![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
From the Radio Television of Serbia show Q&A session [1] with Miroslav Lazanski. (translation is mine)
Libya and Gaddafi - overturn of dictator or war for oil?
Answers (A:) given by Miroslav Lazanski most prominent Serbia political-military analyst.
Q: ...Libya claims this is war for oil.
A: Easter part that rebelled was never supportive of Gaddafi, and they say he never loved them or invested in that party of a country. There are those tribes and they say tribes from the east don't like them, he didn't invest enough into development in the area, while central and west part like them more, but its all relative because there are both sentiments within all tribes.
Q: Is it with a reason? Are there elements of dictatorship in that system?
A: It certainly is not democratic from the point of view of Europe. But you find me in that part of the world from Maroco to Saudi Arabia a single Arab country which is completely democratic. Maybe Lebanon which has elections. Every country has military government, or monarchy, or presidential dictatorship. Every country there has one of those, and now only Libya is a problem. Let's look at economics of that social revolt, do you know Libya students who live and study in Serbia what they get: they have paid stay, flat, food, car, books, and get a stipend of 2300 euros a month. Every student from Libya that goes to England, USA, anywhere, gets everything paid by the state. Sure it's a dictatorship, but dictatorship where no citizen of Libya pais for electricity, water, gas, where 1 Euro buys 17 litters of best gasoline, where everyone who turns 18 years gets keys of apartment, that is unbeliavable, where one million is working, 6.4 million exist, there are over 1.5 million of citizens of other countries working hard labor jobs. Unbelievable. I haven't seen in Tripoli a single beggar.
89.216.196.129 ( talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the infobox lists the two sides as Libya and Libyan Republic(interm council)*. Now I may be wrong but I don't see anywheres where the council states they are a republic. Shouldn't it be Libya and Interm council.? -- Wilson ( talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war? Fledgling rebel government's behavior so far offers few clues to movement's true nature By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
TRIPOLI — The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?
The answer could determine the course of both the Libyan uprising and the results of the Western intervention. In the West’s preferred chain of events, airstrikes enable the rebels to unite with the currently passive residents of the western region around Tripoli, under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution that topples Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
He, however, has predicted the opposite: that the revolt is a tribal war of eastern Libya against the west that ends in either his triumph or a prolonged period of chaos.
“It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist at Georgetown University who has studied Libya. “It could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with.”
Continued at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/?gt1=43001
Interesting in light of discussions on this page. -- Avanu ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
French aircraft are over Libya (BBC) [ [5]][ [6]]!!! Wipsenade ( talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Canada, Qatar, Spanish, German, Dutch, UK, Italian (spy), Belgian aircraft are coming. The USA is talking of using some spy airfaft (BBC)[
[7]].
Wipsenade (
talk)
16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Canada, Holland, France and the UK are leading the way[ [8]][ [9]]. The USA and Quatar are to join later. [ [10]] . Wipsenade ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi sympathising Germany decided to take no role and went neutral, while Italy is only offering base access and a spy plane. [ [11]]. France shot a Libyan pro- Gaddafi fighter down at about 16.45. They have shot at a Libyan pro- Gaddafi vehcihel literally seconds ago. Wipsenade ( talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
first air strike against a ground vehicle according to live feed. ( source France Info).
Yep, it's destroyed acording to the BBC! Wipsenade ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Should we add in those countries (or perhaps the UN) under the Rebel "combatants" side? Its very clear their no-fly zone is one-sided, and that there is a very good chance it will escalate to strikes against Pro-Ghaddafi ground forces, even those not directly in combat at the moment. 170.232.128.10 ( talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[ [12]][ [13]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Quatar, Spain, Denmark and Italy are esnding planes. Algeria and Kuwaite might join in to (BBC). 82.14.51.216 ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The US lead coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain. [ [14]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
I'm noticing continual efforts(in the article text and the photo text) to challenge,minimize,bury and remove any referrences to identifying the plane that was shot down over Bengazi as being a rebel plane, that it was shot down(accidently perhaps) by rebels or that it was reported to have been bombing rebel territory.This is very important because the plane has been accused by the pro-Gaddafi forces as having been kn "blatant" breach of the no-fly zone. For npov purposes this event should not be censored out of the article. [15] [16] [17] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It was reportedly a rebel MiG, but was shot down by rebels[ [18]]. 82.14.48.234 ( talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A Rebel Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi. It was a rebel acording to the UK's Sunday times and CNN. 86.24.31.144 ( talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Fog of war! Wipsenade ( talk) 14:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Images of the shoot down. [ [19]][ [20]][ [21]] Wipsenade ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[ [22]][ [23]]. this is also being covered up.14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's being wiki censored! Wipsenade ( talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a minor event that should't be magnified out of proportions. Rafy talk 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Wiki just are hiding that, Libya is close to win.
