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 Andering J. REDDSON (talk | contribs) at 06:51, 9 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2

Template:Pbneutral

Capitalisation

Following the precedents set by the vast majority of like pages (Chinese Civil War, American Civil War, English Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc.), shouldn't this be renamed Libyan Civil War? Dan Wang (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It you had added this at the bottom where it belongs, you'd have seen the recent discussion about that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commanders

Shouldn't Barack Obama be listed as "commander-in-Cheif of The U.S. army" instead of President? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.22.115.5 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one responds, I will just change it.142.22.115.5 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot because it is locked.142.22.115.5 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed by their office, not by specific duties of that office. Jeancey (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and propaganda

this article talk about a "civil war" but the only side we talk of is the NTC !!!

This look like modern propaganda!!!

we cannot talk about a civil war talking only of one faction

It is non sense!!!

their lot of Kadhafi supporter in Lybia, why you don't show some pictures? propaganda i say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.111.94.173 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any information covered by reliable sources, please feel free to provide them. If your sources come from Mathaba, please be aware that this has been determined to be an unreliable source. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure agit-prop, full of double standarts, only a little less biased than months ago. WP is loosin' credibility with this type of cr*p.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any problems, feel free to fix them yourself. Be sure to have your information backed up by reliable sources. You may have more luck doing this than vague comments on the talk page that don't point out any specific issues. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a little information for the above IP. A Revolutionary War is when one party identifys themselves as a different nation to the opposing party. A Civil War occurs when both parties identify themselves as the same nation. As is the case in the 2011 Libyan Civil War. Both forces (NTC and Gaddafi) indentify themselves as Libyan. OKelly (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unacceptable to have only one side of the argument presented in a Wikipedia article, with only one reference (47) refuting some of the claims. Since it is very difficult to find reliable sources because of the extensive western propaganda, I have not been able to find much to support the other side. However, what I have found deserves to be included into the article. See testimonies by Dan Glazebrook (independent analyst), Lizzie Phelan (journalist), and Harpal Brar (politician and writer) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J3SU9qUAkSg#! Also, an interview with Lizzie Phelan by the New York Times: http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-york-times-interview-with-lizzie.html Nmenry (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just as a note, Lizzie Phelan has been discussed at the RSN and deemed a completely unreliable source. The problem with showing both sides is that the sources for the former government have become unreliable, due to consistently spread information that has been proven to be false. If you can find sources that turn out to be reliable, by all means, please add them. At the moment, however, there just doesn't seem to be reliable sources on the side of the former government. Jeancey (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeancey, please link to where Lizzie Phelan has been "deemed a completely unreliable source" at the RSN. My search returned only two results, neither of which show any discussion of the reliability of her journalism. Thank you. Ricbep (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War end?

I see with surprise that some users had put 23 October as finishing date of the Libyan War. Their argument is that the NTC declared the end of the war in that date. Ok, so following that argument, we can put a finish date on the Iraq War (ousting or execution of Saddam Hussein), for example, or the Afghan war (ousting of the Talibans). Making that difference seems to be a clear double standart, one more of the list. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The war is over. There aren't any reports of organized resistance, just a little infighting. Why would you say the war isn't over? Jeancey (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We report what our sources report. If you have any sources saying the war is still ongoing, provide them. As I said in my edit summary, it's quite common for minor skirmishes to continue after the official end of a war, such as in World War 2 and almost every significant conflict of the last thousand years. The end of a war does not mean the end of any and all conflict. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I say is that for example, in 2002 the Afghan War could be considered ended. The Taliban had been ousted from power, there was an interim government (like in Libya now), and the US troops control the great majority of the country. In the Iraq War, we can say the same. Even in the Iraq case, some WP's (not the english one) put 2010 as end of the war, with the retirement of the last US combat troops. The thing is that, time later, insurgence erupted in both countries. Could that pass in Libya?. Perhaps, I dont know. But I think that we must had a equal measure with wars, taking a parameter for considering it ended, not like "...this one ended when the interim gov. says so, that one when the foreign troops left..." etc...Regards.HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference, I would think, is that most sources agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing wars. I haven't seen any sources that indicate the Libyan civil war is still ongoing so far, and most repeat the NTC-provided date. I'm certainly interested to see a few good sources saying the war is ongoing if they're out there. We'd need more than one to help counter the number of sources saying it's over. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this merits consideration, but NATO did withdraw Oct. 31, so that's another thing to consider. I'm not saying NATO's withdrawal date is the date of the end but I'm saying Libya's different than Iraq and Afghanistan as there is still a large foreign military presence in both. It's just something to consider. I'm fine with the 'official' date being considered the 'end' of the war, because the two skirmishes I read about (one in Tripoli and another with some tribes) did not merit "civil war" by any means. Throughout the whole thing we had a fairly coherent view of both sides, there were lines drawn, and those lines disappeared with the killing of Gaddafi and the announcement that the country was free. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The war ended. Three has not been a single skirmish between NTC forces and gaddafi forces since oct 23. Even if there was, that does not constitute an ongoing war. 100% of all Gaddafi forces commanders have been killed, captured, or left Libya. Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This war is of a completely different nature than that in Afghanistan or Iraq, so comparisons to those two are inappropriate. The primary actors on both sides were both Libyans, and one side was defeated. Lastly, I haven't seen a single source saying the war is still ongoing. --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise I added as a note in the result section that there is still sporadic low-level fighting as of late November. It's properly sourced so it's not in dispute. EkoGraf (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

I would like to object to calling the Libyan series of events beginning in February 18th a "civil war". Rather, I believe it should be called a "revolution", at least primarily so, and can be secondarily called a civil war. The definition of a civil war as stated by the Wikipedia article "Civil War" states that "The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." The beginning of the Libyan revolution did not involve a "party". It was merely peaceful demonstrations calling for the ousting of the Muammar Qaddafi rule. These people were not in possession of a part of the national territory. In essence, the naming "Civil War" suggests a struggle for power, and this was not the case in Libya. Rather, it was simply a "Revolution" for the ousting of a regime labelled by international standards as a "brutal, unlawful" one.

