State TV is pro-Gaddafi propaganda, I think we should probably recognize Almanara/17th February as anti-Gaddafi propaganda. No independent media is even addressing some of the present claims w/r/t fighting in Sirte, a kamikaze attack on the Bab Aziziya compound, dozens of Gaddafist soldiers defecting or being arrested, etc. In fact, it's currently unclear who is in control of Ajdabiya. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
libyafeb17.com is used as a source in this article. but it is a pro-rebel PR website not a reliable source of information . For the sake of neutrality it should be avoided. Srinivasasha ( talk) 02:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that for comparison purposes, in assessing this article's NPOV status, that interested Editors have a look at 2011 Bahraini protests. That article presents an objective and neutral tone with virtually no overt criticism at all of either the current response by the Ruler nor the past conduct of that country's Ruler, in spite of the existence of very critical news reports. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering the defection of Abdul Fatah Younis and the considerable number of troops with him, perhaps the troop numbers (for both opposition and government) should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torred Mirror ( talk • contribs) 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Younis has defected three weeks ago [6]. If you can put a figure to the "considerable number" you mention, you are invited to report it at Libyan People's Army. I feel it is impossible to tell the strength of either side with more accuracy than "a few thousand". I also feel that the deciding factor isn't going to be numerical strength, but ammunition and petrol reserves. It sounds absurd to suggest the Libyans might run out of petrol, but of course you can't run engines on raw oil. Libya has five major refineries: [7]
This explains why the control of Ras Lanuf and Zawiya is essential. Gaddafi must be burning shitloads of petrol sending his troops 1000 km across the desert. The Zawiya refinery shut down a couple of days ago, [8] and the question is whether Gaddafi's side can get it to run again. I have no idea whether the Ras Lanuf refinery is still operable. -- dab (𒁳) 10:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It was Khalifa Belqasim Haftar, not Abdul Fatah Younis :s. Regardless, al-Jazeera estimates he took 8,000 troops with him over to the rebels. ` 122.108.172.183 ( talk) 13:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC) The Rebels have been seen to have between 5,000 and 15,000. However that is not including the defecting Air Units no matter how few. Or counting volunteers in small rural villages in the west, or small units fighting in Ajbidya,and Bani Waldi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Accordingly to the article, in March 16, "It was also reported that 2 battalions of Loyalist forces defected in Sirt, taking control of the city's airport.". So, I think that Sirt should be yellow in the map. I also note that Bani Walid is yellow for some long time and no news came from that place. Can someone check the current situation there? 187.43.252.16 ( talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian has a better-updated map, which is frequently updated. In it, by the way, Gharyan is correctly marked as held by pro-Gaddafi forces. I believe that city should be changed on the wikipedia page as well.-- Screwball23 talk 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Ajdabiya has not been completely overrun by Gaddafi, he has surrounded it but not eliminated. Its kinda like Ah Zawiya where the Rebels control the inner city and the Libyan army controls the outskirts. 71.251.112.178 ( talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're coming here to start a "requested move", please see
WP:RM for instructions on how to properly list an RM. In particular, keep in mind that you're supposed to "subst" the {{
move}} template. Thanks!
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This encyclopedia can not be deemed serious withouththe acknowlegement of a wide consensus. This encyclopedia can not be reliable for it does not keep up to date with a civil war that has been raging for almost a month. Please spare us the "Oh it didn't match with the wiki rules" for the Wiki rules are very open to indivicual perception and one mans idea of matching the rules is not the other mans... Tugrulirmak ( talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment There will never be a media consensus on what to call any occurance in the world, consensus on the name must be found here and not within the media. We must also take the issue of a common name with a grain of salt, common names often emerge months or years after an event take place (i.e. world war two was not called world war two circa 1939). More importantly, the common name issue as discussed on the wikipedia policy page (WP:COMMONNAME) does not pertain to this issue as much as some have argued in the past. This policy is to ensure that people do not pull a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "well, that's his name". No one is trying to do that here so lets get on with the issue. 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Support I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war. Furthermore, France has recognized the anti-gaddafi forces as the sole legitimate gov't, and the Arab League has said they wish to conduct talks with them (tacit recognition). Additionally, multiple major news outlets have called the situation in libya a civil war and google hits for "libyan civil war" now outnumber "libyan uprising". 174.114.87.236 ( talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Would now support since there are now enough sources to support a renaming. That said, I only weakly support and have few objections to the status quo name because a "war" implies that there have been identifiable battles as opposed to one side largely rolling right over the other. If Benghazi falls without a shot fired the "civil war" title won't fit well.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment, uh oh, best to nip this in the bud. There is one dedicated rename spot for the article, and we don't want another mess. Let's wrap this one up with a nice bow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
On the opener its states the United States is supporting the Rebels and its cited by Youtube. Should that be eliminated until a better resource it found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
My english is very bad.... But how good friend of colonel can say anything. People about you talking, about democracy and human rights? Today economy and oil have full price, rest is coletar demage ....
