Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 8
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
Edit request
Reverse the latest edit of 83.189.90.131. See discussion above about Al Qaeda. Munci (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would be adding another WP:WRONGVERSION to the article instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- no, it would correct IP vandalism. noclador (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The page is frozen with al qaeda listed as a full belligerent. that isnt how its reported in the Independent or on BBC News. and the refs don't say so either.doesn't the admin who is freezing a pro-gaddafi propaganda version have to give an account here for his action? Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Before you comment any further, please read and understand m:The Wrong Version.
- Make a reasonable and detailed {{editprotected}} request that includes the references already there or introduces more sources, and the article will be changed. But I'm not going to simply revert what appear to be good faith edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Like an editor said above, some al qaeda are involved in the oposition to him, no doubt, some al qaeda members came from libya, that is a fact , but that is not the same as al qaeda being a full belligerent - the uprising began , Panorama had a full programme on it, Fighting Gaddafi you should watch it - when yellow hats police fired on unarmed ptoesters in Benghazi, they fired at a human rights protest over a massacre of dissenters in 1996, then it escalated when authorities launched a crackdown - 3 days of killing , then though unarmed, using benzine and bulldozers they beat the police and gaddafi soldiers- - gaddafi began to call them terrorists, scum, al qaeda - if the U.N hadn't intervened he would have wiped benghazi out 'get ready we are coming tonight to hunt for the scum..' etc - and in the time since there has been no story that however it began since then al qaeda have assumed a significant , full belligerent role, there just is no RS material for that story - you put al qaeda as a full belligerent because of 'good faith' edits . bloody hell, those are probably Gaddafi-ite edits - ever thought of that?Sayerslle (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's another "gaddafite" thing for you my brainwashed friends - TRUE FACE of the "peaceful pro-democracy protesters" (warning, graphic content): [1] [2] [3] 77.45.146.187 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, It is intresting and graphic User:77.45.146.187.15:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Wipsenade (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
New Map
Hey guys, I made a map showing most of the cities, towns and villages along the coast in the Gulf of Sidra, I think it would be good alongside the current country map to illustrate the current situation. What do you guys think?
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Libyan_Uprising_-_Gulf_of_Sidra.svg/300px-Libyan_Uprising_-_Gulf_of_Sidra.svg.png)
Infernoapple (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I love the level of detail, but the more detailed we get about any particular small town, the more likely we are to replicate inaccuracies of journalists. Any large or major city, we will have multiple credible sources stating it to be under the control of one side or the other. With small villages, that may not be the case. Not saying I am opposed to this type of map, just pointing something out that is worth considering. 76.245.46.147 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I like it, Good detail. I would say it is worth including B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good points, but I have seen in the press that as the rebel advance is slowing down, reports have moved from the larger cities to the smaller villages. The advance on Sirt is definitely going to be reported through villages captured, as aside from that the route from Ben Jawad to Sirt is nothing but desert. I think that the map is good taking into account the vast amount of empty desert - fighting is only going to be concentrated around the small villages and towns. Just today I saw many sources reporting on the fighting near Uwayja and An Nawfaliyah, two small towns. As the rebel advance slows, every small village and town is going to be important gains. Infernoapple (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Gulf_of_Sirt_Front.svg/300px-Gulf_of_Sirt_Front.svg.png)
That's funny because I was also working on a new map myself. I think it would be good to display the current fighting around the Gulf of Sirt region. Rafy talk 22:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I like your map a lot, very detailed - better than anything I would be able to come up with. I like the outlines of the cities/towns. Where did you get your outline of Libya from? Infernoapple (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I traced it from wikimapia using inkscape.--Rafy talk 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As a cartophile I approve of both these maps! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I made it into an svg so people can update it easier. Working on changing all pages from the png to the svg. Infernoapple (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As a cartophile I approve of both these maps! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Great stuff from the map editors. But, shouldnt there be a km measurment line somwhere in the corner of the maps? I think it would be great if that would be added so the neutral observers would have a better view about the scale of the battle and distance between towns/cities.Ratipok (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
As Sidr, Ras Lanuf
As per Aljazeera, http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-29 Ras Lanuf is now being contested. That would probably also mean that As Sidr is under pro-Gaddafi forces' control. Uc smaller (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- AFP, Al Arabiya etc. have reports that Ras Lanuf is allready fallen and that the battles are currently around a town of Uqayla, halfway between Ras Lanuf and Brega.Ratipok (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rebels are pulling out of Brega to Ajdabiyah according to Reuters.[6]. 23sports (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Economist as a neutral source ?!
![]() | 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. |
After removing the following PR text: "Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." I was attacked by User:Hon-3s-T for removing the text as it came from "neutral" source. The text was backed by two pieces from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18290470 and http://www.economist.com/node/18239900.
The text not only uses an absurd statement of "impoverished" which is in stark contrast of the wealth buildup between 1970-2011 THROUGHOUT Libya (less in the East but "impoverished" implies the fall of living standards not a slower rise). The two references were clearly heavily influenced by the Benghazi-based rebels POV.
I hereby question the position of The Economist as "neutral" for the Libyan conflict. Its reporting on _this_ conflict is of the JANA class PR warfare and its statements shall not enjoy the blanket benefit of being considered neutral.Ihosama (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am not a Gaddafi supporter nor do I believe that he's somehow done more good than harm, HOWEVER I believe that neutrality MUST be upheld. I read The Economist now and again and I can say that it mostly consists of editorials and less news. One needs to find 1. A source showing that the area was once a fertile "breadbasket" way back in time, and 2. a source indicating a rise in poverty/decline of living standards under Gaddafi which present fact. Perhaps an history-based site or an About.com article. I agree that The Economist's fact-to-opinion ratio is questionable given the large amount of editorials and opinion pieces in its content. MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
- It is ridiculous to have the assumption that all sources must be neutral. Everything that is written is biased towards one way or another. The neutrality of an article states that the entire wikipedia article cannot be biased towards one view.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Could not agree more. Would not bring this up had my edit not been summarily deleted on that exact assumption by a senior user.Ihosama (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but the Economist just likes to state thinks how they actually are.
- Given how much living standards have improved throughout the developing world, from South America to Asia, I think saying "impoverished" is a totally fair thing to say about an oil state if living standards haven't improved significantly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It specifically says in WP:V#Neutrality that the aource does not have to be neutral itself. Read the last two sentences please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can we find another source to give credence to the Economist' view of the situation? And do we have any way of checking how they concluded what they did? -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/idIN108205791820110304 looks pretty solid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Perhaps it should be cited instead of the economist? MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
- http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/idIN108205791820110304 looks pretty solid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can we find another source to give credence to the Economist' view of the situation? And do we have any way of checking how they concluded what they did? -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It specifically says in WP:V#Neutrality that the aource does not have to be neutral itself. Read the last two sentences please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in that article there is not a single mention of Cyrenaica. Most claims are very general preferring vague statements over numbers. One comment caught my eye though:
- CIA Factbook: "Population below poverty line: N/A, note: About one-third of Libyans live at or below the national poverty line" ("national" poverty line is defined by the government and arbitrary)
- article: "According to the latest CIA statistics, 1/3 of Libyans live below the poverty line."
- An article which takes "N/A" and make it into "according" does not really scream "reliability!".Ihosama (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Here is some impartial info:
- http://www.eubusiness.com/regions/libya/econ
- http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0859275.html
- http://blisty.cz/art/57915.html (this is in Czech- Czechoslovakia was Libya's biggest trade partner during the 80-ies resulting in many people having direct friendly ties to Libyan students who were here then)Ihosama (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- So I took a look at these sources, the first is just copying content from the CIA world factbook, the second is owned by Pearson Plc so should be reasonable, and the latter is a Czech blog, who according to their Wikipedia page posts conspiracy theories. So the middle source looks reasonable, but we could just go and post from one of Pearson Plc's better known media sources, i.e. the Economist or the Financial Times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- eubusiness has reasonable comment, infoplease too, and blisty.cz were quoted for the comprehensive information including within the article. There are virtually no english-language sources with that level of detail. As mentioned this is caused by a massive trade/construction/culture exports of CzechoSlovakia into Libya during the 80ies.
- Here is some impartial info:
- My original point is getting lost though: I protest for the Economist opinion pieces concerning this topic being taken at face value. Especially the economy pieces written during' the uprising by authors directly influenced by either side.
- I have yet to see a single specific and verifiable proof of any "impoverishment" of Cyrenaica by the Gaddafi policies. Especially in the sense what "impovershed" means within the African context (say Egypt nearby). Opinion pieces not backed by a single hard(=verifiable) number do not count whomever will publish them.Ihosama (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You may prefer these sources but they are much more borderline in terms of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria than the Economist. Surely there must be other Czech sources you can use, e.g. Czech newspapers? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a single specific and verifiable proof of any "impoverishment" of Cyrenaica by the Gaddafi policies. Especially in the sense what "impovershed" means within the African context (say Egypt nearby). Opinion pieces not backed by a single hard(=verifiable) number do not count whomever will publish them.Ihosama (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The point here was the dismissal of contributions based on contradicting some sacred "neutral" source. I really do not want to debate the obvious here, but one snip - The (material) living standards actually have tremendously improved with average income being several times as before the oil exploration era (in Libya), they just did not improve vis-a-vis Tripolitania thanks to a loss of Cyrenaican agriculture sector importance after the industrialization and oil-infestation of the economy and Tripoli (as the capitol) enjoying higher growth rates.Ihosama (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I presume you have a source for that claim? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- My sources are (over the years) direct contacts with people from/working-in Libya. Plus some digging during this crisis on top of that (much of it in Czech).Ihosama (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- So do you have anything that meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? Being in Czech is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only the "Ekonomika ropného socialismu(Economy of the Oil Socialism)"section of an already cited article: http://blisty.cz/art/57915.html includes these sources: Human development Index: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index; Literacy, Malnutrition level, Infant and Child mortality, Education expenditures, Telecomunication/Internet penetration, Transportation system, Agriculture: http://www.indexmundi.com/libya; Health sector: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Health_in_Libya, http://countrystudies.us/libya/55.htm
- So do you have anything that meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? Being in Czech is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- My sources are (over the years) direct contacts with people from/working-in Libya. Plus some digging during this crisis on top of that (much of it in Czech).Ihosama (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I presume you have a source for that claim? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The point here was the dismissal of contributions based on contradicting some sacred "neutral" source. I really do not want to debate the obvious here, but one snip - The (material) living standards actually have tremendously improved with average income being several times as before the oil exploration era (in Libya), they just did not improve vis-a-vis Tripolitania thanks to a loss of Cyrenaican agriculture sector importance after the industrialization and oil-infestation of the economy and Tripoli (as the capitol) enjoying higher growth rates.Ihosama (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Plus a bunch of Czech references not sourced but source-able from paper government records. (The article was co-written by JUDr. Václav Jumr, former ambassador and the head of the African Dept. at the Cezechoslovak Foreign Ministry during the 1980's.).