I think it was an error in the fog of war, A French fighter hit a Libyan, not the other way round.[ [24]] Wipsenade ( talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article need to be updated.. it is not NEUTRAL. Template with the casualties should be edited, as France got one Mirage shot down and Italian ship was detained at Tripoli.[ [25]]
I'm intregued, let's look up this Italian ship. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Google?15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Author: It was confirmed by Italy officials!! Edit the template.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Augusta firm's offshore supply ship "Asso 22" has 8 Italians, 2 Indians, and 1 Ukrainian crew member aboard, all of whome were aressted on the 19th in Tripoli.They were arrested by Gadaffites on the 19th.[ [26]][ [27]][ [28]][ [29]][ [30]][ [31]] [ [32]] Wipsenade ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly... they are CPOW (Civilian Prisoners of War). As I said - the template need update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
The infobox currently lists Government forces taking 48 civilian casualties and 150 civilians injured from recent Western airstrikes. These numbers come from Libyan State Television which has been spitting out the most outrageous of claims in the past week. Also the fact that State TV said the casualties were "primarily women, children and religious clerics" and also reportedly said that Western forces specifically "targeted schools and hospitals" makes the claim only more outrageous. No news source has been able to verify any of the claims, and this is beginning to look more like propaganda than legitimate news. Its inclusion into the infobox for casualties makes it seem very biased, anyone agree? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-and-allies-launch-libya-force-as-gadhafi-strikes-rebel-heartland-regime-claims-48-dead/2011/03/19/ABhkEdx_story.html
Infernoapple ( talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to object to the phrase used in the casualty box: "Total number of people killed on both sides, includes protesters, rebel fighters, captives executed, government forces killed and civilians killed by NATO bombing". It implies that the only civilians killed (not including protestors) have been through NATO bombings. Though there will (and probably have been) some civilians killed by NATO-aligned countries in their bombing campaigns, I am assuming that the vast majority of the civilian casualties have been caused through the Libyan air/artillery bombardment of populated areas. I recommend removing part of the phrase "by NATO bombing" in its entirety, and if anything should be there it should read "by countries acting on the UN resolution".
Some people here are just biased... if Pentagon said they have shot down 100 planes from Libya - they will add it on the second... if Gadhafi said his forces have shot down 3 planes - it will be deleted or hidden. Strange people right here. Frajjsen ( talk) 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If we are including France, UK, US et. al. among the "belligerents" in this situation, then we can no longer accurately describe it as an "uprising." why? Macarion ( talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The original point was that they cannot be listed as belligerents in either an uprising or a civil war, and your reply did not address that point. Sometimes, trying to squeeze the entire article into an infobox no matter what isn't the best idea. They are belligerents in the coalition intervention in Libya, which has its own conflict infobox. -- dab (𒁳) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A US Air Force F-15 Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed due to mechanical failure in rebel held Libya. The crew ejected. [1] [2] Wipsenade ( talk) 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a neutrality tag added to this article. I understand some editions might be biased, but to declare the entire article as not neutral is ridiculous as for the most part the article is nothing but a collection of information from media outlets, newspapers and other sources. I believe that tag should either be removed or moved to the specific section that appears as POV. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
See:
![]() |
![]() | The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
neutrality is disputed <--- Place at the end of a sentence
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article was actually not horrible. But, at this point, I'm seeing almost unbelievable bias in the article. I can't even begin to describe what to do to fix it, except maybe roll back a few days to where it was actually reasonable. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years and now for some biased reason, I see the article describing him as 'Jamahiriya', which is a very unfamiliar term, and seems to want to minimize Gaddafi. In addition, a days- or weeks-old 'government' is being called 'transitional' as if it is the legitimate government now. We have journalists in the US and other nations calling this an undeclared and (at least in the US) an unconstitutional war, yet we aren't covering that. In short, this article is a mess. I implore my fellow editors to edit in a manner that is professional and without bias, and to try to recognize bias. This is just sad. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My 2 cents. Media from countries of involved parties have an inherent bias greater than media from other countries. So maybe more sources are needed outside of USA, England, France, and Libya. Currently USA/England news dominate the article. 89.216.196.129 ( talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Isralie media reports are in an islamaphobic frezy these days10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The oil thing is quite right and worth adding! Wipsenade ( talk) 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Germany's cabinet is due to pass a bill later today on approving the sending troops to crew NATO surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan, but will withdraw AWACS staff from the Mediterranean to avoid military involvement in the war with it’s closet-ally Libya. Germany already has 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and a few dozen in Kosovo[ [34]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
They are a bunch of boonie hats! 81.100.118.78 ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Will Libya have a possibly of a DMZ (division of West and East) in the future? --McAusten 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. Wipsenade ( talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Any opposition to including Libyan Civil War as alternate name in the lead. I personally oppose the page move but there is certainly enough usage to warrant it's inclusion as an alternate name.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Many outside observers consider the uprising to have become a civil war, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] but neither side actually involved in the armed struggle are using that term.
