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 89.110.221.2 (talk) at 09:02, 5 November 2011 (→‎The Neutrality is Disputed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Why has this been closed?

Ok yes Gadaffi is dead but his son and other high ranking officials is still at large, what's to say further clashes between merceneries and insurgents wont happen? What's to say the scenes in Tripoli won't repeat themselves elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPECULATION. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Tishrei 5772 20:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it’s OVER, treat it as over. ¿DO you want explain in a year’s time why you “declared” the war over, only to have a counter-coup 3 weeks later topple the interim government before the new government even takes over? (Or, worse, explain why you declared it over, only to have a full-fledged civil war break out afterwards, as happened in Somalia). I don’t.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Revolution again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There have been a number of editors and Ip's over at Talk:Arab Spring that continie to push for the name Revolution for the conflict, the most recent being someone who put forward 4 reliable sources with the name Revolution down in it. I would like some input here on what should be done here as this article links from the Article Arab Spring. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I stand by my view that the outcome of a civil war does not suddenly make it a 'revolution'. This has clearly been a civil war: a country with 2 competing governments, conquering land and cities on one another. That it ended in regime change does not change it having been a civil war. Many other civil wars resulted in a regime change (e.g. Spanish Civil War, English Civil War) but we don't call those 'revolutions' either. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's big different between civil war and revolution. The French Revoulution has needed a war against absolute monarchy. It took six month to fall of monarchy. Civil wars tooks many years while the revolution took only 1 day to 8 months. 82.95.238.33 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The discussion just closed as SNOW. --Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we seriously get a topic ban on this for now? This can not seriously be brought up every two days, especially when it gets little or no support. I'm all for the whole consensus changes, but this is ridiculous.--JOJ Hutton 17:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knowledgekid87, may I tell you one thing that you don't even know what the hell you are asking. Your question is wrong. Nothing should be done at this article, but something should done at that this article, especially the current situation in Libya. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation in Libya is that the civil war is over, I think that is something we can all agree on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation in Libya is that NATO/NTC _declared_ the war is over. The other side has neither been eliminated nor has given up on its cause. Please take into account the numerous confirmed reports of hundred-vehicles-big convoys running across southern Libya all September. These convoys and the people in them did not simply vaporize. Also NTC requesting NATO bombing missions to continue does not sound very supportive of the "War is Over" POV.
Basically, we know that anti-Gaddafi forces (note, far from all of them swore allegiance to NTC) control most (if not all) relevant Libyan cities. However what is happening _between_ these cities on 99% of Libya's territory is anyone's guess. NATO might have a rough idea, hence the bombing extension request, but that is about it.94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you waiting for? Change the colour now! Everybody in the Arab Spring section already proposed to change that, except users like you. If you agree that the civil war ended then how is make sense to place the word 'Civil War' in the Arab Spring's Summary of protests by country section? We agree that this title must remain 2011 Libyan Civil War, but I don't agree if you place the word civil war at that Arab Spring's Libyan situation. 60.49.62.246 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you mention that, since User:Jagged 85 took it upon himself to edit this article and the timeline article to say the civil war is ongoing. I think it might have been based on a misreading of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's appearance at the Rixos Hotel from around this time two months ago. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

Footnote 99 erroneously refers to an Amnesty International report. The quote about Western media is actually from the report by the International Crisis Group mentioned in the quoted Independent story. Please correct. The ICG report is here, with the relevant section on p. 4: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/Middle%20East%20North%20Africa/North%20Africa/107%20-%20Popular%20Protest%20in%20North%20Africa%20and%20the%20Middle%20East%20V%20-%20Making%20Sense%20of%20Libya.pdf.

193.65.255.1 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Bility (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres section need cleansweep and updating

A massacre is generally accepted to be the mass killing of people WITHOUT ARMED FIGHTING AROUND, OR AFTER THE ARMED FIGHTING STOPPED. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre) So large numbers of civilian casualties during fighting, although often a war crime, are NOT automatically a massacre, as long as there was shooting from two sides. As a consequence, this Massacre- section needs a lot of work.

Proposal to take out: The paragraph citing Amnesty, because the cited reports nowhere name or suggest massacres, and only speculate about 'may even have been killed'

The directly following paragraphs I propose also to be taken out, because they do not relate to massacres, except, indirectly, to the February 20 massacre of unarmed demonstrators on the Green Square, by Ghaddafi forces. This Feb 20-massacre merits a strongly worded paragraph, there are now much better, first hand sources for that massacre.

Also the paragraph about the International Fed Hum Ri should be considred to throw out, as it is almost only speculative, based on few resources that are now considered doubtful, and it is largely proven wrong by events in the field.

The last alinea (Gaddafi continued these tactics..) also apparently refers to mass casualties DURING fighting, so in this form it doesn't belong under this header.