- I am no getting any further into this never-ending argument of least-common-denominator semantic battle on what considers an opinion piece and what is news reporting. If someone reads those Economist pieces and considers them "factual description of reality" despite their consistent employment of blog-style semantics, there is not much more to say from me. I am not a native speaker, and nor a language expert to start fighting here using proper vocabulary needed for such a debate.
- This is the last time I reply to this PR war directly. My question was NOT about the specific content but whether The Economist could be taken at face value considering the whole tone and un-sourced nature of the pieces that were cited. I say it should not.Ihosama (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK so you've got a left wing Czech blog, Wikipedia, and another source copying the CIA world Factbook, none of these sources are remotely comparable to the Economist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they are incomparable. They cite their sources (with one of them being a primary source thanks to his former gov position).Ihosama (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Economist doesn't always cite its sources, but it doesn't need to as it is well known for being extremely reliable. So you're basically trying to argue is that a source equivalent to the New York Times is wrong/bias. Now it is possible to do that, but to do so you have to present a strong case backed up by multiple reliable sources, ideally involving some peer-reviewed academic works or something. The sources you have bought to the table so far aren't anywhere near good enough to meet that level of seriousness - the only source that looks reasonable is http://countrystudies.us/libya/, but it is dated 1987. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- That same Economist who in 2009 just bunched up together all Czech bank passives and called them private foreign debt? That same Economist who has managed to come up with $2,000 billion figure and stick to it despite the reality being around $200 billion even after the Central Bank (unusually) publicly intervened to dismiss that crap?
- The Economist doesn't always cite its sources, but it doesn't need to as it is well known for being extremely reliable. So you're basically trying to argue is that a source equivalent to the New York Times is wrong/bias. Now it is possible to do that, but to do so you have to present a strong case backed up by multiple reliable sources, ideally involving some peer-reviewed academic works or something. The sources you have bought to the table so far aren't anywhere near good enough to meet that level of seriousness - the only source that looks reasonable is http://countrystudies.us/libya/, but it is dated 1987. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they are incomparable. They cite their sources (with one of them being a primary source thanks to his former gov position).Ihosama (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK so you've got a left wing Czech blog, Wikipedia, and another source copying the CIA world Factbook, none of these sources are remotely comparable to the Economist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. Extremely reliable to have an opinion. Seems I have questioned the sacred texts, thank God the Inquisition is no longer around./leaving Ihosama (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- All sources make mistakes from time to time, sounds like an extra zero was added by accident. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was a gross misunderstanding of accounting, not a rounding error. The paper then stood by the numbers causing further mayhem on the markets. But I am glad you finally concede that any paper may be wrong.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- All sources make mistakes from time to time, sounds like an extra zero was added by accident. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. Extremely reliable to have an opinion. Seems I have questioned the sacred texts, thank God the Inquisition is no longer around./leaving Ihosama (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sources don't have to be free of bias per se but they do have to be "reliable". The problem here is that you decided the Economist was not, without any discussion on the matter and removed content with the edit summary "propaganda removal". It was reasonable for Hon-3, a recent changes patroller, to revert that. If you believe that a mainstream source like that is not appropriate for use here because it fails WP:RS requirements, you should have brought it up on the talk page first. If you have other problems about the text, that it is inaccurate, misleading or not a widely-held view, you shouldn't have left a summary that it was "propaganda". Hon-3 is not a mind-reader and could only judge your removal on the basis of what you said in the summary. I don't mean to criticize you; I realize that you're a new editor. But you seem upset about it and I think you should understand what happened and how to proceed in the future. I don't have an opinion on the actual content. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- There was a reason I have dared call it propaganda:
- "Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." The highlighted text was:
- 1) not explicitly present in the references (i.e. there was not a single mention of "impoverish" or no real mentioning of "poor" etc.)
- 2) the "breadbasket of the ancient world" is a completely irrelevant statement when judging a regime that is in power 40yrs (Not 1500 years). The relevant mention would have been agriculture production 40yrs ago which is neither in the "neutral" articles not in the text.
- Sources don't have to be free of bias per se but they do have to be "reliable". The problem here is that you decided the Economist was not, without any discussion on the matter and removed content with the edit summary "propaganda removal". It was reasonable for Hon-3, a recent changes patroller, to revert that. If you believe that a mainstream source like that is not appropriate for use here because it fails WP:RS requirements, you should have brought it up on the talk page first. If you have other problems about the text, that it is inaccurate, misleading or not a widely-held view, you shouldn't have left a summary that it was "propaganda". Hon-3 is not a mind-reader and could only judge your removal on the basis of what you said in the summary. I don't mean to criticize you; I realize that you're a new editor. But you seem upset about it and I think you should understand what happened and how to proceed in the future. I don't have an opinion on the actual content. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since this WP article is generally over-sourced, I have decided to summarily remove the reference as it was backed by two heavily-opinionated articles and even on top of that clearly designed to evoke an emotional misunderstanding of the reality.
- As far as me being "angry", no I was not angry. A was appalled by the arrogant removal of my work backed up by an absurd reasoning. A reasoning repeated after another use pointed it out.Ihosama (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Those are all valid points to consider. But your edit left the community no opportunity for anyone to consider them. What you did was simmer all those things in your head and decided X+Y+Z = "propaganda". That might be a fair characterization but it is a very vague communication. Hon-3 took that for its most likely meaning, that you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source, something you just can't do on your own. As it turns out, he seems to have been correct since it is also what you called for in opening this section.
I don't think you committed some grave error here. You left a bad edit summary. That's no big deal. Hon-3 made a completely reasonable revert based on that. Since then, you've complained about how it was an "attack" and a summary dismissal from a "senior user" (incidentally, his first edit was 13 days before yours). I won't count that you called it "appalling" since I prompted that. But you should understand that what happened was completely ordinary, routine, not malicious. I'm telling you this not to argue but I think it will hamper your experience on Wikipedia if you think every revert is a personal attack on you. It is very common for new users to think that. You did the right thing to take it to the talk page. Just don't take it so personally and remember to assume good faith in other editors. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)- Guilty as charged. You have a point in wrongly assuming ulterior motives. It comes from me witnessing several weeks of professional PR warfare on this topic coupled with removal of information referenced from neutral source and rv removal of content referenced from neutral sources. Please do not remove material solely according to your sympathies. Two not-exactly WP:AGF complaint statements. In the middle of a raging PR war I have found it hard to trust someone who is right-out (implicitly) accusing me of malice ...
- Those are all valid points to consider. But your edit left the community no opportunity for anyone to consider them. What you did was simmer all those things in your head and decided X+Y+Z = "propaganda". That might be a fair characterization but it is a very vague communication. Hon-3 took that for its most likely meaning, that you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source, something you just can't do on your own. As it turns out, he seems to have been correct since it is also what you called for in opening this section.
- As far as me being "angry", no I was not angry. A was appalled by the arrogant removal of my work backed up by an absurd reasoning. A reasoning repeated after another use pointed it out.Ihosama (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- On another note: "... you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source." No, I was not. There is a very big difference between usable and axiomatically neutral. I never claimed the refs were unusable. Though they were useless (in an article where they are reffed several times) and on top of that used to back up a made-up PR sentence.Ihosama (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
solution for this problem is to find another source stating how libya got rich during the period, and to contrast those two statements in the article. every reader will believe more facts and data (from this potential reliable source) than opinions (from economist and the like). 188.2.162.17 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- What you'd ideally do is compare it to other oil states and compare how rich/well educated/healthy Libya is in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, direct comparison is not of much use as there is exactly zero of comparable sparse-populated, oil-rich (since 1960's), desert countries which were pretty much medieval just 50yrs ago... Funnily-enough, Russia around 1950s would be probably the best fit (sans Stalin).Ihosama (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Saudi Arabia is a pretty good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Algeria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait are all good exsampels of backwaters, come oil emirates.Wipsenade (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Saudi Arabia has 4*the population density on top of a magnitude bigger oil industry. The Oman example would be appropriate though.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Saudi Arabia is a pretty good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, direct comparison is not of much use as there is exactly zero of comparable sparse-populated, oil-rich (since 1960's), desert countries which were pretty much medieval just 50yrs ago... Funnily-enough, Russia around 1950s would be probably the best fit (sans Stalin).Ihosama (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:Civil
![]() | 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. |
Let's all go and read WP:Civil!Wipsenade (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:2011 Libyan uprising
![]() | The related Category:2011 Libyan uprising has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. |
65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg/40px-Wikinews-logo.svg.png)
![](http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
Are these other 2 are still O.K.?Wipsenade (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikinews category was renamed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ras Lanouf, Uqayla and Brega post 15.02 GMT/30/March 2011.