Thank you 99.122.202.192 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're a little late with this request. There have been half a dozen requests like yours to change the title to revolution and each time an overwhelming majority of editors decided that the proper term is civil war and not revolution. So, no point in starting another discussion on this topic for a seventh time. EkoGraf (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per EkoGraf. Puffin Let's talk! 10:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has already been dealt with but i have to say something, firstly, the party in revolt, which in the first week were just protesters, were actually in control. They had control Benghazi and everything east of it and set up local commitees, before the NTC was formed. They also had Misrata and Zawiya, all before the formation of the National Liberation Army. Plus the conflict dragged on for months with Gaddafi in control of most of the west and the rebels holding the east, therefor both sides held territory and as such is a civil war. (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albania

Why Albania is removed from the NATO countries that have contributed? (http://www.balkanweb.com/TV/index.php?id_ansalive=10871&id_categoria=48) Irvi Hyka UTC 22:52 26 November 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.77.228 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

death count before intervention

What was the death count before foreign intervetion (19 Feb)? Why has no foregin action been taken in Syria? Chesdovi (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is, as of yet, no civil WAR in Syria. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 03:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as moved. Article is already redirected from the shortened form being considered here making this article the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. We don't call the English civil war article the 1640's English civil war, that additional disambiguation being redundant. Additionally a lot of the opposes are primarily about it being discussed before, this is true, but consensus can change as it clearly has in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article called 2011 Libyan civil war and not just Libyan civil war? I can't find any other use of the term, so surely the year is unncessary as a disambiguation? 213.1.240.149 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for name change to Libyan Civil War from 2011 Libyan civil war

I agree with the above statement, there is no previous libyan civil war, so 2011 seems pointless, the 2011 part of the title came from the orgial name "2011 libyan protests", this was to disguingish it from previous libyan protests. Since there has been civil war in libya before 2011, it should jsut be Libyan civil war. Kspence92(talk) 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We have had this pop up at least 5 times within the last few months. There are sources: [1], [2] that support multiple civil wars in Libya's history, and wikipedia should not go against history here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you mention that, since Greece is known to have multiple civil wars throughout its history, and yet by your logic, this supposedly goes against Greek history. --24.107.235.192 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One article talks about one civil war while the other covers two civil wars that happened back to back so the article title reflects on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm? So then you would agree that the Greek Civil War should be renamed to the 1946–1949 Greek civil war? --24.107.235.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Only if there weren't any other Libyan Civil Wars in History. OKelly (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close - proposals like this one keep coming up again and again, while a quick peek in the Talk page archives shows that there's no consensus for such a move. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's probably the most notable civil war in Libyan history, at the very least, far more notable than the Tripolitanian Civil War (1791 - 1795) someone brought up way back when.48Lugur (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As per above comments. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - For several reasons. There have been civil wars in the past, and in the future there might be some. The Greek Civil War is likely named as such because it was the first in recent memory, and thus, no one changed the name, despite the fact that there were others. In the future, if there was ANOTHER libyan civil war, this article would be confused with it, if the 2011 is dropped. What I have never understood, throughout all this, is why it MATTERS to anyone that it has 2011 in the name of the article... there is nothing wrong with being slightly more specific, so I don't get why so many people want to drop the 2011 from the name. Hopefully that all made sense. Jeancey (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support - The Libya as a nation has never had a civil war in the past. There have been civil conflicts in Tripolitania in the 18th centaury as someone else mentioned, but that was not Libya. Libya did not exist at that point. If there is a future civil war the 2011 can be readded to this page, or indeed this page would just be renamed Second Libyan civil war. My main points is, a civil war has never occured in the Libyan nation since it came into existance, other than the one that jus occured, so why is the 2011 neccesary ? all news organisations and governments genreally jsut say Libyan civil war anyway. Most of us here don bother tacking on a 2011 when we speak of it do we ? we just say libyan civil war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never has been one in the past in the nation of Libya. Goltak (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support This is the first civil war, so this is a very clear support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war - A previous civil war. I doubt anyone would ever get confused between the two, but, obviously, many people do not know about it. With the logic here we should rename that article First Libyan civil war and this one Second Libyan civil war - The latter of which would undoubtedly cause further confusion. As per above comments, there's no consensus for such a move, so it shouldn't be done. - RoyalMate1 02:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion May I also suggest, from reading the archives and such, adding a sort of FAQ section about the name of this article or other issues commonly reiterated here, as there seems to be some at the least. RoyalMate1 02:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are valid arguements for both points here i must concede, however, the 1793 - 1795 Tripolitanian civil war was not a Libyan civil war, as Libya did not exist as a nation by that point, nor did the concept of Libya as a nation even exist. Tripolitania was a seperate country. Libya only came into existance as a real, unified country at independence in 1951, and the name Libya was created by the Italians in 1934, therefor, a libyan civil war cannot have occured before Libya existed. unsigned comment added by 90.207.148.90 (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.211.205 (talk) [reply]