I haven't seen this on any of the extensive I've seen on this raid and it's mentioned nowhere in the NYT article that is being used a citation.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 ( talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to see Qatar in the infobox considering they commit 6 planes, no ships and no bases for the air exclusion zone. There are other countries far more involved that aren't present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.131.191 ( talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
All combatans shound be listed, whether it baces, planes or ships. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree about main and other. Thanks for finding the Romanian ship for us, I had not found it yet. Wipsenade ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
O.K. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
One only has to look at Naming the American Civil War to see that the use of "civil war" has some implications. The North, which was the established government and was victorious, never allowed it to be officially called a "civil war" because of its obvoius bias and historic struggle to keep the rebel government from being recognized. Avoiding issues about the qualities of established government and the rebels (good guys, bad guys, tyrants, whatever), it seems to me that there are a limited number of easily-quantified and measured parameters that we can use as a guideline to help build consensus on what a "threshold for civil war naming" might be. Here is a short list:
Can anyone else think of other such parameters? This is not a vote but an attempt to build a knowledge base and consensus (as opposed to the above vote-that-is-not-a-vote).-- 189.17.38.252 ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, should the UN forces not be moved to the combatant 3 column? While one could argue they are supporting the rebels, the UN resolution states the air strikes and no fly zone are to protect the civillians hence would appear to be possible justification for 3 columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 ( talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad someone else undid you just as I was trying to. "warlord"? "Jalilist guerillas"? "uprising civil war"? All your edits today are throwaway edits of no value, you just came off a block, don't push it. Nobody will let nonsense stand, here.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It's an entire community that's standing up to the aggression of the saboteurs, not to be conflated with the name of one family or one person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I know this is slightly irrelevant! I would just like to voice my approval of all those who have done their best to keep this page up to date, relevant and neutral. This has been achieved despite scant available souces and even less unbias ones, criticism from users and fast changing situations. So a huge well done to one and all. 81.129.55.37 ( talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)RS 24/3/11
The Arab League approved the no-fly zone on 12 of March, but on 20 of March secretary general Amr Moussa criticized the intense bombings and the civilian casualties. [8]
- ^ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-us-jet-crash-20110323,0,6432862.story
- ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/libya-usa-crash-idUSN2213311320110322
- ^ DailyTelegraph
- ^ Global Security
- ^ CNN
- ^ British Red Cross
- ^ ABC News
- ^ Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya, Washington post, 20 March 2011
Hi. I started an article about Eman al-Obaidi. I do not know if it can be covered in this article. -- Youssef ( talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pro-democracy fighters now say they have moved past Brega further to the west. And that they are heading towards Ras Lanuf - another oil-rich town. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.178.102 ( talk) 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Pranav ( talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Where should this dramatic event be included ?