Gadaffi has retaken it [7]. Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uqayla re-taken by Ghaddafi, Brega under fire and almost taken.-- User 58.9.150.113 (unsinged)
- BREGA JUST RE-TAKEN BY GHADDAFI FORCES Source:Al Jazeera breaking news from Libyan 58.9.150.113 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The last rebels are fleeing Brega [[8]]. Source:Monsters and critics.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Chadian involvement
I have reverted an Infobox edit quoting [10]. So far the only claims of Chad's involvement came from the rebel commanders. Are there any other sources confirming it?
EDIT: Regarding this topic there is a high probability of mis-understanding. Over the past decades Libya has been actively enticing Chadian refugees to settle in its southern provinces. These people are likely to have high level of allegiance to the Gaddafi regime along with a possible experience from the Toyota War(which would fit current Loyalist tactics) thus can be easily misidentified as Chadian mercenaries. Ihosama (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've only read sources quoting a rebel commander, too. There are other sources alleging Chadian involvement, but there is no actual evidence the Chadian government is directly helping or whether or not they are providing mercenaries. I'll keep an eye out to see if any RS start saying it, but right now, I agree it shouldn't be included in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fovezer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Water pipeline
I think that it should be note whether the achievements were a part of a 'systematically bias regime' that favoured some tribes, sects or places and alike until the disfavoured and persecuted sections of society rebelled against the government. The history section is best minimalized and stuff added to History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, unless it was part of an on-going persecution (such as a years long water blockade) or directly contributed to the crisis (such as killing a dissident at a earlier public rally) Wipsenade (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I added the pipeline stuff to History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, end of water story.Wipsenade (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Brega
According to The Guardian Brega has been re-taken by Gaddafi and AlJazeera is showing pictures of rebels destroying materiel on the road between Brega and Ajdabiyah, suggesting the same.Uc smaller (talk) 04:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Noted.Wipsenade (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Locking
I think that article should be locked because there are many vandals. I try to revert this change but it is impossible.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.28.24 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think some admin tried that and it didn't go over well. Semi-Protection works imo rather than full. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Libyan rebels target black African migrant workers
The article at present extensively charts atrocities committed by pro-Gaddafi forces, but contains little information on atrocities committed by the anti-Gaddafi rebels. The most striking among these that I've noted would be murders of black African migrant workers. Credible sources have even warned of a potential genocide against black non-Arabs. Story here: [11] (African workers are one of the most vulnerable groups in Libya right now. Analysts say unless a preventative measure is taken, a massive bloodletting is feared. ... "I think it is urgent to do something about it now, otherwise, a genocide against anyone who has black skin and who doesn't speak perfect Arabic is possible," said Jabbar.) This has also received coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I wonder where in the article's present structure this can be included, or is a new section necessary? Adlerschloß (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Check [12] and [13]. These were already referenced in the article, but looks like someone removed them, i can't say when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.120.163 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding a few sentences on this to the "Humanitarian Situation" section, but this seems inadequate -- we have credible sources warning of a potential genocide, surely one of the most dramatic aspects of this entire conflict. We have an entire section on "Gaddafi's response"... Would it be appropriate for me to create a section following that called something like "Atrocities committed by rebels"? This article is severely unbalanced at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think the former solution would be most proper. There are reliable sources suggesting isolated incidents have occurred and citing wider concerns, but I haven't really seen any saying there's an ongoing genocide or that the rebels are committing atrocities en masse. Mentioning that black Africans have been targeted and some have expressed concern (the Somaliland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, notably) seems sufficient for now. If details emerge of rebel commanders being complicit in systematic killings of black Africans in Libya, then a separate section or page would be warranted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- 'warning of a potential genocide' - are there RS sources that anything of the kind has happened. Would it be appropriate for you to make up a section called something like ' atrocities committed by rebels according to me Adlerdross ' - no it would not. 92.4.114.187 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Genocide is the wrong term at any rate-that's a much larger business tasked with eliminating an entire group, which this is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is Kudzu1's suggestion above agreeable to everyone? If so I will fix and remove the tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- ok, I did my best with it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is Kudzu1's suggestion above agreeable to everyone? If so I will fix and remove the tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
POV Flagged
In response to the discussion above I have pov flagged the Humanitarion situation section until the content removed is replaced or improved upon. Since everyone is saying the topic needs to be included, and since noone has included it, this renders the section pov by omission, imo. Any content negative towards the rebels could be seen as being hit with unexplained removal and pov resistance both in content and timing (inclusion is slow as mollasses). This might be understandable but not acceptable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can do it yourself without slapping on a redundant tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's an option, but I think the Editors involved in the discussion should do it (have done it) as they are more acquainted with the topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Respect the words on the tag. I have put the section tag back; it is not a redundant tag and should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is a blockable offence to remove tags prematurely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I removed the tag and did it myself as Kintetsubuffalo suggested although I have not been following that particular issue. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Someone remob=ved the content, I have put it back until consensus is reached. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I removed the tag and did it myself as Kintetsubuffalo suggested although I have not been following that particular issue. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Respect the words on the tag. I have put the section tag back; it is not a redundant tag and should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is a blockable offence to remove tags prematurely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's an option, but I think the Editors involved in the discussion should do it (have done it) as they are more acquainted with the topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Personal Opinion vs. Facts
Wikipedia's reputation has just taken another hit. People are making revisions based on what they think instead of what has been in the news. I will not get into an edit war, but I am sorely disappointed that people are putting their personal feelings ahead of the facts. I asked in the talk page for help with the citations, but it appears that people would rather their own personal views be on the page then put out what the news is reporting. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you're referring to this [14], in which you add your unsourced personal opinion. I agree that isn't good; I'm glad you've realised it. In particular, there have been reports that Al Qaeda has infilitrated the rebel organization to supply them with fighters and small arms, as well was Hamas supplying them with Katyusha rocket systems. is obviously contentious and you'd need a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
...and "Wikipedia's reputation", in your opinion, before this critical "hit" it suffered just now, has been what exactly, dear 152.131.9.132? It's not like the project had had smooth sailing for ten years just until this specific conflict erupted. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Theres been some spectacularly one sided coverage of the uprising in many WP:RS so it not surprising many good faith editors seem to have a pro rebel POV. However very credible sources as well as my personal conversations with Lybian ex pats are saying that a substantial proportion of the rebels are racists, Islamic fundamentalists and tribalists who hate Gaddafi for cracking down on FGM and other barbaric practices, along with remnants of the old regime who want to get their hands on the oil revenue. Gaddafi is certainly oppressive and probably crazy, but he's channeled more of the oil wealth into his peoples' welfare than any other comparable leader. Possibly the allies are right to support the rebels, but theres a much less clear good /evil divide between the rebels / Gdaffi forces than the article currently suggests. Will add a few balancing sources, lets keep it NPOV please. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-Sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[15]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting article: Yoweri Museveni on Gadhafi [16] 95.32.200.229 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is an excellent piece. One of the very few at least attempting a neutral stance. It really needs to be somehow included in the article.Ihosama (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- This article is about the uprising/civil war, not about the achievements of the Gaddafi regime or about Gaddafi himself. Also, this is the Ugandan's President's opinion and views regarding Gaddafi. So while it is an interesting article, I just don't see where you can incorporate anything he said into this specific article. Maybe a good place would be the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war page or Muammar Gaddafi's page itself? Fovezer (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The international reactions would be a good place to a make a paragraph on his position. However what I meant by "somehow included" is that there were many explicit-and-verifiable statements relevant to the topics described in this article. Including one or two where appropriate was the idea.Ihosama (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- This article is about the uprising/civil war, not about the achievements of the Gaddafi regime or about Gaddafi himself. Also, this is the Ugandan's President's opinion and views regarding Gaddafi. So while it is an interesting article, I just don't see where you can incorporate anything he said into this specific article. Maybe a good place would be the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war page or Muammar Gaddafi's page itself? Fovezer (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
HRW claims Gadaffi forces laid landmines outside Ajdabiya
It is in yonder source [17]. An HRW researcher said that after two anti-personal mines were detonated by an electrical utility truck, the area was swept for mines and 54 more were recovered. What do you guys think? Put it in the article? (by which I mean one of you do it, I'm too lazy to cite it. =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Libya is not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, so I don't see the bid deal. Libya has lots of mines, even a least 1 WWII AP minefield outside Ajdabija. Either way, it's a common weapon in Libya and it wouldn't surprise me in the least of both sides are employing them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Times put it up on the front page when I happened to be looking there, so I guess they thought it was, because the HRW seemed to think it was. So nada then? Hmm, you're right they didn't sign the Ottawa Treaty. Bah, neither did Israel, I better watch where I step this summer just in case (just kidding... I hope).
- The Human Rights Watch complains about landmine use everywhere, landmines have been used since the 1800's in scores of conflicts. There use in the Libyan conflict is neither suprising nor unique. Other conflicts that have used landmines do not generally mention them in great detail, so why the need to do so here?XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, that's what I was asking you guys about, whether it should be included or not. So the current concensus is two no's-nothing special. My own opinion is that the HRW whines in general and not always about the things they should. Do they count as an RS? The Times does obviously, but what about the HRW? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Human Rights Watch complains about landmine use everywhere, landmines have been used since the 1800's in scores of conflicts. There use in the Libyan conflict is neither suprising nor unique. Other conflicts that have used landmines do not generally mention them in great detail, so why the need to do so here?XavierGreen (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Times put it up on the front page when I happened to be looking there, so I guess they thought it was, because the HRW seemed to think it was. So nada then? Hmm, you're right they didn't sign the Ottawa Treaty. Bah, neither did Israel, I better watch where I step this summer just in case (just kidding... I hope).