Reply Ottoman Tripolitania was indeed, in a political sense, not Libya today. But we would still refer to it as Libyan, no? We certainly wouldn't call it an Ottoman Civil War, even though it was. Regardless, there is no problem with the "2011" in the title. Libyan Civil War redirects here, and that is fine. So does Libyan Civil War (2011). Having the "2011" is not pointless because it describes the war. Most of the civil wars on Wikipedia follow this kind of title (see Chadian Civil War). See also History of Libya# Libya under the Ottomans (1551-1911). No page moving is necessary because there is nothing wrong with the title. If the article's title was 2010 Libyan Civil War, then it would need to be moved. But renaming the article "just because" doesn't seem practical or worth the arguments here. With that, I also support a speedy procedural close. RoyalMate1 20:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Your comments are a red herring. The 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war is a separate issue. As far as the country of Libya is concerned, this is the first civil war, and the article should be named appropriately. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply My comments are not "a red herring". The article should not be "named appropriately" because there is no consensus, even if this is, as you see, the first real "Libyan civil war". Surely it shouldn't matter one way or the other if the article is named 2011 Libyan civil war or just Libyan civil war. The archives support this, and you may as well argue that it should be called the Libyan revolution. The fact that they are all redirects to the same page renders all of this discussion utterly worthless. Please stop insisting on changing the article's title. Perhaps you should actually take a look at the archives, maybe if I link Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Archive 12#Date in name, Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Archive 12#Why "2011" Civil War?, and Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Archive 10#Requested move: 2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan civil war you will understand? That's not even counting the numerous other discussions to rename it (generally to revolution). There will never be a full consensus to rename the article. Stop beating a dead horse. Perhaps if all of the focus towards renaming the article went into actually improving the article, it would have an A, GA, or FA class status right now. Please consider that. RoyalMate1 02:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - My biggest concern here isn't the exclusion of the date, it's the use of capitalization in a way that suggests the name is a proper noun. I'm somewhat sympathetic to the view that it's anachronistic to think of the Tripolitanian civil war of the 1790s as a "Libyan civil war", but I just haven't seen a consensus among reliable sources that the common name of this conflict is the "Libyan Civil War". Let's not rush to designate a proper noun for this war; the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has been going on for over a decade, and there's still no popular name for it the way there is for the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, the Spanish Civil War, the Mexican-American War, or the War of the Roses. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support — There doesn't appear to have been any other civil wars in Libya's history. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Honestly, what other Libyan civil wars have take place when Libya was actually... well, Libya? What other Libyan civil wars match their weight of notability to this one? And as others have stated above me, the Tripolitanian civil war occurred long before Libya came into existence as a nation, so I find this whole "there's been more than one Libyan civil war" argument very unconvincing. --24.107.235.192 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That isn't really the main argument, although I can see how it seems to be. The main argument in not renaming the article is that there is no consensus to make a move from 2011 Libyan civil war to Libyan civil war; should it not be Libyan Civil War? How about 2011 Libyan Civil War? Libyan revolution? Libyan Revolution? 2011 Libyan revolution? etc. Try to remember that Wikipedia works with a consensus here. There are good arguments for both sides, but there are too many sides to choose from. Degree in notability should not justify a name change/move either. Some may view the Tripolitanian civil war as not Libyan and others may. Like Kudzu has said, the exclusion of the date is not the only concern here. I don't see why the inclusion of the date is a problem anyway. RoyalMate1 08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply To be honest, most here seem to have voted "Support", we should move it already. As previously stated, the other civil conflict was much before Libya existed as an nation. Goltak (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That goes against what is said in the sources provided though, the civil wars took place in Libya. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Actually, the other civil war did Not take place in the nation of Libya. This is the only one. Also, I agree with Goltak's comments above, and support a move. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply So, evidently, the Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus did not take place in Libya either? Or the other prehistoric petroglyphs on Jebel Uweinat? They occurred in whatever prehistoric government was around then. That doesn't seem logical. To me, anything that refers to the three historic regions of Libya (Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenaica) can be called Libyan. However, if a name change does happen, I would support Libyan Civil War and not Libyan civil war as is suggested here per other article titles and natural grammar rules. As of now, I'm going neutral. But saying that events did not occur in areas because there was a different government/nation is absurd. RoyalMate1 21:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Again, your comments are a red herring. Your points are not related to the subject at hand. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very odd to have a year attached to this article, as there is no other notable Libyan Civil War. Having a year attached to it suggests that there is one.--JOJ Hutton 01:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is the first civil war in the nation state called Libya, that has had an impact on all Libyans. The Tripolitanian Civil war was not in the nation state of Libya, nor did it have an impact on all the people of the modern day state. (In the 1790s Tripolitania might not have even been considered part of Libya the region.) 106.71.170.41 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per 48Lugur and 106.71.170.41. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose those who favor this suffer from presentism. Why is this war more important than the Tripolitanian Civil War? It is because people here are so absorbed in the present they are not weighing things in the long run. If a clear and unchallenged consensus emerges to use "Libyan Civil War" for this fight, than it is worth reconsidering. However the media has not in general called this a civil war at all, and so we should stay with the more descriptive title for the time being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the Tripolitania War. 1793–1795 Tripolitanian civil war. The article is minimal, but this is general a reflection of wikipedia's presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Sorry, why not label the "English Civil War" the "1642 English Civil War" as the Barons' Revolts and the War of the Roses were both beforehand. Why don't we change the title of the "Chinese Civil War" to the "1927 Chinese Civil War". It is simply a matter of relevance, impact, scope and context. In context the Tripolitanian Civil War was not a [b]Libyan[/b] civil war just as a dark age squabble in East Anglica is not The English Civil War 106.71.170.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Support as per the Greek, English and Chinese examples. That 1790's Tripolitanian conflict that is mentioned did not take place in the modern Libyan state (In its territory, but not the state). It's like referring to a conflict within a particular Native American tribe or between nobles vying for the crown in one of the pre-Spanish Iberian kingdoms as the American Civil War or Spanish Civil War (respectively), or like IP 106.71.170.41 mentioned, medieval civil conflicts in one of the heptarchy kingdoms as the English Civil War. The inclusion of 2011 is simply needless - remember WP:COMMONNAME. As an alternative though (and to further complicate things), what about Libyan Civil War (2011) instead? --L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Why? There's no difference between Libyan civil war (2011) and 2011 Libyan civil war except that the current one is much more aesthetically pleasing than the (2011) one. I still don't really understand why it really matters that we are being more specific. It will keep us from having to change it in the future should there be another civil war. Honestly, I haven't read a SINGLE good reason why 2011 Libyan civil war is BAD.... just reasons why Libyan civil war is "good enough." Why change it from something that's fine, to something that's just "good enough"? Jeancey (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I was kinda being sarcastic on that last one, actually. Since when does Wikipedia try to predict the future with article titles? It seems that an encyclopedia should be reactive in relation to events, not proactive. Going by that logic, maybe we should rename the "American Civil War" article to "1861-1865 American Civil War" or likewise for the English Civil War simply because there might be a future civil war. Unnecessary disambiguation.
Fine? well, if so many editors are raising concerns about the title, I think it would be fair to say that, just possibly, the current title may not be fine. I haven't seen a convincing reason on here yet as to why the title should remain as-is - just a bunch of crap about a civil conflict in pre-Libyan Tripolitania (which was actually nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, not the modern Libyan state). Furthermore, something you all seem to be ignoring is that historically Tripolitania only includes a small part of what is now Libya (which goes back to another editor's point about a dark ages civil war in East Anglia or wherever being termed an "English Civil War")--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - there have already been several proposals that failed to reach a consensus for move. As there's no additional facts raised, this proposal should also be closed with no move. 1exec1 (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still cant understand the concerns for not changing the title. The 2011 exists to differentiate the 2011 Libyan civil war from any previous such conflict. The issue is, there is no previous such conflict in the history of the Libyan nation since it came into existance.