Welcome to new world, mr. Orwell you have full right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.207.121 ( talk) 02:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
He's got a point, Khadafie is an Orwellian psycho with lots of over-priced oil! 86.24.20.87 ( talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"over-priced oil" ? So we need take it? how pirates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 ( talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalis? Wipsenade ( talk) 11:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Somalis are more honest than the French, English, .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.57.103 ( talk) 12:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Clo' Gadaffi's latest spech, a few days back; was rambling, untrue, incohrrent an bezarr. It seemed as HE was on the Al-Queada halusanagenic narco-drinks to me. Dose Colnell Gadaffi need to see Vision Exspress, or what? I dont know how he could mistake his one peoples for cockroches? It it battel fatgue? I dont understand and need help on the deaper aspect of Libyan culter prehaps? -- 82.18.197.19 ( talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
He was cacking a joke, dopy.-- 82.11.94.189 ( talk) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, rats! He called the Libyans "Rats" last month. Wipsenade ( talk) 10:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It should be left out until reliable sources can vet the claim he said this odd phraze. 75.177.190.19 ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.
Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, who does the reverting to the correct article now? If we all do it at the same time, we revert back to the wrong version all the time!!! noclador ( talk) 10:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[ [9]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[ [10]]
Nation | United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote | Political Side |
---|---|---|
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Yes | Rebels |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
Abstain | Rebels |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
Abstain | Neutral |
![]() |
A reluctant abstain | Pro-Gadhafi |
Wipsenade ( talk) 10:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant they always regularly vote 'no' to tough measures, show undue sympathy to Gadhafi, politically softly-softly, and alike ('soft allies' if you like'). At no time do I mean their as far committed as Zimbabwe, who is fighting alongside Gadhafi like ('hard allies', you might say) or worshiping him like the Latin American "revolutionary" leaders. No one is apparently as deluded and as Hugo Chavez! It's all a matter of degrees.
The UK is anti-Gadhafi, but France is very anti-Gadhafi (oil?) and the USA got cold feet since it is worried about a new Afghanistan/Iraq style endless troop commitment crisis. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Roak? 81.100.114.84 ( talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The "sides" was my own POV and was not to be article added unlike the rest. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if it's already there then no problem. I got it as news broke when I turned on my TV this morning. I the Googled up stuff. It was new and I thought I was first. If others got there first, I did not notice it. I just thought the main nations were mentioned, not places like Gabon to. It appears my notice was not a news exclusive, but out of date by several hours. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
WP:OR and WP:SYNTH Wipsenade ( talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There are many conspiracy theories in the internet. (Some like "Israel supports Gaddafi by 50.000 mercenaries" can be tracked back to iranian Press TV. Others like mustang gas are the product of internet inventions) It is very easy to prove them wrong, but should they mentioned, since many people believe these internet-conspiracy which manage to outcommunicate the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.45.164 ( talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources? 81.100.114.84 ( talk) 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.
Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
(WARNING GRAPHIC) Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons used on people. Its VERY VERY GRAPHIC. Not for the weak hearted. if you have a weak tummy, dont open it; if you are pregnant, dont open it; if you have a heart problem, dont open it. Be warned. I couldnt take more the 2 sec. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ( added on March 13 by an unregistered, currently blocked, user) which part in the conflict is not confirmed/referenced, but I'm uncertain if al-Qaeda (added recently by an other unregistered editor) should be retained in the infobox? The only existing references related to al-Qaeda's participation are based upon Gaddafian propagandistic allegations and speculations based on them. I returned al-Qaeda with explanation on which is its inclusion there based upon, but I'm not sure if such an - clearly biased and non-partial - allegation is enough for inclusion in the infobox, even among the "alleged belligerents" (especially as even the reports from non-involved sources are far from being complete and fully objective at this moment). -- Hon-3s-T ( talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the addition of the US, UK, France, UAE and Qatar to the list of belligerents is a bit premature imo. We only saw a decision by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and none of these countries was mentioned in this resolution. We should wait and see who will actively participate in the military operation that might ensue. -- Rafy talk 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just an update– according to the AJE blog (March 18, 9:10 AM), Norway has also expressed a desire to join in the no-fly zone, though it is not immediately clear whether this will be purely humanitarian or if they will also send military support. Only "air capabilities" are mentioned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This needs further trimming. The Swedish foreign minister has said that Sweden will only even consider participating if asked by NATO, and that it will take a while for them to do so as the Swedish Airforce is not integrated with NATO. Shouldn't only the countries that we know will participate militarily be listed as belligerents?-- 212.107.151.249 ( talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The tag itself does not point to any specific discussion or issue, so I think the tag is vague and unnecessary. - 67.161.54.63 ( talk) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The article has become clearly biased with the addition of Christopher Hitchens' view in the lede. "Conversely, a critic of the actual, inaction, in the face of Gaddafi regime violence, Christopher Hitchens, has observed : "Doing nothing is not the absence of a policy; it is in fact the adoption of one. 'Neutrality' favors the side with the biggest arsenal. 'Nonintervention' is a form of intervention." especially with the "Gaddafi reginme violence" description of events. The entire article needs more balancing, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think flagging the whole article is misleading, my initial thought was that the whole conflict's depiction is disputed. Is it possible to only flag specific paragraph as disputed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.115.244 ( talk) 12:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The specific points pov statements have been removed from lead by now and remaining disputes fall into standard sourcing comments so removing pov hat for now. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Another more recent example of pov by omission was the almost ignoring of the Cease Fire announcement last night which is always a big deal in any conflict. Look, most of us would like to see Gaddafi go, noone more than me, but that's for our blogs and sources to be pushing; this encyclopedia only has distictiveness when we set aside our personal feelings. A cease fire is a big deal and the fact it was so poorly represented in the article is just 1 more example of why the article is not NPOV at this time, in my opinion. The other more extreme issue is the wording of the section titles and the entire "Repressive system" section. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Somehow the biased section titles and other slantedness seems to have dissipated so I'm removing the hat. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever is erasing Hugo Chavez, Castro, Morales and Ortegas support for continuity of governance throughout Libya guided by the leadership example of Muammar Gadaffi is removing sourced content.. those dictators and totalitarian regimes are supporting their "friend". Do not erase sourced material, keep your POVs away from the article. They supported him, now they are gonna be held accounted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 ( talk) 23:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is being given as a source for some current content in the article: "11:11 Al Jazeera Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the Libyan Interim Council, tells Al Jazeera that residential areas in Benghazi are under attack by artillery and tanks. He also said that the plane shot down belongs to the rebels." with this being the "publication" [23]. Does anyone know whether the Rebels' planes are allowed to fly and drop bombs under the terms of the UN Resolution? If not, does theis mean the rebels are in violation of the resolution? Also, what do others think about this source? It does not seem like a Reliable source to me. The story is also repeated here [ [24]] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The caption for the picture reads as follows: "Libyan Air Force Mig-23 flown by the rebels, shot down over Benghazi by the rebels." I believe that the original author made a mistake. This was a Lybian aircraft flown by the rebels shot down by Pro Ghadafi Forces... I am correcting the caption to say "Libyan Air Force Mig-23 flown by the rebels, shot down over Benghazi by Gaddafi forces." Dreammaker182 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
This is something we need to talk about. We have a fox news story [25] saying thta the plane which was shot down (now identified as a rebel plane) was "bombing their(Rebels) eastern stronghold." How are we to deal with this? As Dreammaker points out, none of this makes sense unless there is some kind of False flag operation in play. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it's eiather abuse of ID marks as a ruse of war or he's changed side like that bloke who ejected out of his pliane and joined the rebels last mont.15:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a False flag? 213.81.117.33 ( talk) 15:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Its being widely reported now that the rebels have air power. I did not know they had airpower, did you? That means that the assumption being made that expolosions heard at night or bombs dropping from the air out in the desert came from government planes; it could have been the rebel plane trying to mislead the world's media, we really do not know, do we. So we must be extra careful about assuming, as an Editor does above, that when a CNN reporter hears an explosion that the explosion was a cease fire violation by Gadaffi's side. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll look up a source for yesterday's clime on the BBC that the rebels had a add hock Mil Mi-2 (?) helicopter gunship. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a rag-tag malitia[ [26]][ [27]][ [28]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently they have a few MiG-25s. They did have a plane once [ [29]] and a tank still gose on [ [30]], but I cant finde the Mil Mi-2 hellie's source. Wipsenade ( talk) 16:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It is well kown and shown on the BBC that they have a few suport vehicels like trucks, AK47s, AA guns and S-75 Dvina/ S-125 Neva/Pechora SAM missiles[ [31]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw long time ally president afewerki of Eritrea sent 200 commandos to help the pro-gadaffi side. There is also a youtube video with a libyan guy talking about them in arabic I just thought it should go in the belligerant section. I also heard some rumors of Syrian forces as well but that I can't confirm
I saw long time ally president afewerki of Eritrea sent 200 commandos to help the pro-gadaffi side. There is also a youtube video with a libyan guy talking about them in arabic I just thought it should go in the belligerant section. I also heard some rumors of Syrian forces as well but that I can't confirm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
208.105.67.61 (
talk)
18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Numerous eyewitnesses and identity documents of captured soldiers show that Gaddafi is employing foreign nationalities to attack on Libyan civilians. None of the African mercenaries' governments support Libya and Chad has traditionally been at odds with Libya over the Aozou Strip.