- Libya is not party to the Mine Ban Treaty, so I don't see the bid deal. Libya has lots of mines, even a least 1 WWII AP minefield outside Ajdabija. Either way, it's a common weapon in Libya and it wouldn't surprise me in the least of both sides are employing them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a source for Eastern Libya's land mine status. They are being used by Col Ghadaffi, but in limmited numbers [[18]]. Wipsenade (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Pre-empting al-Jazeera report about Israeli weapons
Undoubtedly someone is going to come here and post the al-Jazeera story where the rebels said they had captured Israeli-made weaponry from Gadaffi's forces. Here is a reliable source refuting that claim from the evidence that was broadcasted. [19] I'm putting this here in the event someone decides they want that story put in this article. This is the only article about it though that I can actually find at the moment. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- An Israeli source stating the Israelis haven't sold weapons to Gadaffi isn't going to be the best source, I think if Al Jazeera claims the Israelis have sold weapons the best thing we can do is to include both claims and stating who made them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that fact isn't lost on me, but it's all I could find (though not all Israeli news sources think alike of course, YNet is generally centre-right from what I know, but the article relating to their affiliated newspaper beg to differ). =( All they're really doing of course is showing the images (though they are somewhat small) and saying you can't see any Israeli symbols or serial numbers to confirm it. Yeah, that would probably work. al-Jazeera stated that the rebels had claimed they'd found Israeli weapons, Israel's YNet stated that there was no discernable evidence in the images broadcasted to confirm this report. I'll let someone else find the al-Jazeera source. Shouldn't take too long. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't preface YNet with Israel's - as otherwise you are expressing that they might be unreliable. I think stating both al-Jazeera and YNet without qualification is best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I see what you mean. I was thinking of doing it because many people outside of Israel might not have heard of it, but as you said, that would seem to harm its credibility here. Wikilinking would do the job much better. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't preface YNet with Israel's - as otherwise you are expressing that they might be unreliable. I think stating both al-Jazeera and YNet without qualification is best. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, that fact isn't lost on me, but it's all I could find (though not all Israeli news sources think alike of course, YNet is generally centre-right from what I know, but the article relating to their affiliated newspaper beg to differ). =( All they're really doing of course is showing the images (though they are somewhat small) and saying you can't see any Israeli symbols or serial numbers to confirm it. Yeah, that would probably work. al-Jazeera stated that the rebels had claimed they'd found Israeli weapons, Israel's YNet stated that there was no discernable evidence in the images broadcasted to confirm this report. I'll let someone else find the al-Jazeera source. Shouldn't take too long. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Summary style
The point of creating separate sub-articles is to reduce the amount of information present in the main article. I'm seeing absurdly long 'summaries'. Either do an actual summary, or don't bother creating a sub-article in the first place. Duplication isn't helping anyone. Flatterworld (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It needs edit clarifying.82.2.64.166 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please manually archive!
Yes, MiszaBot has been changed from 3 days to 2 days, but (for example) an anonymous edit was made to the mammoth first move discussion today with the text, "Grogan?" Thus we have another two days of struggling under its weight (if we don't get someone asking "Grogan?" again). Thus we have the 261kbyte page, which breaks down functionality on modern computers that have no problem with other merely oversized Wikipedia pages. I can only imagine how impossible this page is to use for some users. Someone with commonsense regarding what is functionally "2 days stale" and how to archive without making a mess could do us a big favor. Wareh (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I will be archiving the the "Grogan?" section and 1 other that Miza bot missed elsware for you. My comp' is groaning under the presure to!Wipsenade (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
"Grogan?" and 5 other old debates have been archived and Miza bot has been sped up to!Wipsenade (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
It is now only 208KB long.
Breaga nearly falls, but the rebels hang on 13.49, April 1
- Brega IS NOT (unfortunately )in rebels hands as for today, but fights are ongoing, please update the color on the map. User:MaXiMiLiAnO 08:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Brega has just come back again under rebels' hands. 180.183.48.198 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rebels finaly retake Breaga.86.29.78.32 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Read this for the latest info on it [[20]].Wipsenade (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ajdabiya has now also being attacked [[21]].--Wipsenade (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- There´s nothing about Adjabiya beeing attacked in that article. --89.173.16.218 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Add Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi to the list of Commanders and leaders
I suggest Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi be added to the list of "Commanders and leaders" in the box at the right-top. According to a german language report he was the one, who implemented a new and important tactics in fighting the rebels in the eastern part of Libya. --Dinarsad (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sloppy sourcing
If the executive director of Human Rights Watch writes an article in Foreign Policy about Libya it is his opinion and not "The Human Rights Watch stated". If Human Rights Watch states anything then it can be found under Human Rights Watch - News Releases. Also to make out of "Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya." this line "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections", when a) some of 25 are not a few dozens b) the article never says any of this man has "al-Qaeda connections"; c) where the "at least" comes from is also an open question. When quoting or copying from sources, be precise! thanks, noclador (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the former, I haven't re-added it to the article so fine. On the latter, we've already discussed it at length on this talk page, in a discussion you refused to partake in, even after I strongly requested that you do so. Drop the stick and move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the line is wrong! I am not against including al-Qaeda in the article; I am against misquoting from the source!! Please read the telegraph piece again before you put the "and at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections" line back in, as it is not supported by the source. "and some fighters out of a group of 25 that went to Iraq are on the front line today" is the line that is supported by the article. The rest "at least" "a few dozens" "have al-Qaeda connections" are all not supported by the source. and threatening me with an ANI report does not make erroneous material correct; what you are now trying to do is to keep material not supported by the source in the article and you try to shut down a discussion about it by threatening me with an ANI report??? how about instead showing me my error and pointing out the line in the telegraph were it says "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections"; if you can point me to that line in the telegraph article I will shut up immediately! noclador (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- a compromise for me would be to put in the article "Some of a group of 25 men from Derna, who went to fight against coalition troops in Iraq are today on the front lines in Adjabiya. Some Western news sources claimed that these men might have al-Qaeda connections; a claim denied by the man, who recruited them to fight in Iraq[1]". Because then the source is correctly quoted. noclador (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the line is wrong! I am not against including al-Qaeda in the article; I am against misquoting from the source!! Please read the telegraph piece again before you put the "and at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections" line back in, as it is not supported by the source. "and some fighters out of a group of 25 that went to Iraq are on the front line today" is the line that is supported by the article. The rest "at least" "a few dozens" "have al-Qaeda connections" are all not supported by the source. and threatening me with an ANI report does not make erroneous material correct; what you are now trying to do is to keep material not supported by the source in the article and you try to shut down a discussion about it by threatening me with an ANI report??? how about instead showing me my error and pointing out the line in the telegraph were it says "at least a few dozen fighters have al-Qaeda connections"; if you can point me to that line in the telegraph article I will shut up immediately! noclador (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Removed KIA for Khamis Gaddaffi
There is no official confirmation (or) even widespread media consensus that Khamis is dead-could be plane rebel propoganda or more (first casualty of war is the truth) --Pranav (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
we might add that the choice of "† as a symbol for "KIA" was a bit of a poor choice. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- The use of † in infoboxes is customary and widely used via Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history practices. If you want to challenge its merits and usage the place to do it would be on that WikiProject's talk page, though i doubt there is much support in changing the practice as it is so widely used.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's also the policy to ignore all rules. In a situation like this, we need to use a little common sense and have a different symbology in articles that are heavily-based in Islamic areas. -- Avanu (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- It also fits in rather nicely with this little thing right here: Wikipedia:Drama#The_Principle_of_Least_Drama. Convenient, no? It's also a good policy to follow. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the symbol is actually called a "dagger," and implies "killed" rather than "given (Christian) burial." It definitely looks like a cross, but much like the BC/AD convention only grudgingly giving way to BCE/CE, it might take a while before an acceptable alternative is both developed and adopted widely. ChristopherGregory (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I brought up the same point at Gaza War, where it was used for some Hamas fellows. Somebody switched to a skull and crossbones and since then to just say "KIA" in brackets. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a problem with it being so small. I wouldn't think dagger if you had not mentioned it. Skull and cross bones would cause a bit less confusion imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You think so? The Gaza War infobox looks fine to me, even on my laptop. I don't really care though. I only brought it up there because I thought it was ironic to use Christian symbols for Islamist figures. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I mean it's supposed to be a dagger, but it looks like a cross unless someone says it is a dagger and even then it still looks like a cross. Hell if you put it in another font, it looks more daggerlike (fancy one though), but also like a fancy cross. I guess it is because Christians often shaped their blades like crosses (mostly from the Roman Spatha though, but I don't think it has to do with religion). KIA makes more sense because it also says they were killed as a result of the conflict. Putting just that odd dagger symbol there could mean that they were part of it, but they died as a result of choking on a fishbone or something, though common sense would/should (common sense isn't very common after all) tell you they were killed during fighting of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you meant the dagger. Yeah, I agree it is small. But it is cross-like. That part of the hilt is even called a crossguard. But check out the "KIA" at Gaza War. I think it looks okay although we don't have any dead commanders here at the moment. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well even before Christianity was the cool religion in Europe (and long before it was the required one) they still had the shape called a cross of course as that bit crosses it. =p (though the name crossguard probably came later so what I just said had no point) I did, I thought the K.I.A.'s looked nice and uncontroversial. Looked nice and organised as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- What about putting a black rectangle around a name to represent KIA? i know this isnt the place to discuss this but whatever Uc smaller (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seems a bit ambiguous; I'm not sure people would get what the black box means, like whether it shows who is important etc. Nope, this is a good place to dicuss what we should use in the box, keeps away the dreaded Drama Llama. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well even before Christianity was the cool religion in Europe (and long before it was the required one) they still had the shape called a cross of course as that bit crosses it. =p (though the name crossguard probably came later so what I just said had no point) I did, I thought the K.I.A.'s looked nice and uncontroversial. Looked nice and organised as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh you meant the dagger. Yeah, I agree it is small. But it is cross-like. That part of the hilt is even called a crossguard. But check out the "KIA" at Gaza War. I think it looks okay although we don't have any dead commanders here at the moment. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, I mean it's supposed to be a dagger, but it looks like a cross unless someone says it is a dagger and even then it still looks like a cross. Hell if you put it in another font, it looks more daggerlike (fancy one though), but also like a fancy cross. I guess it is because Christians often shaped their blades like crosses (mostly from the Roman Spatha though, but I don't think it has to do with religion). KIA makes more sense because it also says they were killed as a result of the conflict. Putting just that odd dagger symbol there could mean that they were part of it, but they died as a result of choking on a fishbone or something, though common sense would/should (common sense isn't very common after all) tell you they were killed during fighting of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You think so? The Gaza War infobox looks fine to me, even on my laptop. I don't really care though. I only brought it up there because I thought it was ironic to use Christian symbols for Islamist figures. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is a problem with it being so small. I wouldn't think dagger if you had not mentioned it. Skull and cross bones would cause a bit less confusion imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I brought up the same point at Gaza War, where it was used for some Hamas fellows. Somebody switched to a skull and crossbones and since then to just say "KIA" in brackets. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the symbol is actually called a "dagger," and implies "killed" rather than "given (Christian) burial." It definitely looks like a cross, but much like the BC/AD convention only grudgingly giving way to BCE/CE, it might take a while before an acceptable alternative is both developed and adopted widely. ChristopherGregory (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Khamis Gaddaffi has come back from the dead! He's reserected him self! He's imortal!Wipsenade (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can he bring back micheal jackson? XD wipsnade!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nightlight sales will skyrocket.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Al Queda