Besides, when you are looking for info on the conflict in Libya, most people dont type in 2011 libyan civil war , its just Libyan civil war they are looking for. Also ive yet to hear of any news organisation using the term 2011 Libyan civil war, its just Libyan civil war, or occasionally the libyan conflict.(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.248.120 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I have removed the move notice due to clear lack of consensus needed for such a move. Jeancey (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There isn't really consensus to move. There is an equal number opposing as supporting, which means no consensus to change. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That's not true, please review the above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I amend my statement. There does appear to be a slight majority in favor of renaming. Enough to keep the discussion open, though I'm not sure if enough to move. Jeancey (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support In the 1790s, there was no unified Libya or even a concept of it. Clearly this is the only conflict that could be thought of as a "Libyan Civil War". Putting the date ahead of it implies that there have been other civil wars in Libya since its' foundation as a nation-state. --Tocino 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I would add that, whilst I endorse the arguments previously forwarded concerning the status of 'Libya' as a nation-state, and the obscurity of earlier conflicts, changing from '2011 Libyan civil war' to 'Libyan civil war' is eminently commonsensical as far as the average user is concerned. The debate above seems to echo a lot of the humdrum over the '2010-11 Middle East and North Africa protests'. Again, it's a choice between logical reasoning and superficial accuracy against the need to be accessible, reflecting the needs of users. Yes, I agree, as far as chronology goes, '2011 Libyan civil war' makes a good deal of sense. But the thing is, nobody is going to type that into Google looking when looking for info. Plus, to make a couple of slightly distracting points, 'Libyan civil war' is a much cleaner, less cumbersome title, and, more importantly, does this matter terribly? So Wikipedia isn't consistent. That isn't what its here for.
Apologies if this polemic is too brashly worded; these name change discussions always have a habit of exasperating me. Laika Talk: Laika 20:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: While there may have been earlier, smaller, civil wars in Libya, this civil war is quite easily the largest and most prolific, to the extent that Libyan civil war simply redirects here. In addition, low-level fighting has been continuing into 2012, which has only been escalating this past week. I don't see any reason to put 2011 in the title. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As said above, Libyan civil war directly relates here, and there are no disambiguation pages. For this reason, and others said above, this article should be moved.--NovusLux (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it DOES get moved, please make sure it is moved to Libyan civil war, lower case civil war, not Libyan Civil War. It makes using the phrase in prose much, much easier, capitalization and grammar-wise. Jeancey (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2012 (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.

British casualty

On what grounds is the "1 [British] airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" included as a casualty or loss on the NTC/UN side? While an unfortunate loss, this death did not result from enemy action, take place in the Libyan theatre, or even involve a serviceman who was bound for Libya- he was merely delivering supplies to UK forces in Italy. Worldbeing (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is not an causalty of war at all, just an accident while driving. Goltak (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has been declared by the British MoD to have been a casualty of the NATO-led operation and by extension a casualty of the war. Numereous other war articles include in their death tolls non-combat deaths also, like the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, Afghan wars, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource

Vengeance in Libya December 15, 2011 by Joshua Hammer; JANUARY 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not over

no way is this over just because nato and its stooges decree so. Bani Walid was just retaken (and the terrorists dont have air support without which theyre just rabble rousers) and there are contant pro vs. anti-gaddafi fights and even intra-rebel fights as a DIRECT consequence of the uprising/civil war.(Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Please don't change things like that without consensus from the talk page. The WAR is over. That doesn't mean the fighting has stopped. This is currently fighting is considered under the aftermath of the war, not the war itself. The was is definitely over. Jeancey (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the war has ended, it is commonplace sadly for after the war has ended for there to be low-level insurgency battles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He thinks that BW was "retaken" by loyalists. [3]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article

