Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blodance (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 1 April 2011 (→Requested move 2011 Libyan civil war -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Is there a different article that has day to day what is going on on the ground in Libya?

I know that this article used to have a more of a timeline to it before the coalition intervention but it doesn't have it anymore. Did it get moved somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.116.177 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a link -
Main article: Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war
is provided under article's section heading "==Battles between Gaddafi and opposition==". not, to me, the most intuitive location.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember if there was a discussion about it, but why not put a section, the link up top and then a very brief summary? As you said it's not the first place one would go to look. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2011 Libyan civil war -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"

  • A: Google News exact phrase search yields 3 times as many hits for Libyan conflict as for Libyan civil war 2117691
  • B: It is Orwellian double speak to call something a civil war when the most powerful and likely the determining participant is an outside "community". The civil war argument is DOA in terms of logic and definition
  • and more importantly the Reliable Sources are not using "Libyan civil war" in anywhere near enough frequency to necessitate its usage in an encyclopedia. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, From the Webster's dictionary definition of civil war : " a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" This is the same definition that Wikipedia itself uses to describe civil war. You have members of the same country, who all consider themselves Libyans, engaged in conventional armed warfare. To label this a "conflict" diminishes both the significance and scale of what is happening in that country. I wouldn't oppose removing 2011 from the title, provided that there hasn't been any previous civil wars in Libya's history.MCQknight (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2011 (MWT)



