Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.

• For discussions regarding the main map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Gulf of Sirt Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Tripolitanian Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Battle for Misrata" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.

Discussing specific complaints on the Commons talk pages keeps discussion here focused on the article and makes it much more likely that your concerns will be properly addressed. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Saif al-Arab @ infobox

Why he was posthumously listed in the infobox as one of the "commanders and leaders"? He was neither. Simply being a son of a leader doesn't make him a leader. But the fact he was with his father all this time proves that the rumours about him being sent to Benghazi to quell protests and then siding with the rebels were nothing more than usual pro-rebel lies and propaganda. 77.45.143.205 (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point about him being list as a leader is right. He was reported to be a "minor son" in sources I read, though idr which they were atm, probably Jerusalem Post. But yeah, he wasn't someone who actually lead anything afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the sons are leaders to some degree, each having been given their own, essentially personal, 'army'...ranging from 100-10000 men.92.21.218.112 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unfounded claim. That's how english wiki works: watch NATO killing a civilian and then name him a military person 77.45.205.194 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed him from the info box for the reasons listed above. He had(has) no connection to the military. Besides, no one even believes he's dead. 163.1.188.194 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary events

Preliminary events

Why is that "vandalism" when the defector Nouri Mesmari who was head of protocol of Muammar Gaddafi and preparations for the airstrikes by France and Britain are mentioned? There is even an official website by the French military on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.245.25 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a conspiracy theory; please read WP:Fringe and it is also a ridiculous conspiracy theory. noclador (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Preliminary events" does have references and the idea that it is a "ridiculous conspiracy theory" is just your opinion. I get told off for expressing opinions on this page so let's have some consistency. Biscuittin (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a "conspiracy theory". Those are facts from Maltastar, AFP, AlJazeeraEnglish and an official website of the French military. Just watch the videos. It is really Nouri Mesmari the head of protocol of Muammar Gaddafi. He is in Paris and he asks for NATO air strikes against Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.104.99 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense! Conspiracy theories are not part of an encyclopedia. noclador (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not nonsense. Those are facts from Maltastar, AFP, AlJazeeraEnglish and an official website of the French military you cannot refute and that is why you ignore them. Your allegation is just your unsubstantiated opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.165.5.179 (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey-hoe!Wipsenade (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much vandalism

Currently, there seems to be too much vandalism going on. I have requested semi-protection here.--Tingo Chu (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one. There is no hope. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.192 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I work for the CIA? News to me. O_O We have just been getting our info off of the RSs and putting it here. As far as I know, the CIA, MI6, Aussie MI6 (G something or other), Mossad and everyone else haven't had a hand in writing this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the 'Australian SIS'. 86.24.22.97 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As we see above, it was called "a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one." Why just the CIA!? Sir William is right, it is unfair to only blame the USA (the UK and France are in there to)?

Wipsenade (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that serious consideration be given to the thought that vandalism is being undertaken by Gaddafi supporters wherever they may be. Including the comment above that "This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history."

We should be asking ourselves who has most to gain from making this suggestion. The US, or Gaddafi? Agent0060 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Australian version of the CIA is ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation), just for your information.. Tjpob (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi

Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi wasn´t leader or comander! he was a civilian, killed by NATO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.161.123 (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that given recent events, the towns of Bani Walid, Zurawah, and Zliten be labeled on the map as "unclear situation" instead of "Gaddafi-controlled" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heresbubba53190 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti Gadaffi loses

Somebody put smaller numbers of anti-Gadaffi forces loses. I don't know is there some new sources but it is quite strange that loses of one belligerent side become smaller as war going on?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We revised the numbers in the main article. Before the opposition numbers included civilians also. Now we made an attempt to separate the civilians from the rebels. That's why it went down. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Rebel Movements