Sorry if I seem to be rehashing an old point but, why was the article title changed to Libyan civil war instead of Libyan Civil War? (i.e. Why was it not capitalized?) I noted what Jeancey said in the above discussion, but my question is this: What about such articles as the American Civil War or the English Civil War? Nearly every other article on a specific civil war is capitalized. If the argument can be made that it should be lower case, then I would expect that argument to include why it is different from all the other civil war articles on Wikipedia - or otherwise why the other articles should be changed. -Noha307 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'd have to agree with this argument for consistencies sake.--JOJ Hutton 04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provide some reliable sources that support such a capitalisation and I'm sure you'll find no objections. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)
When closing the move request my reading of WP:CAPS was that we should use the uncapitalised form. It does seem that you are correct - World War II is capitalised as well - feel free to request this article is moved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CAPS says to capitalise if it is a proper noun. I have seen very few reliable sources that treat "Libyan Civil War" as a proper noun; most just say "civil war in Libya" or similar nondescript constructions. On the other hand, wars like "American Civil War" and "English Civil War" are well-established in reliable sources as being distinct proper nouns. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically why I mentioned that in the discussion. I don't remember if the conversation I had was on this talk page, or on someone's user talk, but I definitely remember having this discussion before and the result was that because it isn't used in the sources as a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized. I specifically mentioned it because the move request was to Libyan Civil War originally, which according to the sources is incorrect. Jeancey (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick Google News searches support this. "libyan civil war" gets 74 results, the vast majority of which do not use the fully-capitalised form. See for example:
CBS News: "No sooner had the Libyan civil war ended than another erupted in Syria."
The Globe and Mail: "…NATO’s forceful entry into the Libyan civil war."
Reuters Africa: "The Libyan civil war might have given militant groups…", "The U.N. report on the impact of the Libyan civil war on countries of the Sahel region…"
"libya's civil war" gets 122 results, "civil war in libya" 56 results, and the all-inclusive "civil war" libya gets 3,420 results. If you look through these, you will find next to no RS support for the proper noun form. Wikipedia is based off of what secondary sources say; we should not create WP:NEOLOGISMs that are not found in them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, thing is I've never really gone about requesting a move before. How would one go about doing such a thing? I assume I just need to put a discussion template or something on the talk page - but I'm not even really sure where I would find one of those. -Noha307 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again. Yes, you ARE rehashing an old point. By reading the relevant archive page you could've easily found out that the decision to write "civil war" instead of "Civil War" was well argumented. Therefore I oppose any further renaming of this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must apologize to TaalVerbeteraar and Jeancy, when I read the discussion I cited above, I didn't notice Kudzu1's reply/comment. As far as the archived discussion goes, I didn't think to check for previous discussions when I started this section. That was my mistake. I also didn't realize how high emotions were running as a result of what I assume to be irritation at the discussion being reopened/started over again. The discussion below helped me realize that. However, I would like to remind TaalVerbeteraar that, without trying to sound accusatory, of WP:AGF. Sorry again for the irritation, the failure was on my part. -Noha307 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me for coming across a bit harsh. It's just that it seems as if no week can go by without someone trying to start the exact same discussion on. And it's been going on for ages. Some of my frustration crept into my earlier reply; it wasn't directed at you personally. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the archives go?

Correct me if I am missing something huge here, but it seems to me that the (rather voluminous, as I recall) archives for this talkpage have gone missing. I find it more than likely that they got left behind under the 2011 prefix after the recent move. Can this be confirmed and/or rectified? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what usually happens when pages are moved like this, I wonder?--A (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan transition

So as not to repeat what has been stated before, here is the previous discussion. It is still unclear whether or not Libyan transition is the best way to call it, or if this kind of information might be able to fit inside another page that I do not yet know of. There seems to be several pages related to the aftermath of wars in Category:Aftermath of war so it seems that one related to this one would fit in with the rest.--A (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Aftermath of the Libyan civil war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well! Sorry for being a dunce here.--A (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing per WP:SNOW and WP:TOOSOON - lets not do this again for a while, come back in 6 months. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article should be renamed to 2011 Libyan Revolution. The date February 17th has been titled revolution day by many reliable sources:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-17/news/31072469_1_jay-carney-libya-moammar-gadhafi

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Libya+marks+revolution+leader+issues+warning/6174171/story.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/fireworks-as-libya-marks-revolution-day/story-e6frf7jx-1226274194216

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0218/1224311977150.html

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2012_pg4_1

http://main.omanobserver.om/node/83692

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9088242/Libyans-celebrate-first-anniversary-of-revolution.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/17/world/africa/libya-anniversary/

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4082a108-597f-11e1-abf1-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_mideast/feed//product#axzz1mgy9IoLN

The term 'Civil war' is now very rarely, if ever, used. Furthermore their has never been a source that has quoted a Libyan (government official or otherwise) using the term 'civil war'. Just because Libya had an armed uprising doesn't make it less of a Revolution. Cuba also had an armed uprising in the 1950's yet the main title for that page on Wikipedia is the 'Cuban Revolution' not the 'Cuban Civil War'. it is now probably the right time to rename this article to [2011 Libyan Revolution] as the term Libyan civil war is becoming increasingly outdated term by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.88.180 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per every other time we've had this discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are we really going to go through this again, somehow I knew this would pop up again. Oppose per the past discussions we have already had on this, yes you have sources but the Majority of sources refer to this as a civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2012 (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.