  • Support. A Google News search shows about 16,000 hits over the last 24 hours for Libyan+civil+war and about 22,000 each for Libyan+uprising and Libyan+conflict. "Libyan civil war" and "Libyan uprising" get 1,000 apiece while "Libyan conflict" gets 2,000. "Civil war" may become more common if the conflict becomes more prolonged. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, I didn't expect that someone would beat me to the punch! But that said, this is ironic because now I'm going to be neutral on this move. I think enough sources are starting to call this a civil war that having the article title refer to this as some sort of a civil war might be justified. But as I said, for the time being, I am neutral.--Witan (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It does look better, makes more sense, and seems to be neutral the term "Libyan Conflict" than "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Uprising". There is a precedent in "Kosovo War" (look at the infobox) but "2011 Libyan War" is not in common use, so "2011 Libyan Conflict" is the best choice. 186.69.49.245 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Civil Wars can have outside intervention. What matters is the driving forces behind the conflict, the origins of the conflict, and what the end state of the conflict is. Here we have a bottom up revolt that resulted in half the country splitting off from the ruling establishment. This section of the country has subsequently formed a government, organized an army, and is now waging war against the other half of the country. I am sorry my friends, but that is the very definition of civil war. If any changes should be made, I think dropping the 2011 from the title would be more apt, as this is Libya's first (and only) Civil War. You don't see us calling the American Civil War "The 1861 American Civil War". ArcherMan86 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't really matter what this is or is not in a dictionary definition (there isn't anyway a clear distinction between "civil war," "uprising," "conflict," "rebellion" or any of the other terms associated with this topic.) What matters is what it is actually being called now. Equilibrium007 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:COMMONNAME Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see WP:SYNTH, you cannot put two and two together to make four, only the sources can do that. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those entries are old entries for the usage of the word "conflict" though? Over time this has changed in scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent point. When people do the news search they should be sure to set the time filter (under Any Recent News), in case anyone's not been doing that. =) Of course the only good options are within the last day and the last week Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if we set the time filter to March 28-31 we get 1932-622 (no filter: 2011-to-541). Wareh (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it has an automatic filter as well (like when you don't put special settings)? It might be it gives you sources from further back, but, if there is a high number of recent articles about the topic, heavily favours more recent ones. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As per above, Libyan conflict is far more widely used than Libyan Civil War. And the sources that are using civil war are mainly using the term to emphasize a political point - e.g. Red Cross to emphasize the humanitarian crisis, or Ghadaffi in warning of possible consequences of the crisis. It makes the term "civil war" politically charged and in violation of NPOV, in my opinion. DigitalRevolution (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Eventually we're going to probably rename it 'civil war,' but for now, it would be appropriate to rename it 'conflict.' The name 'uprising' has a connotation that there was a brief period or violence that peaked early but then subsided. Here, we have an organized ground war with international intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.99.78 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above comments, as well as my own comments in the previous move request. 'Conflict' is more neutral, is supported by more sources and has more staying power.
I will re-iterate once again here that we should not be rushing to find a suitable name for this article. The previous move request to 'civil war' suffered from the exact reason things should not be rushed - current events are in constant flux and terminology changes constantly. 'Civil war' may have been accurate from a dictionary perspective and appeared in some sources but was not supported by the majority of sources, and this combined with the rapidly changing nature of events mean it should never have passed.
My 'support' vote here is to resolve this prior error in favour of a neutral name that can remain until non-volatile sources settle on an appropriate name for the conflict. There is no rush here, people. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As per my comment in the last discussion. Conflict was being employed (in media) to a greater extent than civil war. The results posted by Wareh are a mirror of my own search results.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - "Conflict" is much more general and doesnt describe this accurately. This is exactly what a civil war is - citizens of the same country entering in a conflict with each other because of political beliefs. Who cares if there are international parties involved, thats usually the case with every civil war. Uc smaller (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. It is not a civil war. It is a totalitarian government hiring foreign mercenaries to slaughter civilians. A civil war implies that the nation is split and there is support for the regime, when in reality the people oppose the regime, with a very small minority who are being paid to like the government. --FizzBrine (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BIG Support Libya's situation can't be classified as a "civil war". It's an armed conflict. Civil war occurs between two or more factions of PEOPLE that usually seek SECESSION, not GOVERNMENTS seeking OUSTING each other. Just my two cents. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.28.24 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems some people do, but others, not so much as they keep doing it, though I'm glad you get the point as you said. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And on that note: CNN calls it a civil war. That's a pretty large +1 for an Oppose. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is good, but is there anything in COMMON about weight for sources in cases like this? Like do we consider CNN to be bigger than say JPost or the Daily News? (I'm not very sure.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it says "major English-language media outlets". I've seen CNN, Time, National Post, Telegraph, The New York Times, etc. call it a civil war. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of those equally use "conflict," for example, Telegraph.[1] And CNN is big, but on the "conflict" side we can cite BBC, AP, NPR, AFP, of which AP alone is 3x bigger than CNN (measured by Google News references for their own reporting).[2] Wareh (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more to compliment those, Washington Post [3], Jerusalem Post [4], The Guardian [5], The Financial Times calls it a conflict (but also an uprising in a 27 March article) [6], FOX News [7], USA Today [8] and Washington Times [9]. These are some of the biggest and widely known English language news sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@99: Ah yes, wonderful that I forgot about that important bit. By the way, and this is just a funny not, I have seen the Times use Conflict, Civil War and Uprising (the latter two in the lede for the Libya Topic) on the same page. We have them, but the Google News search is still showing it overwhelmingly for conflict. By the way, it's very strange, but when I googled National Post, it froze my browser, twice, first FF and then IE. Weird. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