On the AJE Libya blog it states that the rebels are now going through the streets of Tawergah and huting for hiding Gaddafi troops. There is also a video named "Rebels Creep Towards Sirte", perhaps the arrow south of Misrata should be put back again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.137.160 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for such discussions. See here for the image talk. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war – It makes no sense to have the 2011 added on here as there have been no other civil wars in Libya's history. Name change also does not conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Per Knowledgekid87. There have not been any other Libyan civil wars. Only this one. What's the purpose of the 2011? We don't call the Bosnian civil war the 1991 Bosnian civil war? EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We actually call the Bosnian Civil War just the Bosnian War. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok than, but we don't call it the 1991 Bosnian war :). EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Libyan civil war" or Libyan Civil War? (2011 Libyan Civil War) 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: quoting myself from Archive 8: Libya also had civil wars (or events that could be termed as such) in 1711, 1795, 1835 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). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  If there are such events, then Libyan Civil War should list them all. Yug (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  Re "list them all": Merely because they are not on Wikipedia does not mean that they did not occur. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember that discussion, someone really should write that article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys should direct yourselves to my comment at the bottom of this section, there were no other conflicts which are libyan civil wars, and if you're opposing the name change based on this you may wish to alter your stance. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, look for a few sources and make your decision based on what they say. Libya predates the Italians. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please do a search for sources that discuss libyan civil wars besides the current conflict. Like me, you will discover that the Italians unified the former Turkish colonies of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan in 1934. You will also find that they chose to name this unified colony Libya because it was the word that the Greek's used to refer to all of North Africa (except Egypt). At this point you may logically ask yourself how any conflict that occurred before 1934 could be a libyan civil war if the country did not yet exist and the people who lived in the area did not yet refer to it as Libya :). 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But you will find that there are a number of civil wars that occurred in what is today Libya. These wars would most likely be addressed by a book covering the history of Libya, and someone searching for "Libyan civil war" might very well be searching for one of those. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support This is the biggest modern day internal conflict involving two Libyan factions unlike the coup. It should be just Libyan civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuffinxMonster420 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as there have been others. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MatthewVanitas. Lack of articles on the other wars is no reason to have this one usurp what should be disambiguation space. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per MatthewVanitas. Also, for consistency's sake. All the other articles stemming from the Middle East protests (e.g. 2011 Egyptian Revolution, 2011 Syrian uprising, 2011 Saudi Arabian protests) include "2011" in the title. Regardless of whether there have been other revolutions/uprisings/protests in those countries (there have), I feel that keeping "2011" in the title of this article is important for now to maintain consistency. In addition, should Gaddafi be overthrown, there will likely be a (successful) push to rename this article "2011 Libyan Revolution." Why must we name and rename this article more often than absolutely necessary to maintain WP:COMMON, etc.? DonT15 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment In response to other candidates for libyan civil wars: "In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan" (from Wikipedia page on Libya). So someone has some explaining to do, how can an area that is divided into 3 separate colonies (none of which are called Libya) wage a civil war (a war for the legitimate control of the government) between themselves? All of this on-top of the fact that the Italians were administering the government in each of these 3 separate colonies. This rules out any 1920 civil war, the fact that it wasn't even called Libya by the people who lived there in 1711, 1795, and 1835 rules out the others. In sum, no internal conflict in this area before 1934 can be called a Libyan civil war, that would be like calling the French and Indian Wars the American Civil War because it took place in what is now the USA. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The French and Indian War is not really a valid comparison; that is war between colonial powers moreso than amongst the people. Regardless of modern naming conventions, civil wars in Tripolitania/Cyrenaica/Fezzan/any combination of the three might be referred to as Libyan civil wars. See this, for instance, which refers to Libya as a "quasi-independent Ottoman province", which goes against your claims of Italy creating the political entity known as Libya in 1934. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See this as well, which states "rebellions broke out across Libya and the countryside descended into civil war." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Italy created what is now Libya, I bolded the important part of the quote in hopes that no one would miss it, Italy chose the name Libya. The circumstances of an individual war were not my point, my point is that we cannot responsibly go around and name conflicts based on the countries which eventually came to exist in the area they took place. As a legal entity no country of Libya existed before 1934, and the name Libya was not even used to refer to that area by the people who lived in it before 1934 (as the quote points out that it was the Greek name for all of north africa minus egypt, not a name which was indigenous to that area). These wars which you mention did not take place in any state, country, nation, or entity called Libya, either by historians and scholars now or the people of that time either. The google search you provide only has 3 book results, one of which refers to "Tripoli (Libya)" and is clearly drawing the distinction between what it was called then vs. now, one of which uses Tripoli and Libya in alternating sequence and the first one which erroneously just uses Libya. Are you really going to argue that the name shouldn't be changed bc 1 author used the name Libya when he should have said Tripoli like the other authors did? This kind of stuff just distracts from the real issue which is simply that nothing at all has changed in this situation to warrant changing the name. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if we were discussing the name of one of those conflicts, which we are not. My point is that any of those conflicts might be termed a "Libyan civil war" by a searcher. That is why we would have Libyan civil war as a disambiguation page, to point them to the correct page of whatever civil war they seek that occurred in what is today Libya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That would make perfect sense if these wars in question even existed as articles on wikipedia, but they don't. We have to deal with things as they are, not as they could be. As it stands right now these wars you speak of don't have articles and thus they should not have any weight in what name we give this page. When (if ever) they exist and when (if ever) people confuse them with this page then it would be worth consideration. I think its also important to point out that even if these past wars had pages they'd be little more than stubs, and given the near lack of sourcing on them they would be at risk for deletion. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. If they happened, they can be articles. All that is needed is for someone to create them. That is the entire premise of Wikipedia. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My argument is perfectly valid, the name of this page cannot take into account pages which don't exist. Those pages haven't been created, they might never be created, and they may never be called anything which could be confused with this page. And if they were created, a disambiguation page might not be, or the articles could simply get deleted. There are too many variables in this that could quickly render your entire argument moot. But if you really believe what you're saying then I urge you to go and create the pages so that we can get this resolved, otherwise this will remain hypothetical bs for the foreseeable future. Since you mentioned premises I'll also remind you that Wikipedia isn't merely a repository for everything in existence, articles have to be well sourced and in a reliable, verifiable manner. I caution you that the sources given for these wars aren't very reliable, and given the sheer lack of sourcing that they aren't verifiable either. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said that "the name of this page cannot take into account pages which don't exist"? WP:OTHERSTUFF may not exist on the wiki as of now, but that is no reason to disregard them. Just because we do not have articles on them does not mean that they should not be taken into account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to remind you that WP:THEREISNODEADLINE for article creation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have converted Libyan civil war to a disambiguation page for now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? There is no rule that we must disregard information which is not on wikipedia, but there is no rule that we have to take it into account either. I am simply advocating that we deal with concrete scenarios and not hypothetical ones, which is why I asked you to create the page so that we could deal with it, and now we will. I congratulate you on craftily avoiding stub articles by making the disambiguation page a page of information onto itself...good job 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your reference goes against this reference [1] page 61 of this book states that Libya was named Libya in 1934. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Libya was not a separate independent state in 1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920, just a collection of Ottoman or Italian provinces. The Proffesor (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As many people have said, there were ones in 1711, 1795 and 1835. Also, it would be most unlikely this war will slip into 2012. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 08:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As you can read here, adding the '2011' to the title was a deliberate choice because there actually have been other Libyan civil wars, such as the 1832 Libyan civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per User:TaalVerbeteraar's note.Wipsenade (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support I am changing my position to supporting the move, I can see that the people who are opposing the move are the same people who have opposed every rename at every point and that inventing imaginary wars is their next step in stifling the process. You may think this is an unwarranted accusation, but I don't see how people who opposed the name "libyan civil war" because it didn't meet WP:COMMON can now turn around and say that other wars which have never been called "libyan civil war" could be considered them even though they would never meet WP:COMMON and don't even exist on the encyclopedia! The bottom line is this: you cannot have a Libyan civil war before 1934 because Libya did not exist before 1934, and unlike in the case of "America" the area that is now called Libya was never referred to as such by the people who lived there until 1934. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC
• Support, even if it isn't the only thing that might conceivably be called a Libyan civil war, it's still the clear primary topic for that phrase. Also by calling it "2011" it sounds like it's already over, or we somehow know it's going to be over before the year's out.--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per MatthewVanitas. Also, the consistency with other wiki articles about other arab conflicts this year would be lost1exec1 (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its kind of inevitable that said consistency will be lost, "Tunisian Revolution" has already lost its "2011". In any event, they'll all remain connected through the "Arab Spring/Jasmine Revolution" article. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Almost every oppose standpoint I have seen here have just agreed with another's POV or cited that there were other civil wars in 1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920 and pointed here that back then they were just a collection of Ottoman (Ottoman Tripolitania) or Italian provinces. If Libya was indeed named Libya in 1934 which it appears to have been "In 1934, Italy adopted the name "Libya" (used by the Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three Provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan). The colony was administered among four provincial governatores (Commissariato Generale Provinciale) and the southern military territory (Territorio Militare del Sud or Territorio del Sahara Libico" then there would be no other conflict named Libyan Civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons listed above. It is the only Civil war in Libyan history. Its not important whether the other ones have a page or not. Whats important is that prior to 1934 'Libya' was not called Libya and did not exist as a nation-state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There is NOTHING wrong with the current title. Stop this stupid renaming crap once for all and direct you energies into something useful. Like improving that pile of propaganda there is for an article.95.105.180.253 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not only does the new name meet WP:COMMON but the the fact that "Libya" didn't even exist till 1934 means that all the other civil wars listed (1711, 1795, 1835 or 1920) were not even for the same country (even though it may have been the same group of people in the same general region). I also agree that the 2011 in the title sounds presumptive. It sounds like it's already over or will be over before the year is out. Everyone thought the US Civil War would end within a year as well...Sabre ball (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edition