Deletion of sourced text

Recent edits with the summaries lol- gaddafi violated the ceasefire) , Has absolutely nothing to do with human rights , [ Saif al islam is not a source] are disruptive and must stop.

The remark about "lol-gaddafi violated the ceasefire" is simply silly. The cited news stories demonstrate that there are different points of view about what happened. That the Libyan Government stated that the rebels violated the ceasefire is irrefutable. As a significant viewpoint, this has to be included in the article. It was also widely reported that the rebels rejected all efforts to bring about a political solution in Libya, demonstrated by their reaction to the African Union's efforts.

The edit of "absolutely nothing to do with human rights" is puzzling. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's delegation issued a report about the state of human rights to the United Nations, which has everything to do with human rights. This is a significant viewpoint that has a place in the article. So explain what part of this document is unrelated to human rights??

The edit "Saif al-Islam is not a source" is yet more nonsense. In this same article, we have the statement "In Misrata, a rebel spokesman claimed that government soldiers had committed a string of sexual assaults in Benghazi Street before being pushed out by rebels.". If the Misrata rebel spokesman is a source, then how is Saif not a source?? Or does Saif only count as a source when there are cherry-picked statements to portray him in a negative light? SadSwanSong (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:PRIMARY, the statements of primary sources like the state-owned propaganda arm or representatives of the state are given less due weight than reliable secondary sources, such as news articles reporting on the uprising or watchdog organizations reporting on the human rights situation. While I agree that the former government's claims should be included where counter to the then-rebels' claims, the way you have endeavored to insert them is decidedly not WP:NPOV. The presentation seeks to use the regime's statements to discredit, rather than provide an alternative view, to those of reliable secondary sources. That's not appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps we should look at the specific language, if you have particular objections to editors' reversions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those human rights are political laws, nothing about human rights. Human rights is right to religion,speech,press,assembly,protest. Not political and economic organization

Saif al Islam is not a reliable source. Whatsoever. Zenithfel (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with efforts to rewrite the rules. The Libyan government figures and Libyan media are reliable sources so long as they are clearly attributed, which I have done in every single one of my edits. It would not be reliable to state that "rebels perpetrated a bloodbath" by citing Saif al-Islam. But something that is clearly attributed like, "Saif al-Islam claimed that the rebels took hostages" is in accordance with NPOV and can stay. WP:NPOV states that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." . Nothing in the reliable sources section supports your insistence on censoring this article by keeping out certain news stories and documents.SadSwanSong (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contents cited from the Libyan government's human rights document does pertain to human rights.. Specifically, it focuses on the criteria of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , a document that is a major part of work on human rights. SadSwanSong (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are referring to human rights and human rights abuses. Period.
Your paragraphs only mention gaddafi's economic achievements and political organizations. Zenithfel (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to insist you stop inserting this language, SadSwanSong, until we establish consensus allowing its inclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a major component on the development of instruments on human rights. Part of the document that the Jamahiriya submitted to the UN focuses on Libya's its economic and cultural accomplishments. The article has a section about human rights, but says nothing about other points of view, specifically that of Libyan state and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadSwanSong (talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Now stop edit-warring, for your own sake. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another point, it's the Jamahiras report. Not an independent report. State-controlled reports don't belong there. Economic and social achievements are not human rights. Zenithfel (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in your rewriting of the rules or your arbitrary definitions of edit-warring. SadSwanSong (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to re-write the rules. You just got to follow them. Zenithfel (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is heavily POV.