NPR, AP via Senator Lugar, AFP, BBC has quite a few, and there is more. There isn't enough usage to override consensus that has already been reached. 99.182.252.92 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can't say anything against the first one; the second one they quote him saying it's a civil war but the article's writer calls it a conflict; the third one they only say conflict, civil war only pops up in one of the comments and the thing about the US Civil war on the side, at least when I did a find search. As for the fourth, if I did it right (replaced civil war with conflict): [10] they have a few too for conflict. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is interesting. Look at this article here from CNN. [11] It is mainly about Côte d'Ivoire's Civil War and talks about Libya's "conflict" as well. Is it possible that some of the hits for Libya and civil war might be about the Ivory Coast's civil war as well? (I mean they are both armed conflicts against the government in Africa occuring simultaneously) Interesting anomaly or something else?
  • Oppose There have been civil wars where other foreign countries intervined, like the Sri Lankan or Bosnian civil wars. The war is an internal conflict between the citizens of the country. On one side are the tribes of Eastern Libya and some minor tribes of Western Libya, on the other side are Gaddafi's tribe, than there is the large Warfala tribe, the Tuareg minority who live in the Fezzan region and others. The assertion that just because the government has employed foreign mercenaries the war can not be called a civil war is simply wrong. Many civil wars have been fought through the centuries where mercenaries were also used. Also, the assertion by one editor that a civil war is only a civil war if one side wants secession, and a civil war is not a civil war if one side wants to overthrow the government is again simply wrong. People should read up on what a civil war is. Civil war is the right term. EkoGraf (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no original research here. I have no idea where you came up with that. And you pointing every oppose editor to reading the rule on OR will not change the fact what this war is. And Sir Flinders maybe you should, like I said, read up on Civil war. I will quote Wikipedias article on what a civil war is - A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is good sir, look at WP:SYNTH specifically, you're using what you see going on in Libya, and the separate article on Wikipedia about civil wars and coming to the conclusion that it is a civil war based on those two sources. At least according to what you said in this argument right here. You are right though that I am mostly favouring the opposers, but I don't want to spam now do I? =p Also, his last name was Petrie, his full name was just very long. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {ec}[reply]
So, according to you, BBC and CNN reporters who are in the field in Libya are calling it a civil war based on their own original research? EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you one of the reporters in the field? Did one of them make the argument that you just put up there? I believe when I said you I was referring to you specifically and that specific argument you were making. If you are directly quoting one of those field reporters or saying that one of them said it then their commentary does not go against WP:OR. If you did happen to be one of those reporters though, I think it goes against the rule dealing with self-published material. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of, please stay civil, asking me sarcasticly Are you one of the reporters in the field? borders on the violation of Wikipedia's civility rule. Second, honestly, whatever your personal opinion is, the thing is, BBC and CNN reporters (and others) have called it a civil war and are calling it a civil war. And their oppinion (which is based on years of veteran reporting) trumps your's any day. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise if you felt I was saying that in a way meant to be sarcastically, but you did characterise it as such when I was addressing you specifically, and you then applied what I said to reporters for a reason I don't really get. I'm afraid I don't see your point with regard to the second thing. Why are we even holding a concensus vote then if not to get editors' opinions? =p That begs the question: How do we weigh CNN and BBC's reporters' feelings against the rest of reliable sources? Sure they and some others might be calling it that, but does that mean we ignore the thousands of other reliable sources calling it conflict? Well I thought my quoting ad nauseum of WP:OR made it clear that my opinion of what this whole thing constitutes doesn't mean anything in over the common name. Now that last bit borders on an ad hominem attack (credentials and such). I suggest we both relax a bit and end this current thread here as it seems to be heading toward an angry argument. Let's indeed try to maintain WP:CIVIL. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is. BBC and CNN reporters on the ground have far better knowledge of what is going on than a politician or analyst thousands of miles away on the other side of the world. If they say it's a civil war than it's a civil war and by all acounts it fits in perfectly with the preconditions for a civil war to be named a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that's what you meant. Still I think it depends on the analyst and to some extent on the politician. While we do take the reporters to be RSs, I don't think we consider them experts over let's say historians, political scientists, certain longtime politicians etc. The education (and fields of education in some cases) of reporters also varies a great deal, and their primary job is to convey info (albeit with a bit of drama) I would not trust Anderson Cooper over say Henry Kissenger who probably has access to all of the things the news outlets are reporting and then some. Still, if I understand it right, we go by whatever name they put in their article, so I guess the point about them not being actual experts is moot (otherwise a good number of Libyans calling it a civil war would be RSs, and I don't think we're treating them as such for the most part). If you look up top a little ways you'll see that while CNN and BBC are sometimes calling it a civil war, many of the other major English language news outlets are calling it "conflict". Wareh linked some and I linked some, and the IP starting with 99 also linked two, but one quotes Senator Lugar calling it a civil war while the article itself calls it a conflict. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:POINT the article has literally just been moved from that title to this one, so moving it back (when there was a consensus to move it here) is inappropriate at this time. If you feel there wasn't a consensus for the original move take it to WP:ANI or wherever is more appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid you might have misread this. The proposal is not to put it back to 2011 Libyan Uprising, but to change it to 2011 Libyan Conflict. We cannot change it back to 2011 Libyan Conflict if we didn't change it from that to begin with. Also please review WP:NOTPOINTY, as concensus doesn't appear to be heavily against this nor does it seem to be dusrupting Wikipedia just to make a point, which is what WP:POINT is about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) {ec}[reply]
So neutral then? I do apologise if my comment sounded a bit harsh btw, hard to communicate tone through text you know without emoticons. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :), honestly I'm not fussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see someone who doesn't consider it a competition. =p