In short: Libyan woman from Benghazi is picked up at a checkpoint in the city. Gets shackled, tortured and gang raped by 15 men for two days because she is from Benghazi. Neighbors in the area helped her to escape. She burst into the breakfast room of one of two hotels where the international journalists stay. Police minders waded in, smashing a camera and pointing a gun towards the journalists trying to speak to her. The police minders tried to physically shut her up. 15 minutes later she was dragged out to car. Electron9 ( talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What a farce. 217.64.195.236 ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
User noclador keeps reverting information based on reliable source. This article [36] clearly states that LIFG and Al-Qaeda are involved (LIFG is well-known for its longtime activity in the area and please note that i put Al-Qaeda in "Limited/Alleged" section). Also, all reports of mercenaries on Gaddafi side are based on rebel claims and little else so they should be considered "Limited/Alleged" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, since there are no more sensible arguments, i'm putting my edits back (this time LIFG goes into the "limited" section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 20:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[38] if one reads the original article, one can see that the writer at the telegraph did a horrible, sloppy crap work! The original article has interviews with people in Derna and a much longer chat with al Hasadi; and nowhere it says that he has ties to al-Qaeda, it says he wasn't in Guantanamo, it doesn't say he is a rebel leader, it says there is no al-Qaeda active in Libya, it says that Gaddafi himself claimed that al Hasadi was a member of al-Qaeda, also al Hasadi condemns the September 11 attacks and condemns bombings against civilians, it says that only a few of the 25 fighters that went to Iraq returned and half of the article is dedicated to other persons in Derna (a member of the rebels, an Iman, an Italian nun, an officer), who all deny that al-Qaeda is active in Derna. noclador ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Please keep it, hehe. One source is as good as another to me; besides it's so cool to see al-Qaeda and NATO on the same side (again) 217.64.195.236 ( talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop your vandalism, noclador! If Egypt and Tunisia are mentioned as "Limited/Alleged" belligerent, then al-Qaeda should be there too! 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
show me that line. noclador ( talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
look, it is worth noting that Al Qaeda would like to support the rebellion and has done so verbally. But it is also worth noting that they cannot, because they have no foothold in Libya worth mentioning. So this isn't terribly relevant to the article. Al Qaeda has about the same notability as Hugo Chavez in this, they both made an announcement and left it at that. Al Qaeda is just afraid they're going to lose such popular backing as they once had in the Arab world, because people woke up and realized they don't need religious fanaticism to stand up to the tyrants. This will be relevant in Al Qaeda's article, most likely under the heading "decline", but it isn't more than a footnote in this one. -- dab (𒁳) 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we move request protect this page or something? Or at least take the move request tag off the article since it's been there for a month? A user above said "I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out" and I'm getting sick of looking at that move request tag when I read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.salin ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2011
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
From the Radio Television of Serbia show Q&A session [1] with Miroslav Lazanski. (translation is mine)
Libya and Gaddafi - overturn of dictator or war for oil?
Answers (A:) given by Miroslav Lazanski most prominent Serbia political-military analyst.
Q: ...Libya claims this is war for oil.
A: Easter part that rebelled was never supportive of Gaddafi, and they say he never loved them or invested in that party of a country. There are those tribes and they say tribes from the east don't like them, he didn't invest enough into development in the area, while central and west part like them more, but its all relative because there are both sentiments within all tribes.
Q: Is it with a reason? Are there elements of dictatorship in that system?
A: It certainly is not democratic from the point of view of Europe. But you find me in that part of the world from Maroco to Saudi Arabia a single Arab country which is completely democratic. Maybe Lebanon which has elections. Every country has military government, or monarchy, or presidential dictatorship. Every country there has one of those, and now only Libya is a problem. Let's look at economics of that social revolt, do you know Libya students who live and study in Serbia what they get: they have paid stay, flat, food, car, books, and get a stipend of 2300 euros a month. Every student from Libya that goes to England, USA, anywhere, gets everything paid by the state. Sure it's a dictatorship, but dictatorship where no citizen of Libya pais for electricity, water, gas, where 1 Euro buys 17 litters of best gasoline, where everyone who turns 18 years gets keys of apartment, that is unbeliavable, where one million is working, 6.4 million exist, there are over 1.5 million of citizens of other countries working hard labor jobs. Unbelievable. I haven't seen in Tripoli a single beggar.
89.216.196.129 ( talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the infobox lists the two sides as Libya and Libyan Republic(interm council)*. Now I may be wrong but I don't see anywheres where the council states they are a republic. Shouldn't it be Libya and Interm council.? -- Wilson ( talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war? Fledgling rebel government's behavior so far offers few clues to movement's true nature By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
TRIPOLI — The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?
The answer could determine the course of both the Libyan uprising and the results of the Western intervention. In the West’s preferred chain of events, airstrikes enable the rebels to unite with the currently passive residents of the western region around Tripoli, under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution that topples Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
He, however, has predicted the opposite: that the revolt is a tribal war of eastern Libya against the west that ends in either his triumph or a prolonged period of chaos.
“It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist at Georgetown University who has studied Libya. “It could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with.”