Prior to my intervention, this article suffered from severe POV problems, as though the article was written by NATO/rebels' spokesmen. The "Violence" section solely described allegations about the Libyan Government's side, as did the sections of "Mercenaries", "Human Shields","Censorship of Events", "International Propaganda". There was not a word about the rebels' use of mercenaries, human shields, censorship of events, etc. I made considerable progress in pushing the article more towards a NPOV, but certain editors have been trying to reverse my efforts. The version of the article prior to my edits strongly violates NPOV rules in favor of the rebels, and must be labeled as such.SadSwanSong (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because all those accusations against the rebels comes from Libyan state tv, Mathaba, press tv, and russia today. None of which are reliable, all of which are state controlled. Zenithfel (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the western press did not report on the reprimendable actions of the rebels is a clear indicator that western-source media cannot be considered as the "only reliable source". This one-side story is now being repeated with the rebels in Syria. It's "the bad guys against the good guys". Cliches about RT being "bias and unreliable" are unfounded in this particular case, as RT has been reporting both sides of the story (i.e. RT has never denied or shut a blind eye on human rights abuses by Gaddafi's forces; the opposite is true).
This article I agree breaks NPOV, but in favor of Gaddafi's side. 99% of the reports against gaddafi's government on not present. That is because if we were to put all the accusation, evidence, and sources which seem to put Gaddafi and his army in a negative light, it would overflow the page. As such we but the general broad information, in which praises about how well Gaddafi handles the economy is not amongst. Zenithfel (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the accusations against Libyan Government originated from rebel-held territory, which were then circulated by the media based in the NATO countries and were largely shown by independent observers to have been unreliable, such as the claims about rape, mercenaries, air strikes, etc. You characterize Libyan sources in support of the Libyan Government as unreliable, but you don't consider that a portion of the western media's coverage consisted of Libya published statements by government officials, summarized stories from Libyan media, etc. Libyan sources represent a significant viewpoint and are an important part of the information on this subject. Wikipedia rules do not ban sources because for having a bias, but state that sources like Libyan television can be included as long as they are clearly attributed.
Wrong, information backed by unreliable sources are allowed to be removed, particularly if it is Libyan state TV. Accusations came from rebel held area because in gaddafi controlled area journalists were controlled by minders, and people were not allowed to speak freely.Zenithfel (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you do not seem to be well-informed about the reporting on the war. Press TV's coverage has been staunchly pro-rebel.
Press TV is Iranian state-controleld media. Not reliable no matter what side it takes. Zenithfel (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SadSwanSong (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have 12 archives on the talk page discussing this, go read them. Zenithfel (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:BRD. Remember that it is not "bold, revert, counterrevert". Technically, blocks could be handed out all around for the edit warring that went on earlier. Be careful. The talkpage should have been used much earlier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea of removing POV is using JANA state agency which says that Misratans were abducting muslims and sending them to Europe to be evangelised. Just marvelous. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I knew it would come down to this sooner or later, it wont hurt to scan the article for possible POV flags while the dispute is fresh. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jamahiriya News Agency cited a speech by Leader Gaddafi in which he stated that the rebels from Misrata used people as human shields. It is an undeniable fact that this statement was made. Because its content represents a significant viewpoint of this conflict, it has a place in the article. Wikipedia NPOV rules require all sides to be fairly represented, not just lurid allegations that originated from rebel sources. Whether or not rebels in Misrata really did use human shields is for you to decide, but personal views ought not to dictate the content of this article. There is really nothing to dispute with regard to my additions. Maybe I might not have properly attributed some of what I added, but the content itself is a reliable representation of Libyan Government's POV. Major English-speaking news agencies and newspapers did not fairly report on the conflict, as stuff the rebels claimed were uncritically reported, whereas there was not much reporting about the controversies of the rebels. This was particularly true during the period from ca. 20 March 2011 until the late August 2011. Only after the rebels' declaration of victory has the English-speaking media finally started reporting on some of the controversies surrounding them.SadSwanSong (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi claimed that 30,000 alqaeda members snuck into libya to drug people's nescafe to make to them revolt. He claimed Osama Bin Laden was in Derna. He claimed alcohol and nescafe was the root of the problem. Guess we got to put that in. Look, the fact is that we don't put Gaddafi's or his sons quotes in. There are a million quotes we could put in, and half of them are strait out crazy. Gaddafi and co are not sources, unless they talk about losses/wins on the battlefield, even their talk about those are very dubious. Zenithfel (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda and Islamist elements played a formidable role in the rebellion, corroborated even by the rebels themselves, which means that Gaddafi was right. SadSwanSong (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh- No. They have alqaeda links. yes. but they are not alqaeda. Gaddafi claimed 100% of all rebels were alqaeda members from outside of libya distributing drugs into peoples Nescafe. Not even 1% are alqaeda, and alqaeda never even fought in the war. Zenithfel (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of Wikipedia is biased, but what would you expect, they are a secondary source and 99% of all primary sources are right-winged. So what do you want, so called "neutrality"? or the truth? I'm out of here, gotta go edit at Communpedia, the people's encyclopedia :D --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway back to the point. The gibberish report by the libyan government on how well they claimed they were handling the economic and social situation is totally irrelevant. Human rights abuses is what the section is about. The quality of life has nothing to do with a civil war page. This is not the page about gaddafi's legacy.

Stop using quotations from Saif and Muammar, too much crazy and not enough verifiability. like "rebels were abducting muslims and sending them to Europe to be evangelized"

Also leave Fidel Castro's rambles out of the page. Fidel Castro is an 86 year old man who is not even the leader of cuba (population 11.3 million) anymore. Zenithfel (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, there are quotes of and words attributed to Gaddafi that make him look bad. But when quotes about him portray him in a more favorable light or highlight controversies about his opponents, you insist on removing them. So your problem seems not to be with the addition of statements from Gaddafi, but that certain statements from him do not 100% portray him in a negative light. As far as I'm concerned, the rebels' claims which were then reported by English-speaking media are all gibberish, but I don't insist on removing them because I don't have the appetite for edit-warring.SadSwanSong (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of being general, do you have specific instances where they seem to be gibberish? Jeancey (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SadSwanSong the problem I see here is that no editor is agreeing with what you are saying here, rather than working with editors on the precise issues you have you are pushing to have your own way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of my additions are from reliable sources and are clearly attributed. I have nothing to prove to you. Rather, you are obligated to provide persuasive justifications for continued deletion of sourced content. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are removing all the rebal claims and shifting the article in favor of the Gaddafi government, balance the POV scale, discuss what parts of the article you have issues with here. For every out there rebal claim to you there is in the article we can discuss here on how to replace it with a claim supporting Gaddafi's stance and how it would impact the article. The goal is to make both sides equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your sources it wont hurt to post them over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to confirm them as being reliable in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Everything I posted is a reliable source. This includes western, English-speaking media summarizing statements from the Libyan Government, as well as Libyan sources in English. Jamahiriya News Agency is the most reliable source for presenting Libyan Government's POV.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

This content needs to be rewritten:

But two documents support Gaddafi's claims on this issue. One being a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008, part of the WikiLeaks trove, entitled "Extremism in Eastern Libya".

It is copied nearly verbatim from [4]. I would propose replacing it with this:

Gaddafi's claims are supported by a secret cable to the State Department from the US embassy in Tripoli in 2008 and

(eliminating the first few words of the next sentence to form one sentence).