Development: successes and corruption

Its petroleum revenues contributes up to 58% of Libya's GDP.

in the first line. I see a miscorrelation in the number category: "revenues contributes".

JLincoln (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Add this

Add this note- On May 28, 2011, Russia offered to mediate a peace deal with the coalition to help oust Col. Gadhafi in a dignified manner.[[2]]86.24.22.97 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. It's been edited a bit from what you said (here's the diff). Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative name suggestion

Would 2011 Libya conflict work as a good article title? Two reasons why it strikes me as a good title:

• It is not only a consise title, but it also would allow for discussion of the social and political conflict as well as the associated armed conflict.

• It seems to be more common than the current title: I ran some numbers through Google News as quick test for frequency of name use.

• "Libya conflict" (162) + "conflict in Libya" (1,450) + "Libyan conflict" (860) = 2472 hits
• "Libya civil war" (149) + "civil war in Libya" (149) + "Libyan civil war" (82) = 380 hits

Now of course Google News aren't definitive, but it seems clear than formulations using "conflict" are more common. Recent articles in the major newspapers seem to underscore the point: "The African Union, which offered its own peace plan at the outset of the conflict..." (NY Times, 5/27); "The operating center in Tripoli...could be used as a weapon in the conflict in Libya (Guardian, 5/27)...

• A large proportion of the article involves the lead-up to the current violence/armed conflict, including the political crisis and efforts to deescalate violence, and not the violence itself. Further, of the portion of the article dealing with the armed conflict, much of it is focused on (1) the humanitarian crisis; (2) the intervention; and (3) the diplomatic situation surrounding the conflict. All of these events are distinct from a "civil war." A broader title and one in more widespread usage seems appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of charming that you are walking into this not knowing the extreme amount of back and forths over the article title in the past hahaha. The original title for the article was 2011 Libyan Conflict, but it was changed to civil war because conflict is not a descriptive enough title. Anything can be a conflict without being a war, and the consensus was that whatever is going on is a civil war. Obviously conflict is the more commonly used term, but there have been other attempts to change it back to conflict and the consensus was to keep the current title. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. It was protests first and then uprising and now civil war. Though there were about two RMs for conflict, which I would support if it is common still. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It must have only been protests and uprising for a few days, the first time I looked for an article on the ongoings in libya it was called conflict. Either way, the majority of the article's existence has been either conflict or civil war. The most important point is that we don't need to dredge this crap up again. We're all unhappy with the current name for different reasons but we should leave it for a while and see what happens. There are numerous other things that need working on in this article to improve it. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The title was originally 2011 Libyan protests from its creation on 31 January to this requested move closed on 21 February. "Uprising" stayed from then until this requested move, closed on 29 March. "Civil war" has remained since then. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, there were so many drawn-out RMs that I forgot what the title actually was lol... 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and please stop trying to start the same discussion over and over again. The title of the article has been discussed at length and "2011 Libyan conflict" has already been suggested numerous times. Stop wasting your time and effort. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Update

Is there an update on the total number of casualties. Hasn't been an update in a while. MuffinxMonster420 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

United Nations intervention

Reference to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 shows that there is far more involved than a 'no-fly zone', which is all that is suggested in the section. For instance, the resolution authorises participating members to use 'all necessary measures' for the protection of civilians and civilian-populated areas. I suggest that a suitable re-write would be on the lines of: "On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1973 calling for an immediate ceasefire, requiring the Libyan authorities to comply with their obligations toward the Libyan people and all relevant international laws, including facilitating the provision of humanitarian assistance, authorising 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians and civillian-populated areas by participating member states, including a 'no-fly zone, calling for an end to the provision of mercenary troops but prohibiting any foreign occupation force. It included other provisions relating to travel restrictions, asset freeze and the arms embargo." This would replace the current first sentence. Agent0060 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to international intervention

Wherever it occuurs, the suggestion that the intervention is US-led is quite erroneous. Can we agree that the intervention is, in fact, British or Anglo-French led with the US very much taking a back seat. In addition, before anyone includes such a suggestion, can we agree that the European Union has had no role, apart from trying to suggest that it was leading. when, in fact, it is incapable of doing any such thing. Agent0060 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

Missed

Is there some information about missed anti-Gaddafi fighters?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Rebel Crackdown in Benghazi" section

The following segment is misleading and redundant :

"During the rebel crackdown, hundreds of suspects were arrested by rebel security forces in a several-week period. Some of the suspects were summarily executed. An official in the rebel security agency stated that six suspects were killed in one week, claiming that they had been on a closely guarded list of suspects, but that each time that an arrest was ordered, it was discovered that they had simply been killed. Many of the arrests were carried out by vigilantes, or by "protection squads" not sanctioned by the National Transitional Council."