Should information from this article be incorporated into this article? If so, how? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Al Quaeda and Hamas have both been supplying the rebels. I added in a small section but am not sure how to add in the references? BBC carried the stories. Thanks! 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is on Jazera now.Sarurahn (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. (source: Telegraph[2]) Ratipok (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Telegraph is written, no? Why didn't you link the article rather than just saying it was the source? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is the same article we discussed earlier when all the IP's kept trying to vandalize the page and add the al-Qaeda flag to the infobox. It's a bad article where the contents don't match up to the headline, but that headline causes kneejerk reactions. Fovezer (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, be consistent then. Look at some of the "sources" added in the main article about Gaddafi and his troops, his regime and so on. Some of the sources are plain blogs from common people or from the media that publicly supports the Rebels, yet they are included withouth question. Here is the link for the Telegraph story: [3]. Apparently it was first published in Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore. Ratipok (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- it was not first published in "Il Sole 24 ore" - Il sole carried an article, which the telegraph condensed and perverted! Here is the original article [22] and I guess I am the only one who actually read it! The Il Sole article never makes the al-Qaeda - Libyan rebels connection and states that this claim actually generated on February 24th by the Libyan deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim and that the same claim of al-Qaeda being active in Derna was reiterated by Gaddafi himslef on March 3rd. Then the article goes on to say around 10 times that there are no foreign jihadists in Libya, that there is no al-Qaeda connection, that Abdul Hakim al Hasadi was never a member of al-Qaeda and so on and on. How the telegraph came up with their shitty headline is beyond me! noclador (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.economist.com/node/18488264?story_id=18488264 looks to say that there are fighters with "strongly Islamist credentials". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- it says so. But how many? and are they organized as such? are they under some leadership? It does say nothing beyond "worries persist that the most ardent rebel fighters have strongly Islamist credentials." that doesn't make al-Qaeda an active participant in this campaign. noclador (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.economist.com/node/18488264?story_id=18488264 looks to say that there are fighters with "strongly Islamist credentials". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- it was not first published in "Il Sole 24 ore" - Il sole carried an article, which the telegraph condensed and perverted! Here is the original article [22] and I guess I am the only one who actually read it! The Il Sole article never makes the al-Qaeda - Libyan rebels connection and states that this claim actually generated on February 24th by the Libyan deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim and that the same claim of al-Qaeda being active in Derna was reiterated by Gaddafi himslef on March 3rd. Then the article goes on to say around 10 times that there are no foreign jihadists in Libya, that there is no al-Qaeda connection, that Abdul Hakim al Hasadi was never a member of al-Qaeda and so on and on. How the telegraph came up with their shitty headline is beyond me! noclador (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Telegraph is written, no? Why didn't you link the article rather than just saying it was the source? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Capitalize Letters on Title!
Right now it is 2011 Libyan civil war. "civil" and "war" is uncapitalised!! do it Civil War!! it look very unprofessional like that!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- A civil war is not a proper noun. This is an encyclopedic article, not the title of a film. J1.grammar natz (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't use title case per WP:Manual of Style. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It should be capitalized.
American Civil War English Civil War Chinese Civil War Russian Civil War Somali Civil War 69.141.37.208 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It also isn't the proper name of the conflict except in a few sources, and they mostly talk about a civil war in Libya rather than naming it the "Libyan Civil War". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
lol, "Capitalize Letters on Title!" You forgot to Capitalize the "on", there. Did anyone ever tell you that using four exclamation marks in a single line, in exchange for dropping grammatical endings, looks a little bit ... unprofessional?
So far, I find two (2) sources (out of thousands) treating "Libyan Civil War" as a proper noun, canadafreepress.com (an Obama bashing blog) and fitsnews.com (a personal blog claiming to be "Unfair. Imbalanced.") Not exactly an overwhelming case so far, I am afraid. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- When I closed the move discussion, I lowercased "civil war" because editors who voted in that discussion wanted it to be treated as a civil war, but there's not yet a consensus in the media that the name of the conflict is "the Libyan Civil War." Might eventually be, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly in the history books or a few months from now in the papers if they haven't moved on to something else (hard to imagine they won't by next month, knowing the media). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- THAT does not matter. Look at Somali Civil War and American Civil War; they both use the proper cases for "Civil War". Therefore I support the capitalization of the name. -- 92.4.107.56 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- That would be because they are in fact the proper names for those events? That is especially so in the case of American Civil War, mostly because we just call it the Civil War, and American and US are just added for an international context. Please be sure to read all posts in each topic: ":::It also isn't the proper name of the conflict except in a few sources, and they mostly talk about a civil war in Libya rather than naming it the "Libyan Civil War". Those events have also entered into the history books (the US Civil War since before most of our grandfathers were born), and the Somali Civil War started in 1991 (and has been going ever since), so it is already in the history books as well. That and what else are you going to call something like Somalia's situation when it has lasted for 20 years? You can't compare a 20 year war to the situation in Libya. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"
It is unacceptably biased to describe combatants in negative terms as 'anti-Gaddafi'.
It is unacceptably biased to describe combatants in negative terms as 'anti-Gaddafi'. Those combatants have come together for positive reasons and positive affirmation of their own values. Further they define themselves as a 'National Transition Council' and 'Libyan Arab Republic', not as an anti- anything. The so called 'pro-Gaddafi' forces are not banded together to prevent only the murder and persecution of members of the Gaddafi tribe. They do not define themselves as 'pro-Gaddafi' but as the GSPLAJ and they are rather pro-socialism and pro the cultural traditions of GSPLAJ. Gaddafipeace (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
He's got a point, you know!Wipsenade (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If they are not "anti-Gaddafi", why are they fighting him then. Pro- and Anti- do not carry positive/negative connotations for native english speakers.Uc smaller (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
no he does not have a point.
"Gaddafi" does not mean the Qadhadfa tribe, "Gaddafi" means the individual autocrat, Muammar al-Gaddafi. Nobody ever claimed anything else. The sole and only purpose uniting these rebels is their desire to topple the Gaddafi regime. Consequently, they are best described as "anti-Gaddafi". Not only are they best so described, they are also actually so described (see [23]), which is the only thing we as a tertiary source are interested in. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wednesdays Independent, Kim Sengupta again - " the protest movement is a complex and composite body. While the intelligentsia in Benghazi talk passionately about democracy, civil rights and pluralism, a strong motivation for many on the front line is unwavering faith in Islam and the belief that gaddafi and his henchmen are apostates..amidst scant evidence of organised al-Qa'ida activity the regime has focused on Darnah," etc..so anti-gaddafi does seem o.k to me and like Dbachman says , it is how they are in fact described. Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- The fact is that the majority of people that would be reading this don't know anything about Libya's tribal system (myself included) and will automatically know we are talking about the guy himself rather than his tribe which is not well known outside of Libya and the surrounding area, as Dbachmann said. WP:KISS - it'll be a a lot easier if we stick with the current terminology. Also like UC said, it pro or negative have no connotations that are either postive or negative on their own and merely describe someone's view of something (if you know some German, think of dafür (for it) and dagegen (against it)) we don't really have a better more NPOV way to describe them that is easily understood by the readers. If we put GSPLAJ, people will say "what?" (on of the reasons if you're going to use it at all, call it the Jamahiyra). Also, and this is a serious question. Readers don't have to maintain an NPOV, so how many people reading this article would consider anti-Gadaffi to be negative? Very few. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wednesdays Independent, Kim Sengupta again - " the protest movement is a complex and composite body. While the intelligentsia in Benghazi talk passionately about democracy, civil rights and pluralism, a strong motivation for many on the front line is unwavering faith in Islam and the belief that gaddafi and his henchmen are apostates..amidst scant evidence of organised al-Qa'ida activity the regime has focused on Darnah," etc..so anti-gaddafi does seem o.k to me and like Dbachman says , it is how they are in fact described. Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Al Jawf situation report
It was liberated by the rebels and local tribes on the 11th of March and mostly retaken by Gadhafi’s forces on the 15th[[24]][[25]].Wipsenade (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Al Jawf is not mentioned in the second article. Only al-Jawf province in Yemen... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Latest reports are that the brigades in Kufra defected to the opposition. Unfortunately there's a paucity of media in southern Libya and not a lot of news getting out of it. Source -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a section about War Crimes
I think this article needs a section about War Crimes comited by all three sides in the war. The Loyalist (alleged killings of civilians and bombings of urban settlements etc.), the Rebels (alleged killings and torture of black African workers, supposed mercenaries) and UN Coalition (alleged bombings of urban settlements, which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva convention, and the alleged civilan casualties inflicted by the air strikes). The section could probably be placed between section 4. Battles between Gaddafi and opposition and 5. Humanitarian situation.Ratipok (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Let's wait for a UN fact-finding mission when there is less misinformation and chaos. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well then we should also wait for a UN fact finding mission to confirm any of the genocide and shooting-civilians claims by the rebels(and loyalists) which are taken by the article at face value, shouldn't we?Ihosama (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the whole article in a while I'm afraid. I think in the case of reports like that that have not been/cannot be independently confirmed. that indeed we should wait. They should be investigated so that it can be seen if they are true. It's not a good idea to put up this and that about massacres and genocides (I'm not sure how genocide applies in this case anyway) without videotaped footage (that can be put in proper context) and/or mass graves, etc. It worked with Srbija, we should do the same here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree fully. Encyclopedia is not a gossip publishing house. Just wanted to note that many statements in the article could not dream to hold up to such a standard.