While the source is cited nearby, Wikipedia:Plagiarism requires that we acknowledge copying, and does not allow us to copy from protected sources such as this one. Ordinarily I would regard this change as completely uncontroversial, since this copying of content contravenes WP:C and WP:NFC, but it is a very small amount of text and thus likely to pose no harm in delaying it to make sure that it does not touch upon the content dispute. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if you want to make the change go ahead with it =). Something that poses no harm but improves the article looks like a good thing to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War – - Longtime editors will recall I was one of the most adamant opponents of capitalizing "civil war" in this article's name, as I did not commonly see it as a proper noun. But I was Google-searching today, and off Wikipedia, it's fairly hard to find anyone calling this conflict the "Libyan civil war" without the caps; else it's the Libyan revolution (or Revolution), Libya's civil war, the civil war in Libya, the uprising in Libya, the armed conflict in Libya, etc. "Libyan civil war" appears infrequently and usually in passing. But a few very good reliable sources that come up on the first page of a Google search for "libyan civil war" do refer to it as a proper noun: CNN, in its page title and the Chicago Tribune. The Daily What also uses the proper noun, as does African Arguments. Therefore I'm reversing my long-held opposition to this page title being a proper noun and I am proposing a move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—While this is a start, it is still far from a clear-cut RS consensus. Patience, grasshopper. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both titles have the same meaning and not all news sources are correct grammerwise, I say support per WP:CAPS and WP:COMMONNAME as "Civil War" is a proper noun. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when do 4 3 (The Daily What can hardly be regarded as a serious RS) sources equate to WP:COMMONNAME? See my news survey above for a more clear picture of just how unclear the RS naming for this conflict is. "Civil War" is a proper noun? Guess the entire Civil war article is completely wrong. That is, granted, an OTHERCRAP argument. However, if you look through various examples, you will find that a "civil war" is a "Civil War" only in cases where usage has become clearly established. Which, in this case, it has not; as our weedy nom noted, the sources are still trying to sort out whether to call it a "civil war" to begin with. "Libyan Civil War" is still a borderline neologism, and we should wait a while to see what the majority of sources will name this conflict. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting new names. Thus, we retain the lowercase, non-proper noun descriptive name. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chose to strike my opinion, looking at things more closely it appears that now is not the time for this anyways as another editor pointed out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – of the dozens of recent books that mention it, approximately none use upper case in sentence context. Let's not let news drive our style. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Undue weight

The "State response" section reduces the government's response to Gaddafi's alleged words about Nescafe and drugs, widely reported by western tabloids like the Daily Mail, etc. Do we actually have a transcript for verifying exactly what Gaddafi said? Because instances where Gaddafi's speeches are presented in full, such as on al-Jazeera, one gets the impression of a more nuanced analysis from Gaddafi. This is from Jazeera English broadcast of his speech, which is a superior source to cherry-picked reporting by Reuters, AP, etc.

We will come to risk, and we will find those who have posed so much damage to the unity of our country. They can run away, they can go to Egypt, or wherever they want to go. But the traitors, who are agents for the West, for America and the UK, the Europeans and Americans won't be able to say anything to defend those traitors.

Those who would surrender their weapons and would join our sides, we are the people of Libya. Those who would surrender their weapons and would come in without their arms, we would forgive them, and would have amnesty for those who put down their weapons. And we will collect those weapons from the streets.

Anyone who throws his arms away and stays at home would be protected and I tell them, my child, you and your family, throw away your gun and stay at home. But we will search each and every flat and house, and if we find weapons in those flats and residences, then we would consider them as enemies.

They are attempting to destroy you. Leave your weapons outside and go indoors, into your homes and shut your doors. Cross over to the main squares of the city of Benghazi as a free man. Whom are you defending using artillery and weapons? Who would bring those dead back to life? Whom are you defending? You have been fooled, you have been taken advantage of. Throw away your weapon, and we will collect all these weapons, and you are safe.”

They are using you as scapegoats. You will be the victims. Our people there, the elderly, and all the population in the city. Do not allow weapons into your homes. Not all these areas, the entrances to the city of Benghazi, we shoot. Leave your weapons out and find yourself an escape. Throw away your arms and find a way out of the city, and then you are saved. Those young men have been taken advantage of.

SadSwanSong (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read, lean and remember Wikipedia guidelines. First of all, your tabloit comment is pure NPOV. All medias reported it, including Reuters [5]. You can find the rest of them in the article. Second of all we use reliable secondary sources. These sources states he said that. Morever on CNN Moussa Ibrahim defended his statements by the end of February repeated the same thing and defended both Gaddafi and Saif al-Islam statements [6]. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters page you listed presents what he said in a more complete manner, and doesn't put so much emphasis on him talking about Nescafe, etc. But in the "state response" section of this article, there is undue weight given to "Nescafe". There needs to be a more complete, thorough summary of Libyan Government's reaction to the rebellion.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing emphasis, he talked for cca 2 hours, he said a lot of things and pills in Nescafe was just one part of it. However you challenged whole statement as farce reported by just some tabloit media. That is untrue. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Use Of Technicals

It would have been nice if someone had said something when I FIRST presented the Techicals section for review, but at any rate…
The two easiest to use sources I could find (now) are consultancyafrica dot com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=917:the-arms-proliferation-threat-of-post-gaddafi-libya-&catid=60:conflict-terrorism-discussion-papers&Itemid=265 (effective section: “Perhaps inspired by lessons from the 1987 Libya-Chad war, anti-Gaddafi forces made extensive use of ‘technicals,’ equipped with these heavier weapon systems, to provide mobile firepower well suited to the nature of the conflict.”) and blogs.crikey dot com.au/this-blog-harms/2011/10/27/from-soviet-scraps-to-backpack-drones/ (effective section: “During the Libya War there was much attention in world news media on the presence of outdated and misused weapons technology as well as the extensive use of Toyota technical pickup trucks.” even though the assumption they were “all” or even mostly Toyotas came out of nowhere). A. J. REDDSON

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=480961669"