I read the Al-Jazeera article and the AP article by MICHELLE FAUL which were cited as sources for this. The AP article said 6 suspected Gaddafi agents were "found" dead. Murdered? Yes. Assasinated? Yes. "Summarily Executed?" No, not according to this source. The passage above implies these 6 people were executed while in rebel custody. That is not true. Their killing was not sanctioned or carried out by the National Transitional Council, according to these sources. Vigilante justice should not be confused with government policy.

I have rephrased it like this:

"During the rebel crackdown, hundreds of suspects were arrested by rebel security forces over a several-week period. Many arrests were carried out by civilian "protection squads," not sanctioned by the National Transitional Council. An official in the rebel security agency stated that six of Gaddafi's former internal security agents were found dead in one week. He claimed that they had been on a closely guarded list of suspects, but that each time that an arrest was ordered, it was discovered that they had already been killed. Vigilantes are suspected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogTrain (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Marines captured

The article mentions 3 Dutch marines captured, citing the BBC. However, these were not marines but 'common' Navy personnel, such as correctly reported by i.e. CNN; http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/03/libya.netherlands.sailors/index.html 80.57.90.106 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

252K - time for subarticles

This is now 252K! Time for some major subarticle work folks! BarkingMoon (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

POV in Photos?

Uninvolved editor with no bias here, but I was looking through the photos and what I noticed is all of the photos are either 1) Supportive of the rebels, 2) Show Gaddaffi's forces destroyed or damaged, or 3) Show NATO air superiority. Now, I'm personally supportive of democracy in the middle east. That said, the photos strongly lean toward a POV in support of the rebels. Anyone else notice this?--v/r - TP 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

References Collapse

I noticed the references section on this article is almost 400 individual entries. Would it be possible to make this section collapsible, therefore cutting down on the amount of clutter. This would cut down the length of this article which has become quite large. --Maddogxlt (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not without further discussion, please. Referencing is a key part of checking the reliability of Wikipedia. It should not be made onerous to check sourcing. Also the change you made ended up with the refs beign centred which is ugly.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

UK Humanitarian Eforts

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/News-Stories/2011/Situation-in-Libya/ Could be added to the humanitarian section.147.188.254.210 (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Foxhound66, you were blocked from editing. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Media manipulation, fake child victim NPOV

Could use a bit of media manipulation POV regarding Benghazi rebels and international coalition of the bombing, maybe.Pär Larsson (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate and Allied war crimes

By June the international press was calling the conflict a fiasco which had reached a stalemate. War crimes allegations against the Allied forces began to surface, including mass rapes of Libyan women at "gang bang parties" and their subsequent murder after by NATO-backed rebels.

Petey Parrot (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sources for international press are two opinion pieces from the Huffington Post and Washington Post, both US papers; one by a "professional mediator" and the other by an "opinion writer". Your source for the war crimes is a self-described "radical newsletter". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of a Russia Today YouTube video does not improve this I am afraid. They are heavily biased against the US and under the control of the Russian government last I checked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an extremely POV snippet that relies on opinion writers, which are called "the international press," and a hilariously unsourced blog post that provides zero evidence of said claims, which are treated as legitimate "allegations." Oh, and throw in the conspiracy-ridden Russia Today for good measure. Someone has to read WP:RS. Fovezer (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased !

Please, remember that Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda; it is a place for knowledge. At the moment, this article is very biased! If nothing will change during this week, I will ask my friend (from Wikipedia administration) to lock this article and fix it. Yes, I know how you love the opposition, but again: Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.147.61 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, we are just going by what the reliable sources say, nothing more. Nothing can really be done if there aren't ones that show Gadaffi in a positive light. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I have not even mentioned that this article is anti-Gadaffian! I caught you! It seems that you agree with me that this article is biased, but don't say it!

In the whole time we have been editing this article, that's the bias that has been complained about, and we have told those people the same thing. Don't you think an AfD is a bit extreme? You're going to get a WP:SPEEDYKEEP rather fast. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An AfD are you serious? This just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for deletion, anyways expect a speedy WP:SNOW close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Template Error?

At the bottom of the article, the {{Anti-government protests in the 21st century}} seems to be generating a Wiki-link to Template:Navbox. I checked the template in my sandbox and it renders correctly there, I cant figure out what's wrong. Does anyone else see this?--v/r - TP 01:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)