- There are many statements and accusations already present throughout that would just need to be moved to a "war crimes" section. Doing so would help clean up the article of scattered accusations and having them at a single place would also allow for a much easier implementation of a more stringent quality control for crime accusations.Ihosama (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the whole article in a while I'm afraid. I think in the case of reports like that that have not been/cannot be independently confirmed. that indeed we should wait. They should be investigated so that it can be seen if they are true. It's not a good idea to put up this and that about massacres and genocides (I'm not sure how genocide applies in this case anyway) without videotaped footage (that can be put in proper context) and/or mass graves, etc. It worked with Srbija, we should do the same here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well then we should also wait for a UN fact finding mission to confirm any of the genocide and shooting-civilians claims by the rebels(and loyalists) which are taken by the article at face value, shouldn't we?Ihosama (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case, they should be taken out or moved to an alleged war crimes section as you said. Otherwise you have unsubstantiated claims presented as fact to the readers, and there are a lot of people getting their info from this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fully agree. Unfortunately I personally do not feel up to it. :( Ihosama (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Someone will probably do it, there's always someone willing to take up the slack, thankfully. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fully agree. Unfortunately I personally do not feel up to it. :( Ihosama (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- If that is the case, they should be taken out or moved to an alleged war crimes section as you said. Otherwise you have unsubstantiated claims presented as fact to the readers, and there are a lot of people getting their info from this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This aricle [26] tells about the murders of Gaddafi supporters in Cyrenaica, in particular about some of the soldiers who allegedly were killed by loyalist troops "because they refused to shoot unarmed protesters" according to the early media reports, but in fact they were captured and murdered by rebels. 95.32.110.73 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- gaddafi 'supporters' - is that a euphemism for 'the ones who were shooting the unarmed protesters as the uprising began' - this was on Panorama, film of the events, you can't whitewash it away, the gaddafi school of falsification, - tonight I saw the hospital ship bringing wounded from Misrata, teenage victims of snipers bullets , Khamis gaddafi besieging the town, . - all this cult of personality, gaddafi is good, everything else bad - mindless . Sayerslle (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sayerslle please respect WP:NICE. Ranting to an editor because of him bringing up a factual information is not the way to go.Ihosama (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, let's check our emotions at the door if they are likely to be riding high. Angry editing is bad editing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sayerslle please respect WP:NICE. Ranting to an editor because of him bringing up a factual information is not the way to go.Ihosama (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- gaddafi 'supporters' - is that a euphemism for 'the ones who were shooting the unarmed protesters as the uprising began' - this was on Panorama, film of the events, you can't whitewash it away, the gaddafi school of falsification, - tonight I saw the hospital ship bringing wounded from Misrata, teenage victims of snipers bullets , Khamis gaddafi besieging the town, . - all this cult of personality, gaddafi is good, everything else bad - mindless . Sayerslle (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Proper terminology to refer to usurper group
There are two alternatives: 'National Transition Council' and 'Libyan Arab Republic'. The former must be preferred when attempting to distinguish from the GSPLAJ which is also a Libyan Arab Republic/Jamahiriya == SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
- A jamahiriya (a neologism coined by Gaddafi that only applies to Libya) is not a republic. I agree we should consider ways we can rewrite the article to focus more on the factions than the conflict centering around pro- and anti-Gaddafi (though that's the common terminology, which is important on Wikipedia), but it's just not correct to translate "jamahiriya" as "republic". The National Transitional Council officially purports to govern the Libyan Republic, a de facto independent (albeit not secessionist) state that hasn't been officially recognized internationally inasmuch that it hasn't been mentioned in any official government dossiers or releases, at least that have been made public (though the NTC has been recognized as representing the Libyan people, presumably as its interim government, by France, Qatar, and reportedly Portugal), while Gaddafi's government is internationally recognized as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - not a republic, not democratic, and by most objective accounts, not truly a state of the people.
- There is a bit of a danger in trying to lump the rebels into one discrete, singular faction because of historic problems they've had with disorganization and difficulty in exerting full control. There have also been multiple changes in military leadership (Younis was first asked to resign in favor of Haftar, and more recently Haftar has been asked to resign, and it's not clear what role El-Hariri has played in military affairs amidst all this) and challenges to Abdul-Jalil's political leadership. Certainly the US and UK, strong international allies of the opposition, have not yet formally recognized the government in Benghazi; I think it's not a stretch to consider they obviously have some concerns when determining how to frame this conflict. And I think it's disingenuous to frame the conflict as a struggle against Abdul-Jalil's "rule", which is tenuous, counterbalanced by Prime Minister Jibril and the Free Libyan Army, and geographically limited; this began as a protest of Gaddafi's 42-year-long rule, and I think Gaddafi continues to motivate more people than Abdul-Jalil. It wouldn't surprise me if some people fighting for the rebels in Libya, especially in Tripolitania where they're relatively isolated and haven't been able to get much support from the east, don't even know who Abdul-Jalil is and possibly aren't even aware of the political situation in Benghazi, perhaps even the name of the council or its self-declared Libyan Republic. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Merging all or most of the battle pages
Making this suggestions here since this is the main article. I've noticed we've started stacking battles like crazy based on each individual town along the axis of advance for both Loyalist and Rebel forces. In the case of Brega, we have reached "3rd Brega" in the space of 2 weeks. This is horrendously bad military terminology, since all of these fights can be considered part of a single battle for central Libya. The Rebels want the Sirt Basin, and the Loyalists don't want them to have it. Every single action we have seen over the last week is related to this objective. Modern warfare is mechanized, and spread out over wide areas, and this war is no exception. We cannot continue making an individual battle article for each town that gets hit along the way. If this was done for other major mechanized campaigns that have occurred in this region, like the First Battle of El Alamein, we would have an enormous quantity of "battle" articles. I would refer users to the map in the El Alamein Wikipedia article. You will note that fighting occurred in numerous towns and villages over the course of a month. ArcherMan86 (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- You make good points, however we shall keep in mind that the standard for "battle" in an standard uprising/civil war would barely make it for a "skirmish" during WW2 (or OIF). As for the 3 "Battles of Brega", that is actually the only town where we have three. By the standards of this conflict:
- the first "battle" of Brega was one of the hardest-and-most-important during the first rebel offensive.
- the second "battle" of Brega was one of the most heavy-and-most-important during the first loyalist offensive.
- The third "battle" seems to be one of the few engagements that properly fit the "battle moniker" as front seems to be forming there for the first time.
- There already is an article about the second rebel coastal offensive and there probably will come to life another about the first rebel "offensive" and first loyalist offensive. Those shall consume the small engagement/battle articles over time. Calling the whole coastal campaign a single "battle" would be like calling the whole OIF push to Baghdad a single "battle".Ihosama (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions section for SuperblySpiffingPerson
Please feel free to add suggestions for SuperblySpiffingPerson. I have been trying to convey the point to him that these recent edits, while incredibly good faith, need to be merged with the material we have, rather than just supplanting it. I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere, maybe other editors can help. I think SuperblySpiffingPerson brings a great viewpoint to this article, but is causing a disruption at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- What can we do if he refuses to come and explain his views on the talk page? Significant changes like that need a consensus, and he is not trying to get one. Like you said, at this point, it's nothing but disruptive vandalism. Fovezer (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think repeatedly referring to the rebels as "turncoats", "usurpers", and "warlords", intimating that Gaddafist Libya is a democracy, equating the terms "republic" and "jamahiriya", framing the conflict as a struggle against the "rule" of Abdul-Jalil or the "occupation" of "transitionist" (not a word, as others have noted) "guerrillas", or referring to air and sea operations in accordance with a UN mandate as an "invasion" equals a "great viewpoint". And of course there's certainly no question that edit warring, declining to seek consensus, and obdurately refusing to justify his proposed edits on the Talk page is not the correct way to advance any viewpoint.