Continued at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/?gt1=43001
Interesting in light of discussions on this page. -- Avanu ( talk) 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
French aircraft are over Libya (BBC) [ [5]][ [6]]!!! Wipsenade ( talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Canada, Qatar, Spanish, German, Dutch, UK, Italian (spy), Belgian aircraft are coming. The USA is talking of using some spy airfaft (BBC)[
[7]].
Wipsenade (
talk)
16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Canada, Holland, France and the UK are leading the way[ [8]][ [9]]. The USA and Quatar are to join later. [ [10]] . Wipsenade ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi sympathising Germany decided to take no role and went neutral, while Italy is only offering base access and a spy plane. [ [11]]. France shot a Libyan pro- Gaddafi fighter down at about 16.45. They have shot at a Libyan pro- Gaddafi vehcihel literally seconds ago. Wipsenade ( talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
first air strike against a ground vehicle according to live feed. ( source France Info).
Yep, it's destroyed acording to the BBC! Wipsenade ( talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Should we add in those countries (or perhaps the UN) under the Rebel "combatants" side? Its very clear their no-fly zone is one-sided, and that there is a very good chance it will escalate to strikes against Pro-Ghaddafi ground forces, even those not directly in combat at the moment. 170.232.128.10 ( talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[ [12]][ [13]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Quatar, Spain, Denmark and Italy are esnding planes. Algeria and Kuwaite might join in to (BBC). 82.14.51.216 ( talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The US lead coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain. [ [14]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
I'm noticing continual efforts(in the article text and the photo text) to challenge,minimize,bury and remove any referrences to identifying the plane that was shot down over Bengazi as being a rebel plane, that it was shot down(accidently perhaps) by rebels or that it was reported to have been bombing rebel territory.This is very important because the plane has been accused by the pro-Gaddafi forces as having been kn "blatant" breach of the no-fly zone. For npov purposes this event should not be censored out of the article. [15] [16] [17] Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It was reportedly a rebel MiG, but was shot down by rebels[ [18]]. 82.14.48.234 ( talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A Rebel Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi. It was a rebel acording to the UK's Sunday times and CNN. 86.24.31.144 ( talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Fog of war! Wipsenade ( talk) 14:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Images of the shoot down. [ [19]][ [20]][ [21]] Wipsenade ( talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[ [22]][ [23]]. this is also being covered up.14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's being wiki censored! Wipsenade ( talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a minor event that should't be magnified out of proportions. Rafy talk 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Wiki just are hiding that, Libya is close to win.
I think it was an error in the fog of war, A French fighter hit a Libyan, not the other way round.[ [24]] Wipsenade ( talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article need to be updated.. it is not NEUTRAL. Template with the casualties should be edited, as France got one Mirage shot down and Italian ship was detained at Tripoli.[ [25]]
I'm intregued, let's look up this Italian ship. Wipsenade ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Google?15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Author: It was confirmed by Italy officials!! Edit the template.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Augusta firm's offshore supply ship "Asso 22" has 8 Italians, 2 Indians, and 1 Ukrainian crew member aboard, all of whome were aressted on the 19th in Tripoli.They were arrested by Gadaffites on the 19th.[ [26]][ [27]][ [28]][ [29]][ [30]][ [31]] [ [32]] Wipsenade ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly... they are CPOW (Civilian Prisoners of War). As I said - the template need update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
The infobox currently lists Government forces taking 48 civilian casualties and 150 civilians injured from recent Western airstrikes. These numbers come from Libyan State Television which has been spitting out the most outrageous of claims in the past week. Also the fact that State TV said the casualties were "primarily women, children and religious clerics" and also reportedly said that Western forces specifically "targeted schools and hospitals" makes the claim only more outrageous. No news source has been able to verify any of the claims, and this is beginning to look more like propaganda than legitimate news. Its inclusion into the infobox for casualties makes it seem very biased, anyone agree? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-and-allies-launch-libya-force-as-gadhafi-strikes-rebel-heartland-regime-claims-48-dead/2011/03/19/ABhkEdx_story.html
Infernoapple ( talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd have to object to the phrase used in the casualty box: "Total number of people killed on both sides, includes protesters, rebel fighters, captives executed, government forces killed and civilians killed by NATO bombing". It implies that the only civilians killed (not including protestors) have been through NATO bombings. Though there will (and probably have been) some civilians killed by NATO-aligned countries in their bombing campaigns, I am assuming that the vast majority of the civilian casualties have been caused through the Libyan air/artillery bombardment of populated areas. I recommend removing part of the phrase "by NATO bombing" in its entirety, and if anything should be there it should read "by countries acting on the UN resolution".