Also the following chapter (Execution of own soldiers) I propose to be deleted, as research on Youtube video's shatters the believeworthyness of the initial report about where and by whom these soldiers were killed (http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/04/al-baida-massacre-further-behind-scenes.html) Doubt has further increased because the only source attributing this 'massacre' to the Ghaddafi side (Int Fed Human Rights) has failed to substantiate or even stand by their initial report in spite of such requests from several media. They even don't mention the report on their own web-site.

There have, on top of the Green Square massacre, been several massacres during this war that do deserve a paragraph each under this header: -Time reported that at february 18, 15 suspected mercenaries were hanged by rebels in front of the court house of Al Baida, after they had surrendered; -The massacre of 70 Chadian oil workers and several Sudanese by attackers from the rebel side, reported by BBCnews.com at 25 february 2011; -The 50 + prisoners of the Khamis-brigade in southern Tripoly, massacred at august 23rd 2011(likely under responsibility of Ghaddafi's son Khamis)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJw-IKKbzpg), -The mid-October massacre of handcuffed soldiers and civilians in Mahari hotel, Sirte, which literally bears the signature of rebel brigades (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/middleeast/libyas-interim-leaders-to-investigate-qaddafi-killing.html?_r=1&hpw), and (if credible reports appear) the as yet unverified reports of more groups of bodies in Sirte, seemingly killed by rebel brigades after the fighting stopped.

Also, maybe Ghaddafi-forces massacred people on at least one occasion in their offensive in the Western Mountains, but from the conflicting reports, to me it is unclear if this was deliberately shooting of non-fighting civilians or not.

(I strongly desire that the list of massacres ends here.) Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Libyan Revolution

I've just come back from Libya and nobody there(not even the imprisoned Gaddfi loyalists) refer to the revolution as a civil war. some of them even felt insulted that I had defiled there revolution with such a name. it has become very clear that the events in Libya will not go down in history as a civil war but only as a revolution since it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history. I've noticed you were quick to call the events in Egypt and Tunisia a revolution (although they are not really as the system has more or less stayed the same) but yet you called them revolutions because it's inhabitants referred to it as that. Surely you should now do the same for the Libya (the first genuine revolution of the Arab spring so far as it very broad social-economic support and completely eradicated the old system much as the French,american and Russian revolutions did) as you did for Egypt and Tunisia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you published anything that can be cited that they call it a revolution and not a civil war? Jeancey (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the possibility that Egypt and Tunisia wasn't called civil wars because there was no war? It doesn't matter what Libyans call it - Wikipedia is written from a neutral perspective, not from the perspective of revolutionary romantics.--Anders Feder (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a journalist, I'M a student who has an interest in history, and I decided to visit all three successful Arab spring nations before going back to to university Libya was by far the most interesting (from an historical perspective). it was the only true revolution. It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia.

Okay well you can have your sources published and put into a reliable source then, wikipedia goes by Reliable sources and right now the majority of them refer to the conflict as a civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It almost felt like being in post revolutionary France or Russia." Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I presume you did not bother(were allowed) to visit Bani Walid, Sirte or even Brega for the matter... 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, as a Journalist, do you understand the difference between "there" and "their", or "write" and "right"? The phrase "... it is ultimately the country's inhabitants who will right its history" does have an interesting nuance though! :) regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The groups that were privileged under the old system now suffer, and the groups that were disadvantaged before the fall of the regime are ascendant. Same as it ever was. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Neutrality is Disputed

Too bad. A lot of NTC photos and illustrations in this article. I think most of the Wikipedian editors are pro-rebel Libyans. Remember that neutrality is important!! P.S I am not a pro-Gaddafi! But can we add some of the pro gaddafi images too? [User:Muhammad Mukhriz|Muhammad Mukhriz]] (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Disputing the religion of hatred is not allowed here. You should have noticed over the past half a year. Maybe, if you murder a couple Libyans, you will understand how dangerous truth can be. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree! Just note that the great number of references is from the media from countries directly involved in conflict on rebels side. Thus, neutrality is heavily disputed. E.g. do you remember how Al Jazeera reported about protest on Green square in Tripoli, which was actually fake and staged in Qatar. Even NTC admitted it was fake. Al Jazeera cannot be held as reliable source after this stunt, and many references are coming from it.