- If he comes back, chastened by being banned for twice as long as his previous block, and wants to start a rational discussion on the Talk page - I don't think a bit of rewriting to focus on the factions rather than on Gaddafi himself would be amiss, for example, even if I think the dramatic reinterpretation of this civil war as a struggle for the Gaddafists (not an official term, of course) to "restore order" after "transitionists ... seized control" is completely fantastical and ludicrous on a number of levels - then that's great, but I'm not holding my breath for him to do anything but pop up on 16/17 April and start immediately turning the article into an alphabet soup of acronyms with a dash of blatant pro-Gaddafi propaganda yet again. I realize we have to assume good faith, but this is getting ridiculous. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The guy is definitely trying hard as an edit, and you've got to give him props for persistence, but I'm gonna be frank; it seems like he is on a crusade, practically, to put in these acronyms and make his edits stay when all the other editors disagreev(normal people ofc, not politicians or anyone who should often be denied what they want). If, when he is unbanned, he goes right back to doing what got him banned the first two times, then at some point you have to take WP:TURNIP to heart and realise it's not good faith anymore if the guy keeps it up after fifteen or more people have told him not to. I know there's WP:CIVIL and all, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is. (citing wikiessays allows me to continue my laziness so I don't contribute anything myself, hehe) Of course, it could be that he learns his lesson and we are all pleasantly surprised and he contributes greatly to the article. I would like for this to happen. If Mr. Superb is reading this, maybe you want to turn over a new leaf? It couldn't hurt.
- Btw, anyone ever see this one before? WP:DUCKSEASON. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, now that you're unbanned for talk pages, Superb, would you be so kind as to prove the negative parts of my assessment to be incorrect? It would be much appreciated. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- before being blocked he moved the article Anti-Gaddafi forces to Libyan Transitionist forces [27]. Transitionist?? that's not even a word! should that move be reversed??? noclador (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, now that you're unbanned for talk pages, Superb, would you be so kind as to prove the negative parts of my assessment to be incorrect? It would be much appreciated. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Moved back. Unfortunately, he's unblocked now. I was hoping for a rest.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, it'll probably be a word soon knowing our language (1.2 million words and counting). Wait, actually it is, sorta, but it's apparently the name of an artistic movement as shown in this article: Deanne Cheuk as well as here, TSC, the Transitionist Snowboard Camp, but neither of those helps us in any way of course. He also visited Politics of Libya as can be seen here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Video of public execution of black African man in Benghazi
Found this video on Youtube (you have to sign up to view it), where an angry mob hanged (upside down) a black African man (alleged to be Gaddafi's mercenary) and then chopped his head off with a machete. Doesnt really fit into 'freedom fighters anti-Gaddafi' description they want West to see, does it? If anyone wants to incorporate it into the article, feel free to do so.
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVukQDXuCSE&fmt=18&has_verified=1&skipcontrinter=1 or [[28]] Ratipok (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- There's lots of such (and worse, and not only black-skinned victims) videos from Libya on youtube, but i suspect that anti-Gaddafi
protesterseditors here will complain immediately about the original research, youtube not being a reliable source or something like this. 95.32.161.87 (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I have ever seen so many cell-phones and cameras recording at once. Interesting video though I thought the guy who put it up went into a lot of hyperbole. I mean the people in Afghanistan stormed a UN building and killed people there, but I wouldn't call them all terrorists. Fanatics, yes, but not terrorists. Is there an article backing up the video that maybe gives a background to it (there should be with so many people taking videos)? It would compliment the video. You should have said that they hung him upside down (hanging usually implies a noose around one's neck), I couldn't tell where he was until the guy got in close. What is that odd "aaaaaayyyyiii ayyyyyyiiiii" sound btw? I've heard it before somewhere. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Btw one of the "horrible Gaddafi crimes against unarmed protesters" few years ago was something similar to what happened in Afghanistan yesterday - angry mobs were storming italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi and security forces shot at them (current 2011 protests were linked to these 2006 shooting incidents). Now we see what happens if nobody stops "peaceful protesters" 95.32.161.87 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Grose!82.2.65.192 (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It is horrific!Wipsenade (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
2things to tell 1. So many phones and no proofs of AntiKadaffi rebels claims about bombings of civilians or use of mercenaries. 2. You should add this video to main article as example of Lynching provoked by Media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.42.109 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Brega?
There have been quite a few contradictory reports about the situation in Brega. Some say the rebels have pulled out, while other articles state that the loyalists have lost Brega. What is our stance? -Tim, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.34 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Last I read from Al Jazeera's Live Blog was that the rebels had taken control of most of the city. "2:40pm Al Jazeera's correspondent reported that Libyan pro-democracy fighters have taken control of most the Libyan city of Brega after having engaged in clashes with Gaddafi forces."[29] I still think it is too early to know for certain the outcome, though. Have to wait a little longer to get a clearer picture. Fovezer (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- So i would say the battle's ongoing (blue). Uc smaller (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
AlJazeera and SMH are reporting that the frontlines are CURRENTLY at Brega's University, 5-10 km East of Brega. Meaning that as of the situation RIGHT NOW, Brega is still under Gaddafi control.Uc smaller (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- here is a snip I have posted to the Third Battle of Brega discussion:
- Brega university campus is:
- 10km(!) of desert away from Brega town
- 2km x 2km(!) big area of continuous settlements, there are actually more buildings in the campus than in Brega
- being a Uni campus, it is reasonable to conclude it is UNINHABITED at the moment (as it has no permanent residents to speak of)
- Given the above, it makes sense to split the fighting on/for the campus with fighting in/for the Brega town itself.Ihosama (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would seem I was wrong on satellite imagery identification. The Uni is about 2 miles east of Brega directly on the coastal highway. Does someone have info on what that big 2km x 2km urban complex about 4 miles further north-east of the Uni?Ihosama (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that is called "New Brega." Here is a recent article where they refer to it as New Brega: Brega stretches out over several miles of the coast and is concentrated in three main sections: New Brega, a largely residential area on the east end; West Brega, which includes a refinery and housing for oil workers; and a university between them. West Brega was still contested.[30] Fovezer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would seem I was wrong on satellite imagery identification. The Uni is about 2 miles east of Brega directly on the coastal highway. Does someone have info on what that big 2km x 2km urban complex about 4 miles further north-east of the Uni?Ihosama (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Brega university campus is:
Reports of US soldiers (Special Forces) already being stationed on Libyan soil + arming the Rebels already under way
Al Jazeera reports that, despite the insurances from Obama that no US soldier will put boots on Libya soil, US soldiers (Special Forces) are already in east Libya where they are traning the Rebels togheter with the Egyptians. According to them the Rebels have allready been supplied with weapons that came from Egypt, despite the UN arms embargo. Source: [[31]]. Ratipok (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- "our source is rebel fighter"... and "he was sent there to fire Katyusha rockets, but the weapon he had to begin with was a simple unguided kind of pop of the shoulder rocket"... the lightest Katyusha rockets weigh 60-70kg and you definitely do not fire them from your shoulder, because the fire from the rocket engine would incinerate you... "state of the art Katyusha rockets, which were heat seeking" - the are no heat seeking Katyusha rockets. It sounds like a lot of BS to me: either the fighter is talking BS or the reporter has no clue what he is talking about. noclador (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- if you look at the Al Jazeera live blog from April 3rd at 1:33pm you see they are already back-paddling on their claim. noclador (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Reporters never know what they are talking about when it comes to weapons. Uc smaller (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that it certainly couldn't have been Katyusha rockets to which this source was referring doesn't necessarily obviate the gist of the claim - but for now it's an unconfirmed report, and we've been getting a lot of those out of Libya lately. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Katyusha was originally the nickname given to Russian multiple rocket launchers (not the rockets) during WW2, after a popular song of the time. The English equivalent is "Katie" (which makes them sound much less dangerous!) Since then, the name has been applied to many different simple, short range, usually unguided, missiles (I was almost on the receiving end of one fired from Lebanon into Israel in 1979. Luckily it missed!) so it should probably only really be applied as a general term, as in this case. Lynbarn (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- All Katyusha rockets are unguided, thats why there called rockets and not missles. They are just larger size unguided artillery rockets and are very common in even the poorest of african military forces.XavierGreen (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, Being pedantic, as I often am, the terms "rocket" and "missile" are not mutually exclusive - a missile is simply any weapon that is thrown (by whatever means). A stone can be a missile. A rocket can be a missile, or it can be for other (ie non-weapon) use, such as satellite launching, with plenty of examples of the same design being used for both (e.g. Thor). Whether it is guided or not is not the relevent differentiator, or else we would not need to refer to "guided missiles", although I agree in modern military parlance, an unguided, self-propelled missile is normally referred to as a rocket! :) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- (NB. The following is purely conjecture on my part) US soldiers (ie "combat troops") may not have boots on the ground, but the US may perhaps have provided "military advisors" which would be one way to stay within the letter of UNSCR 1973, if not the spirit. UK SAS spotters were allegedly responsible for aborting at least one RAF mission to Tripoli when they saw the civilians/reporters in the target area. Other nations will likely also have similar covert forces in theatre, but as I've said before, the "fog of war" decends very quickly and very thickly, so we will never know all the truths - certainly not while the campaign is ongoing. Lynbarn (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was also this story about us having CIA operatives operating there [32] in a reconnaissance capacity. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- The training report is too sketchy(unconfirmed) and the reconnaissance too non-notable for inclusion, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
2011
If this is the first civil war in Libya,is there need to include the year in the TITLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.11.31 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't think so. I would remove the 2011 from the title. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Me too. But, repeating myself, considering the huge several-hundred-post-long battles on other renaming topics, let's not start another renaming craze. There already is a redirect and the current title is anything but inaccurate.Ihosama (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Libya also had civil wars (or events that could be termed as such) in 1711 and 1835 (EDIT: also 1795 and 1920), according to a very cursory glance at GoogleBooks. Articles on either of those conflicts (if not already covered elsewhere) would certainly be welcome additions to WP overall. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Do those events have a page?????????????Or even an actual name????