Some people here are just biased... if Pentagon said they have shot down 100 planes from Libya - they will add it on the second... if Gadhafi said his forces have shot down 3 planes - it will be deleted or hidden. Strange people right here. Frajjsen ( talk) 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
If we are including France, UK, US et. al. among the "belligerents" in this situation, then we can no longer accurately describe it as an "uprising." why? Macarion ( talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The original point was that they cannot be listed as belligerents in either an uprising or a civil war, and your reply did not address that point. Sometimes, trying to squeeze the entire article into an infobox no matter what isn't the best idea. They are belligerents in the coalition intervention in Libya, which has its own conflict infobox. -- dab (𒁳) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
A US Air Force F-15 Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed due to mechanical failure in rebel held Libya. The crew ejected. [1] [2] Wipsenade ( talk) 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a neutrality tag added to this article. I understand some editions might be biased, but to declare the entire article as not neutral is ridiculous as for the most part the article is nothing but a collection of information from media outlets, newspapers and other sources. I believe that tag should either be removed or moved to the specific section that appears as POV. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
See:
![]() |
![]() | The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
neutrality is disputed <--- Place at the end of a sentence
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This article was actually not horrible. But, at this point, I'm seeing almost unbelievable bias in the article. I can't even begin to describe what to do to fix it, except maybe roll back a few days to where it was actually reasonable. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years and now for some biased reason, I see the article describing him as 'Jamahiriya', which is a very unfamiliar term, and seems to want to minimize Gaddafi. In addition, a days- or weeks-old 'government' is being called 'transitional' as if it is the legitimate government now. We have journalists in the US and other nations calling this an undeclared and (at least in the US) an unconstitutional war, yet we aren't covering that. In short, this article is a mess. I implore my fellow editors to edit in a manner that is professional and without bias, and to try to recognize bias. This is just sad. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
My 2 cents. Media from countries of involved parties have an inherent bias greater than media from other countries. So maybe more sources are needed outside of USA, England, France, and Libya. Currently USA/England news dominate the article. 89.216.196.129 ( talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Isralie media reports are in an islamaphobic frezy these days10:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
The oil thing is quite right and worth adding! Wipsenade ( talk) 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Germany's cabinet is due to pass a bill later today on approving the sending troops to crew NATO surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan, but will withdraw AWACS staff from the Mediterranean to avoid military involvement in the war with it’s closet-ally Libya. Germany already has 5,000 troops in Afghanistan and a few dozen in Kosovo[ [34]]. Wipsenade ( talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
They are a bunch of boonie hats! 81.100.118.78 ( talk) 15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Will Libya have a possibly of a DMZ (division of West and East) in the future? --McAusten 12:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A fair point. Wipsenade ( talk) 14:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Any opposition to including Libyan Civil War as alternate name in the lead. I personally oppose the page move but there is certainly enough usage to warrant it's inclusion as an alternate name.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Many outside observers consider the uprising to have become a civil war, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] but neither side actually involved in the armed struggle are using that term.