  • Oppose "Conflict" is too vague. There are two sides, each with their own significant support, that are fighting for the future of the country. Libya is basically split right in the middle with two governments and armies on each side. This is a classic civil war. Just because an outside force has entered the picture, doesn't mean that what's happening in Libya right now is not a civil war (see Russian Civil War). --Tocino 20:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since when is Google News search a reliable and logical point to this discussion in which "civil war" is just recently becoming the normal term? The 2011 Libyan civil war is defined to the 't' in Wikipedia's own Civil War article. And lastly, when are conglomerate news giants and presidents of countries not reliable sources? 66.176.53.36 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since it is how we find the common name with relation to current events. It is the only reasonable way to find which name is most commonly used without searching through every article in every news source and keeping a tally. Using a Wikipedia's article on the civil war to determine whether or not what you're seeing in Libya constitutes a civil war goes against WP:SYNTH, so it really doesn't matter what the civil war article says here. Well it depends on what most of them are using as the term and most are saying conflict I'm afraid. As for presidents, well it depends on the president I guess and a concensus, and that's really a popularity contest to be perfectly honest. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (after edit conflict) Like a lot of the oppose !votes, this one suggests that civil war is more accurate, a better title. That's beside the point. Our policy WP:COMMONNAME requires us to use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." If this name is objectionable because less strictly correct etc. (from someone's point of view), we still use it. Perhaps it doesn't matter because a closing admin should have no trouble ignoring opinions that have nothing to do with the established article title criteria, but it would be good if we all reviewed WP:COMMONNAME. Then, if desired, someone could make an argument that we're looking at the wrong English-language reliable sources or incorrectly determining what their most frequent form of reference is, or that conflict is not "obviously the most frequently used"...those would be germane considerations. Wareh (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly endorses the use of Google to apply its criterion, with appropriate cautions that no one has argued are not being heeded here. Wareh (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More people need to read this comment. Remember, we are not here to decide for ourselves what the name is. We're here to decide what is the most common name in use. The majority of the arguments in favour of 'civil war' do not respect this. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many of the articles on Google are telling it from the point of view from the rebels. For objective purposes, this is a civil war. But from the subjective view of the countries involved, its a conflict. Google probably reflects the latter because of the nature of NATO involvement, their own publications will say something. So then, and I'm honestly asking here, wouldn't it be a POV issue to call it a conflict? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.44 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. "Conflict" is very bland, really a catch-all term. In fact, I'm pretty sure it would be widely agreed that a civil war is just one type of (armed) conflict. Wareh (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support Conflict is more neutral. "Civil War" is the Khadafi-preferred term to refer to the situation. It's absurd that we're using the Khadafi terminology for the conflict while ignoring the preferred rebel term for it, which would be Revolution. Rarito (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well not many sources are really calling it a revolution (much less most), so we can't I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a Khadafi terminology, it's also used by BBC and CNN reporters on the ground. So please put your personal opinions aside Rarito. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that too, we cannot let our personal feelings get into our editting. Both Civil war and conflict are being used a good deal more than revolution, and so we run with one of those, preferably the more common one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Stop trying to make this seem lighter and less dangerous than it really is. The article was named "Libyan uprising" for weeks, even after the United States and it's Allies came to launch missiles and airstrikes. Finally, you change it to Libyan Civil War and now you want it back to "Oh, it's just a conflict". Might as well call it "Armed Streetfight".--24.192.70.167 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you feel it belittles what's going on, but you shouldn't let your personal feelings about what is happening be your reason for rejecting a perfectly reasonable proposal. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not trying to find the strongest term though, just the one that is most common and maintains NPOV the best. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "libya war" yields 41,800 results in Google news search of the past 30 days while "libya conflict" yields 23,900 results.24.13.120.168 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Personally having read the previous comments that have been made I think that this is more like a Civil War then just a conflict, which seems an odd title to use in itself. However I can see why so many would prefer to return to the old title of 2011 Libyan conflict although I wouldn't be surprised if this does end up being called the Libyan Civil War (minus the date as it isn't necessary as they haven't had another civil war to my knowledge) but the name is likely to be decided by what happens in the next few days/weeks/months and as this article is a work in progress the title is likely to be subject to change.--LordAdama (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The usage of the term 'Civil War' to describe it is increasingly more common in the news, and it is far too much of an understatement to call it a 'conflict'. If we move it now, it'll just get moved back here in a few weeks. KnowitallWiki (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the entire previous poll that led to renaming the conflict 'civil war'. 'Conflict' is vague and thus rarely used. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above.--Rafy talk 11:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Outside intervention does not automatically mean its not a civil war. Many civil wars during the Cold War were also proxy wars. Angola, Mozambique and Guatemala for example. Redsxfenway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose Wasn't this already extensively debated and then moved from "conflict" to "civil war" already? Honestly if this "conflict" doesn't meet the definition of civil war then I'm not sure what does. bob rulz (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Conflict" is a broader, more vague term and can be used to describe virtually any situation where two or more parties do not sit well with each other. "Civil war" is a more specific, informative term and is generally used to describe a war where two(or more) groups of people from the same country fight each other. I see no reason to use a vague term and make the topic less informative, when a more specific and more informative term can be applied. Also, since the point has been raised, a "civil war" is not "a war without foreign intervention". Quite the opposite, a lot of civil wars have had varying degrees of foreign influence. Spanish Civil War, for example, is a well-known civil war where extensive foreign support was involved. Blodance the Seeker 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: [12] (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)[reply]