- Figures involved in the events have their pages. I didn't glance in-depth, so not sure how often they're referred to as the "1711 Libyan Civil War", and how often it's just "civil war broke out in Libya in 1711". Not quite sure what WP:MILHIST policy is on labelling such conflicts, but the point remains that there certainly have been multiple events in Libya described as "civil war", so the title should specify "2011". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
UN General Assy
The article asks for the date of when the UN suspended Libya from the Human Rights Council. The official press release is dated 1 March 2011
"General Assembly Suspends Libya from Human Rights Council". United Nations General Assembly GA/11050 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York- Sixty-fifth General Assembly Plenary 76th Meeting. 1 March 2011.
Suggest edit "On March 1st..." and move to date order after Feb actions.69.72.27.30 (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Defection?
Is Abdul Ati al-Obeidi the Moussa Koussa deputy Al Jazeera is reporting fled to Greece?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Arab League did NOT back Libyan no-fly zone
Recently exposed: only 11 of 22 members present, only 9 of them voted for [33]. And then BBC reports that "only 2 league members were against". Sounds like an anecdote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.177.235 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- The article is written like a conspiracy theory. It can't be used as an RS. On the subject of the vote: If it passed it passed. If members weren't present, it was their loss. I assume that the Arab League doesn't require the votes of all members and just those that are there? I am honestly not sure. If that is the case though, it's like presidential elections in the US and other countries (where voting isn't mandatory), as well as legislative votes, if you don't vote, don't be upset about the consequences. So if it does function that way, it doesn't really matter if they didn't participate, they should have, but they chose not to. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like they had no time to choose. And about the RS better check the refs for the infobox mercenary presense. Now there's a blog, an article that doesn't deals with merc existence at all, and a bunch of very ambiguous articles referencing each other. And on such shaky grounds someone removes "limited/alleged" description for the mercs in the infobox, when the right question should be "is merc presense proven and significant enough to include them there at all" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.177.235 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- They had plenty of warning. The idea of a no-fly zone was discussed for days and days before and whether the Arab League gives its ok was also discussed. They had lots of time, and even if the Arab League ok wasn't discussed, they would have it was probably going to happen. On top of all that, even if the no-fly zone hadn't been all over the news, they do have intelligence agencies that would have known something and they could have sent their representative or acting representative in advance. They have resources at their disposal, and they use them. So yeah, they had plenty of time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's correct. If they weren't present or abstained, that isn't equivalent to a "no" vote. If this is true, that's still 9-2 in favor, which under Arab League rules constitutes adoption of the motion - the same way the UN Security Council vote was a unanimous 10-0 in favor, even though five countries abstained; they failed to register their opposition, and so they're not counted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree with wording something as 10 to 0, if only 5 people voted. You might be able to get away with 'unanimous', although I would characterize that as disingenuous. -- Avanu (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's why one should be specifc, W voted for, X voted against, Y abstained, and Z not present. Though an abstaining vote is quiet acquiesence to the winning decision. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. But it certainly isn't correct to say the Arab League didn't call for a no-fly zone when, legally speaking and in accordance with proper procedure, they did. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, they didn't. Also according to the wiki article on the League internal workings, "Each member state has one vote in the League Council, while decisions are binding only for those states that have voted for them", so i doubt if it's entirely correct to say "Arab League (as a whole) decided something" even if majority of its members voted for something (and now they have only 9 votes of 22). Also didn't Arab League official complained about the airstrikes shortly after they had begun? 77.45.177.235 (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Amr Moussa did, yes, but he walked back his remarks. The resolution was nonbinding anyway, IIRC, so that italicized portion doesn't really apply. And states that abstain or are not present forfeit their vote by nature of the format; the quorum was fulfilled and the Arab League adopted the nonbinding resolution in accordance with its own statutes. Besides, I haven't seen any other sources aside from that sketchy one you posted corroborating the claim that half of Arab League states showed up to the vote. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, according to this [34] article quorum was 15 (fifteen) members in 2009. Does anybody have any info about the current rules? 95.32.163.35 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine they know the rules better than a bunch of schmucks on Wikipedia do. The media reported that they had called for a no-fly zone, Moussa and others acknowledged they called for a no-fly zone, Lebanon introduced the resolution with language saying that the Arab League called for a no-fly zone. We know Syria and Algeria both voted against it, but their governments haven't gone so far as to claim the vote wasn't legal. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Vote might be legal only for present countries, but this means it's a will only of these countries. So far all i see is media interpretations and cliches. Same as the rant about "international community will" referring to several countries out of some 200. 95.32.96.202 (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- WP:RS indicate the position of the Arab League is that they voted to call upon the UN to impose a no-fly zone. Resolution 1973 was introduced by Lebanon, an assenting member state of the Arab League, to the UN Security Council for that purpose, noting its endorsement by the Arab League, and it was duly adopted. This is an entirely semantic argument beyond that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why the fussymess
![]() | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
I believe that it is s bunch of 'locker-bashing' loonies. Lockerbie is their fought of all Libyans since none have apologised for their actions on either side. Quadaffi is only trying to sop Iranian backed radical mullahs anyhow.Sheron B. (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The above user is a troll!De Openteeth (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Sir, please bring your bias elsewhere. John Holmes II (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please see Rules 1 & 2 of the internet. Also I hate to tell you, but I believe you just linked this page in a way (some sort of IP origin thing if I remember from forums), so we might be having some visitors soon. (change your pw's just in case. :X) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 2011 Libyan civil war -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to change. For every "strongly support" vote, there's a "strongly oppose" vote. Last time it was a clear majority for changing to some form of "civil war," but now there's not a consensus for anything. It's currently 32 support and 43 opposes, but no matter whether those numbers continue to fluctuate, the two camps are clearly not going to reach agreement any time soon. For now, I'll reinforce my previous close, but User:Ohms law has created a page at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move for discussion of future possible renames. Perhaps consensus can emerge there. As a side note, there's an allegation of serious sockpuppetry at the end of this discussion, which people knowledgeable about that process should investigate, if they haven't already.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Comment Civil war is defined as a war between political factions or regions within the same country. I think this fits. Wikipedia's Civil War article also supports it. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
'Important Comment'google news hits for "libyan conflict" are not 3x the google news hits for "libyan civil war". The precise number is 13,500 for "libyan civil war" to 21,000 for "libyan conflict", thats 60% more not "3 times" as many. Secondly, in choosing to use only the google news numbers the person who started this ignored the overall hit numbers for google search, which are: 19.9 million for "Libyan Civil War" to 13.7 million for "Libyan Conflict". Thirdly, there is already an article with the name "libyan conflict" located here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflict. If you google "Libyan Conflict" it is the first result on the page, I thus suggest to everyone here that re-naming this article would cause confusion between the two.174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
174.114.87.236 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (redacted)Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
174.114.87.236 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is quite a few wikipedia based policies on not slinging around wikipedia policy at eachother. The people who have voted expressed their opinion on WP:COMMONNAME by default, to argue that your interpretation of the rules is the only right one is a waste of time. Also, comparing the definition of a civil war to the ongoings in libya is perfect legitimate, as surely as looking at a map and saying this is happening in libya is legitimate. [WP:SYNTH]] says:
WP:SYNTH is about combining two or more sources to draw a conclusion, not looking at a source and interpreting the results. Interpretation is innate in consciousness, you can't read or understand anything without doing it. All you are doing is accusing one person of synthesizing becauase they disagree with you. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment I have done a search of "libyan conflict" and "libyan civil war" and tried to find as many news results for either as possible. Right now, I am disregarding how many articles a certain source has referring to either one. I am only going to list sources that use the term at least once.:
This is probably not a very accurate list, so if there are sources that I have missed or sources that should/shouldn't belong here, please just say so. I would also like to cite WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I don't think we must adhere strictly to what is most common or the most used in order to improve this article.--Dalaru (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
DiscussionIs there another place we can take this to get Wikipedian input on it, or some appeals process or something? Zhaoni(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
Compromised VotesPlease see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paliku, it seems Polenta and Zhaoni were one and the same. One editor, one vote, or should his votes be discounted entirely? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Are these all sockpupets? They have been buggering about in Egypt, Libya and the Mortal Combat gameWipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC). Well?Wipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Further discussionJust to let everyone interested know, I've started a dedicated draft "Requested move" page at Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move. This issue obviously isn't going to go away; even if the current discussion results in a decision, ongoing events are likely to cause opinions and our sources to change. This requested move is actually supposed to be closing now, but with (in my opinion) the lack of any significant consensus, and the general backlog at WP:RM, it may be a while before someone uninvolved actually closes this discussion. When that does happen however, someone should open the dedicated page for discussion. Regards, |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Compromised votes revisited and possible sock puppets
Are these all sockpuppets? They have been buggering about in Egypt, Libya and the Mortal Combat game.Wipsenade (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
- User talk:94.246.150.68
- User:Sarurahn
- User:Seruru
- User:Gaddafipeace
- User:HanzoHattori[[62]][[63]][[64]]
- User:SuperblySpiffingPerson[[65]]
- User:Paliku[[66]]
Well, will it spead to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Requested move next?!Wipsenade (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- GadaffiPeace was Superb's and he has had a two week ban put in place whereas Paliku has recieved the mighty banhammer. Most of the others are banned as well, so no worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2011-03-21/reportage-ribelli-islamici-tolleranti-231527_PRN.shtml
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html