I haven't seen this on any of the extensive I've seen on this raid and it's mentioned nowhere in the NYT article that is being used a citation.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.44.231 ( talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
regards, Lynbarn ( talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to see Qatar in the infobox considering they commit 6 planes, no ships and no bases for the air exclusion zone. There are other countries far more involved that aren't present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.131.191 ( talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
All combatans shound be listed, whether it baces, planes or ships. Wipsenade ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree about main and other. Thanks for finding the Romanian ship for us, I had not found it yet. Wipsenade ( talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
O.K. Wipsenade ( talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
One only has to look at Naming the American Civil War to see that the use of "civil war" has some implications. The North, which was the established government and was victorious, never allowed it to be officially called a "civil war" because of its obvoius bias and historic struggle to keep the rebel government from being recognized. Avoiding issues about the qualities of established government and the rebels (good guys, bad guys, tyrants, whatever), it seems to me that there are a limited number of easily-quantified and measured parameters that we can use as a guideline to help build consensus on what a "threshold for civil war naming" might be. Here is a short list:
Can anyone else think of other such parameters? This is not a vote but an attempt to build a knowledge base and consensus (as opposed to the above vote-that-is-not-a-vote).-- 189.17.38.252 ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, should the UN forces not be moved to the combatant 3 column? While one could argue they are supporting the rebels, the UN resolution states the air strikes and no fly zone are to protect the civillians hence would appear to be possible justification for 3 columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 ( talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad someone else undid you just as I was trying to. "warlord"? "Jalilist guerillas"? "uprising civil war"? All your edits today are throwaway edits of no value, you just came off a block, don't push it. Nobody will let nonsense stand, here.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It's an entire community that's standing up to the aggression of the saboteurs, not to be conflated with the name of one family or one person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I know this is slightly irrelevant! I would just like to voice my approval of all those who have done their best to keep this page up to date, relevant and neutral. This has been achieved despite scant available souces and even less unbias ones, criticism from users and fast changing situations. So a huge well done to one and all. 81.129.55.37 ( talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)RS 24/3/11
The Arab League approved the no-fly zone on 12 of March, but on 20 of March secretary general Amr Moussa criticized the intense bombings and the civilian casualties. [8]
- ^ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-libya-us-jet-crash-20110323,0,6432862.story
- ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/libya-usa-crash-idUSN2213311320110322
- ^ DailyTelegraph
- ^ Global Security
- ^ CNN
- ^ British Red Cross
- ^ ABC News
- ^ Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya, Washington post, 20 March 2011
Hi. I started an article about Eman al-Obaidi. I do not know if it can be covered in this article. -- Youssef ( talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pro-democracy fighters now say they have moved past Brega further to the west. And that they are heading towards Ras Lanuf - another oil-rich town. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.178.102 ( talk) 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Pranav ( talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Where should this dramatic event be included ?
In short: Libyan woman from Benghazi is picked up at a checkpoint in the city. Gets shackled, tortured and gang raped by 15 men for two days because she is from Benghazi. Neighbors in the area helped her to escape. She burst into the breakfast room of one of two hotels where the international journalists stay. Police minders waded in, smashing a camera and pointing a gun towards the journalists trying to speak to her. The police minders tried to physically shut her up. 15 minutes later she was dragged out to car. Electron9 ( talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What a farce. 217.64.195.236 ( talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
User noclador keeps reverting information based on reliable source. This article [36] clearly states that LIFG and Al-Qaeda are involved (LIFG is well-known for its longtime activity in the area and please note that i put Al-Qaeda in "Limited/Alleged" section). Also, all reports of mercenaries on Gaddafi side are based on rebel claims and little else so they should be considered "Limited/Alleged" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, since there are no more sensible arguments, i'm putting my edits back (this time LIFG goes into the "limited" section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 20:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
[38] if one reads the original article, one can see that the writer at the telegraph did a horrible, sloppy crap work! The original article has interviews with people in Derna and a much longer chat with al Hasadi; and nowhere it says that he has ties to al-Qaeda, it says he wasn't in Guantanamo, it doesn't say he is a rebel leader, it says there is no al-Qaeda active in Libya, it says that Gaddafi himself claimed that al Hasadi was a member of al-Qaeda, also al Hasadi condemns the September 11 attacks and condemns bombings against civilians, it says that only a few of the 25 fighters that went to Iraq returned and half of the article is dedicated to other persons in Derna (a member of the rebels, an Iman, an Italian nun, an officer), who all deny that al-Qaeda is active in Derna. noclador ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Please keep it, hehe. One source is as good as another to me; besides it's so cool to see al-Qaeda and NATO on the same side (again) 217.64.195.236 ( talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop your vandalism, noclador! If Egypt and Tunisia are mentioned as "Limited/Alleged" belligerent, then al-Qaeda should be there too! 77.45.136.241 ( talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
show me that line. noclador ( talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
look, it is worth noting that Al Qaeda would like to support the rebellion and has done so verbally. But it is also worth noting that they cannot, because they have no foothold in Libya worth mentioning. So this isn't terribly relevant to the article. Al Qaeda has about the same notability as Hugo Chavez in this, they both made an announcement and left it at that. Al Qaeda is just afraid they're going to lose such popular backing as they once had in the Arab world, because people woke up and realized they don't need religious fanaticism to stand up to the tyrants. This will be relevant in Al Qaeda's article, most likely under the heading "decline", but it isn't more than a footnote in this one. -- dab (𒁳) 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we move request protect this page or something? Or at least take the move request tag off the article since it's been there for a month? A user above said "I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out" and I'm getting sick of looking at that move request tag when I read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.salin ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2011