"French-speaking" fighters apparently come from neighbouring African countries such as Chad and Niger. However, some have urged caution, saying that Libya has a significant black population who could be mistaken for mercenaries but are actually serving in the regular army. [4] Also, many Chadian soldiers who fought for Gaddafi in past conflicts with Chad were given Libyan citizenship. [4]
On 18 February, it was alleged that "armed forces with military members from Chad" were operating in Benghazi, having been "paid for 5,000 (Dinars) and the latest car models just to get rid of demonstrators." [5] Twelve people were killed on the Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi when forces opened fire. [5]
On 19 February, several Chadian mercenaries were captured in eastern Libya.
[6]
On 21 February a lawyer working in Benghazi said that a local ‘security committee’ formed by native civilians on the 21st took control of the city had arrested 36 “mercenaries” from Chad, Niger and Sudan who were hired by Gaddafi’s body guards or ‘Praetorian Guard’ to fight in the city. [7]
On 22 February, there were reports of mercenaries from Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Mali, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and possibly even Asia and Eastern Europe, fighting in Al Bayda. A 21-year-old university student called Saddam claimed mercenaries had killed 150 people in the previous two days in the city of Al Bayda. [8] Various other accusations told of Chadians operating in Southern Libya, Benghazi and Tripoli. [9] Mercenaries from Chad, Mali and Niger were reportedly working in the rest of eastern Libya on suppressing the protests in Libya. [10]
On 23 February, there was a report that Gaddafi had deployed French-speaking mercenaries from nearby countries such as Mali, Niger and Chad. [10] Hired killers from Chad and Niger were reported to be in Bengazi and other eastern cities [11] on the 23rd.
On 24 February, the Aruba School in the coastal town of Shehat became the prison for almost 200 suspected pro-Gaddafi mercenaries from countries such as Niger and Chad. [12] They were reported to be part of Libya's " Khamees' battalion", the well-equipped 32nd brigade led by Khamis Gaddafi. [12] It was confirmed on the 24th by Col Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Malian, Nigerien, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping the besieged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi fight off an uprising. [13] He said that the mercenaries were jobless ex-soldiers and officers who were enticed to Libya's civil war by the offer of money. [14]
On 25 February, speculation that members of the Zimbabwe National Army were covertly fighting in Libya to help prop up cornered Colonel Muammar Gaddafi grew as Zimbabwe’s Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa avoided giving a straight answer to a question posed in Parliament about it. [15] On the same day, the Foreign Ministry of Chad denied allegations that mercenaries were fighting for Gaddafi, although he admitted it was possible that individuals had joined such groups. [16]
The Serbian Ministry of Defence denied rumors that of any of its active or retired personnel participating in the events in Libya as "total stupidity". [17] Gaddafi, in Serbian interview from Gaddafi that was the first one granted to foreign press, day before BBC and ABC interviews, pointed as an example of propaganda that a Serbian officer refused to lie for money and claim that Sebian plains and pilots are involved, confirming that there are no Serbs involved in the conflict. [18] [19]
Many eyewitnesses have documented how mercenaries have taken over ambulances to kill injured protesters. [20] [21] [22] Wipsenade ( talk) 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
belgrade-tripoli
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).