Qatar

The Qatari army chief confirmed today that several hundred Qatari soldiers fought alongside Libyans against Gaddafi. Should we add Qatar above NATO as a combatant in the infobox? [1] -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article [2] even gives his words as "hundreds in every region" of Libya. Anyway, thats definitely goes way over "enforcing the UNSC resolution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.186.101 (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. That's why I propose to put Qatar above the fold as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were they fighting under Qatari government colours, or were they fighting as foreign volunteers in a manner similar to the Escadrille de Lafayette in World War I? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were identified during Operation Mermaid Dawn as "special forces", an elite division of the Qatar Army, if I'm not mistaken. And the guy who made this announcement is the chief of staff of the Qatar Armed Forces. I have to think these were Qatari soldiers, not comparable to the Lafayette Escadrille or the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not talking about that bunch of guys in Bab al-Aziziya with Qatari flags, are you? Those were just militiamen, couldnt even aim, didnt cover their corners, etc. No way those guys were ever in the army. As for this statement it surprises me, I mean seriously - if it was true why would in all hell just announced that Qatar was deliberately breaching UN resolution big time. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted a couple of months ago, there's a legal case to be made that since Qatar hasn't recognized Gaddafi's government since late March, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya referenced in the UN resolution ceased to exist under Qatari law and thus Qatar had no obligation under the resolution not to aid its ally, Libya (the NTC). -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Qatar should not be put in the belligerent list! All of this is just based on speculation, it's clear from references that a lot of countries participated with secret forces to the combat, that doesn't mean they played a significant role! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.229.188 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the ground forces, Qatari jets played a huge roll in enforcing the No-fly zone, which is one of the main reasons they are on the list. Jeancey (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date in name

Curious, why is "2011" in the article's title? The article only mentions one other civil war in the country's history — Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795, which likely would be better entitled "Tripolitanian Civil War..." and is a redlink anyway. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't originally named civil war. Originally it was likely protests or uprising, which more likely to happen and thus need a year. When it was renamed to civil war, the 2011 stayed. Jeancey (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we still need the year? Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to put a move request in, go for it. It's not really hurting things as it is though. Jeancey (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The date remains as there was more than one Civil war in Libya's history, please see the archives. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know much about the Civil War of 1791-1795 other than this reference [3] that another editor found pointing it out as a civil war in Libya. This reaised the question of when the name Libya came into use (As opposed to Italian Libya, ect...) which was up for debate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to rename page to the Libyan Revolution

All the major British news channels (BBC, Sky news, ITV news and channel 4 news) now only use the term revolution as well as major Arab news channels(Aljazeera, Alarabiya etc). Most British and Arab newspapers also now only use the term revolution. Expets on conflicts such as Michael Ignatieff openly states its not a civil war on his article on the CBC website and experts on Libya itself such as Jason Pack never useses the term civil war on his article in the Gaudian. The term "Civil war" is very deciving, it gives the imprssion that almost half the population supported Gaddafi, when according to the BBC's latest video on libya; 20% of libyans were loyal to Gaddafi. I know 20% is still a signicant minorty but bear in mind 25% of americans were were still loyal to king George III during the American Revolution and anywhere between 20%-35% of the french public were still loyal to louis XVI during the french revolution; just because the entire population doesnt support the opposition doesn't make it any less of a Revoluton. Various world leaders only use the term Revolution (Obama, Cameron, Erdoğan etc) even the Chairmen of the NTC Mustafa Abdul Jalil stated its not a civil war in his latest interview with CNN. The term 'civil war' is no longer widly used in arab or european newspapers, the term also gives the false impresson that the conflict in libya was along tribal lines, but as you probably already know tribes had a small role in the Libyan Revolution. So it is now time to rename this page to the Libyan Revolution.