Check [13] and [14]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
ok, I did my best with it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can do it yourself without slapping on a redundant tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Khamis Gaddaffi has come back from the dead! He's resereted him self! He's imortal!Wipsenade (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can he bring back micheal jackson? XD wipsnade!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nightlight sales will skyrocket.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musrata in Guddafi control.

This Lebanese link

http://www.elnashra.com/news-1-545147.html say guddafi forces controled all Musrata at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.174.224 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafis TV says this every day for 2 weeks now... lets see if anyone confirms this. noclador (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Comical Ali etc. Sindragosa (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were true more reliable sources would have reported about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several media reports that Misrata has fallen to Gaddafi's troops. CNN as well made a story in the city itself where it was clear that Loyalist troops have control of the city and move freely there and that the rebels (might) are in control only of couple of small districts (allegedly). Al Arabiya, AFP and Buisness Insider all have reports that Gaddafi's troops "sweept through Misrata" or "are in control of Misrata".Ratipok (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would be adding another WP:WRONGVERSION to the article instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, it would correct IP vandalism. noclador (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Here's another "gaddafite" thing for you my brainwashed friends - TRUE FACE of the "peaceful pro-democracy protesters" (warning, graphic content): [15] [16] [17] 77.45.146.187 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

Infernoapple (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I traced it from wikimapia using inkscape.--Rafy talk 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a cartophile I approve of both these maps! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Brega has fallen [[18]][[19]].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Rebels are pulling out of Brega to Ajdabiyah according to Reuters.[20]. 23sports (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economist as a neutral source ?!

Template:Pbneutral

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/idIN108205791820110304 looks pretty solid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps it should be cited instead of the economist? MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
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)[reply]
Here is some impartial info:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I presume you have a source for that claim? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya, http://countrystudies.us/libya/55.htm
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ...
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Saudi Arabia is a pretty good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP:Civil

Template:Pbneutral

Let's all go and read WP:Civil!Wipsenade (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2011 Libyan uprising

65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has related news:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 2011 Libyan protests.

Are these other 2 are still O.K.?Wipsenade (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikinews category was renamed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Queda

Should information from this article be incorporated into this article? If so, how? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I guess you're referring to this [21], 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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-Sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[22]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article: Yoweri Museveni on Gadhafi [23] 95.32.200.229 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ras Lanouf, Uqayla and Brega post 15.02 GMT/30/March 2011.

Gadaffi has retaken it [24]. Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The last rebels are fleeing Brega [[25]]. Source:Monsters and critics.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gadaffi now controles the towns of Ras Lanuf, Uqayla and Brega! Source:Sydney Morning Herald, [[26]].--Wipsenade (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use title case per WP:Manual of Style. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chadian involvement

I have reverted an Infobox edit quoting [27]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

HRW claims Gadaffi forces laid landmines outside Ajdabiya

It is in yonder source [28]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I have a source for Eastern Libya's land mine status. They are being used by Col Ghadaffi, but in limmited numbers [[29]]. Wipsenade (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Noted.Wipsenade (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.28.24 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [30] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

It is now only 208KB long.

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)[reply]

He's got a point, you know!Wipsenade (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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 [31]), which is the only thing we as a tertiary source are interested in. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==========Brega has just come back again under rebels' hands. 180.183.48.198 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=421813343"