Also when you do rename this page to The Libyan Revolution will you create a seperate page for the transition or will you put the transition and conflict together under the Libyan Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, there is nothing in the definition of the term 'civil war' that suggests that it is a war between two halves of a population.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Good Lord, not this again. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So when are you going to rename the article? I've provided you with enough evidence if you look at all European and Arab articles on Libya from late august onwards the term 'Revolution' is much more wildly used than the term 'civil war', especially in AP and AFP articles which both stated back in September they would no longer use the term 'rebels' to describe the opposition but instead usethe terms 'former rebels' or 'revolutionaris', showing their acknoledgment of the Libyan Revolution. Libyans aren't going to celebrate febuary 17th as the start of a civil war but as the start of their revolution. There is no longer an excuse to continue to use the term 'civil war': the old system is completly gone, the revolt clearly had popular support, i've provided you with more than enough reliable sources above; Now is the time to rename this article 'The Libyan Revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely irrelevant what Libyans will celebrate on February 17th. Wikipedia is not a parade. It's an encyclopedia.--90.184.154.70 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person has a good point. Why aren't you changing the page to The Libyan Revolution? He/she appears to have given good solid points which none of you are actually answering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 04esij (talk • contribs) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the term Libyan+revolution does not only apply to the armed conflict which this article covers.[4] :)--Rafy talk 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might not work anyway, because the coup in 1969 is sometimes referred to as a revolution. And there has been more than one civil war in Libya's history. Jeancey (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point for the revolution part but I doubt you'll find any news articles mentioning another Libyan civil war.--Rafy talk 20:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that we wait a year or so for things to settle down a bit and then see what the RS consensus name is. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year or so? This is ridiculous, in historical terms this was a fairly quick revolution that ousted the government, not a protracted civil war. Under this wacky logic, we should change the name of the American Revolution page to the First American Civil War. 109.158.139.188 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The American Revolution was people identifying themselves as british against people identifying themselves as american, thus a revolution NOT a civil war. This was people identifying themselves as Libyan against people identifying themselves as Libyan, thus civil war. That is the major difference between the two. Jeancey (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. The American Revolution was as much about american fighting american as it was about american fighting British. Many Americans joined the red coat loyalist army (thats why it's usally called a loyalist army). Americans were among the feicest units of the loyalist army. The fact that there was a mass migration of american loyalists to Canada once the revolution was over shows how much support the king still enjoyed in America. Similar thing with the french revolution (frenchmen were fighting other frenchmen) yet few historians call the French Revolution the French civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly support the renaming of the article from 2011 Libyan civil war to 2011 Libyan Revolution, or at the very least major alterations to the current article if the title is to remain 2011 Libyan Civil war. The main reason being is that the current article seems much to skewed towards the revolutionaries/rebels for it to be the titled civil war. For example all the pictures seem to be that of the opposition supporters, non of Qaddafi militias or supporters, and text of the article seems better suited for explaining an uprising than a civil war. A true civil war article is meant to explain how Libyan society and Libyan families were divided(the old brother against brother expression) the only problem is, this does not seem to apply to the Libyan case, in fact they seem more united throughout this conflict then they've ever been throughout there history, (and will likely never be that united again). If the BBC figure is correct in that 20% of Libyans were loyal to Qaddafi (which is conveniently the same percentage of Libyans who either had links or were involved in Qaddafi's security apparatus and militias) then this truly was the case of the people against the state, which in my opinion seems more like a Revolution rather than a civil war. Another change you must make if you want to keep the title 2011 Libyan Civil war is the date in which it started. The official start of civil wars throughout history is the start of the first battle, which was Zawiya on the 24th Febuary 2011 prior to this you can not legitimacy call it a civil war as there were no two opposing armies facing each other prior to this it was security forces against mostly unarmed protesters, that's why I think the 1st battle of Benghazi should be renamed the 'Storming of the Katiba' as it would better express the event that really kicked off the libyan Revolution/civil war. So either you have rename the article 2011 Libyan Revolution, or keep the current title and make serious alternations so the event seems more like an actual civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim74 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to comment on this one, but 188.*, you said you'd provided plenty of evidence but you haven't actually provided any yet. All we have is what you've said, which we can't use. We need actual sources, actual references to start making any kind of decision of this nature. Please provide those, if you can. I checked the BBC, Sky, ITV Channel 4 news websites and none of their recent articles mention either term, so they certainly aren't predominantly 'revolution' at the moment. I also checked Aljazeera's English-language website, which uses neither term in any recent articles, and Alarabiya which uses neither term but does use 'revolt' in one article. This is, at cursory glance, not consistent with your assertion. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some samples from the British media:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15500682

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15557403

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15412220

news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16094625

blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/where-were-the-women-in-libyas-revolution/18208

www.channel4.com/news/gaddafi-not-the-only-victim-of-libya-s-revolution

Here are some samples of articles that further prove my point:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/post-gaddafi-libya-local?INTCMP=SRCH

www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/libya-women-idUSL6E7M41OY20111104

Also if you go on to Aljazeera or Alarabiya and type in Libya on their search engines you’ll the term Revolution is used far more than the term 'civil war' in most of their articles. This is also true for highly rated British and American newspapers (e.g. Wall street journal, Financial times, New york times, The Telegraph etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a copy of the link. Also, most of those are opinion pieces. Jeancey (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libya #1 in Africa on UNDP Human Development Index

According to the United Nations Development Programme, Libya ranked first in Africa (53 globally) on the Human Development Index -- ahead of Saudi Arabia at 55, Iran at 70, South Africa at 73, Jordan at 82, Egypt at 101, Indonesia at 108, India at 119, Afghanistan at 155. — http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Tables_reprint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.127.89 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

just as a note... Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Indonesia, India and Afghanistan are not in Africa... Jeancey (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant those as the global rankings. This point is addressed in the article though, I believe. Gaddafi used vast amounts of money to quell unrest and his programs to enhance quality of life in the country were at least in part motivated by a desire to deflect attention and maintain his ability to pull the strings of the government. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

Please add to: Commanders and Leaders Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Prime Minister of Turkey)

Please add to table: Funds spent by Foreign Powers on War in Libya Turkey 300 Million USD July 2011 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/turkey-recognizes-libyan-rebels-gives-300-million-ap-reports.html)


Starcrescent (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: The table was updated. Do you have also a reference for the Infobox statement? mabdul 12:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=459108888"