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 Magicevan (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 22 August 2011 (→‎Best way to handle citations.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Template:Pbneutral

Cross after dead persons?

Theres a cross behind several dead persons in the article, as used by christians to mark a dead person. But those people are muslims, isnt KIA (killed in action) better term? RGDS Alexmcfire (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol isn't a cross, it's a dagger. There's no religious symbolism to it, and IIRC, its use to signify death predates the rise of Christianity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NATO and NTC are committing genocide

Translated excerpt from an interview of the German magazine "Der Spiegel" with the secretary general of the National Transitional Council:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it true that a list was published with the names of all Ligan Thauria, a kill list with 7200 people? Basama: There are many lists, you know."

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752447,00.html

They have turned Libya into a slaughterhouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO_o-0NRhwg

http://www.obamaslibya.com/

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

One of thier leaders is a CIA asset who spent nearly 20 years in Virginia. NATO has established a no-life-zone by poisoning and irradiating Libya with uranium. This war against Libya was planned by NATO long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.215.103.107 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy to have gotten youre little rant of youre chest.

Tribal aspect of the war is real

I am growing tired with some editors probably thinking it is a funny thing to remove important information about belligerents in the war. Tribes are a very important aspect of this civil war.

Among the most important tribes involved there are of course the Gaddafa and the Magariha tribes supporting Gaddafi and others opposing him.

But the tribal dimension is present everywhere:

Tawerghans vs Misratans http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

Zintan tribe vs Mashashya http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,776695,00.html

In the east of course, all the tribes are against Gaddafi. In the south also there are mention of anti Gaddafi tribes (toubou) and we know the tuaregs are pro Gaddafi.

So you can continue with vandalism by removing the mentions in the infobox but I will keep writing the truth back. --Geromasis (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you, please assume good faith and refrain from characterizing others' edits as "vandalism" unless they are a clear example of such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toubou are pro-Gaddafi [1] (or more likely anti-french and against racist Benghazi clique) 77.45.161.168 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claims of one blogger who claims to be a Toubou, the Toubou, like other notable ethnic minorities (notably the Berbers of the Nafusa mountains, who form one of the strongest hotbeds of pro-NTC sentiment and the bulk of the fighters there), have fought on the rebel side. --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because the Toubou are/were one of the main rebel fighting groups in the Southern Libyan Desert campaign: 1. Seems like you may be wrong. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom they were? Because the article you find so funny clearly shows anti-rebel sentiment of the Toubou National Council and its supreme chiftain. And its much more believable giving the Toubou history with the French and the recent Benghazi racist massacres. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great example of WP:SYNTH. We have to go by what secondary sources report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the link: "We have been attacked twice in the past week by Gadhafi's army," said Mohammed Sidi, a Toubou tribal leader". News source > blog. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate section

The stalemate section should be removed. The rebels have rejected the possibility of a retired Gaddafi remaining in Libya, and they gained four towns yesterday which shows they are winning. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Rebel proposition is not relevant with the notion of stalemate. Rebels appear to have made some gain in the Nafusa mountain according to their announcement but it is the least important of the three main frontline and nothing major happenned there.

The stalemate title is there to indicate that the major offensives on the big frontline on Brega and Zliten failed and that the situation is close to frozen.--FreemanSA (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have pretty much taken Brega and they now have $149 million from the UK with another huge loan. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Last news are rebels failed to take Brega. They claimed victory almost two weeks ago but have still not entered Brega who is still under loyalist control, they are 20 km away and no clashes are happening since one week. The page of the battle has been finished. --FreemanSA (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi only holds part of Brega. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And the Sun is blue. Like we didn't know.89.102.1.194 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information 92.7..., but the rebels have themselves confirmed they are a full 20 kilometers from the town while the loyalists are still in full control of Brega. Their earlier claims of taking Brega is nothing new, they do that every time just a few hours after they attack Brega for the last four months. If what the rebels say is true than they have captured Brega 20 times by now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says 5 km. Anyway they control part of the town. (92.7.5.54 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actualy they don't per their own commanders, and source you are looking at that says 5km is out-of-date (around the time the battle was still ongoing), the updated source (one day after the battle ended) says 20km [2]. Please stop pov-pushing for the rebel cause. We need to keep a neutra point of view. EkoGraf (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BREGA BEING TAKEN TODAY BY THE REBELS. Ghaddafi's men are just in few suburbs. You can change color at last. Hopefully forever.MaXiMiLiAnO 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Zliten is also under attack as we speak. (92.10.137.9 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While I also hope Brega and Zliten are taken, the information on this page and others has to be neutrally presented and it has to be verifiable. It's jumping the gun to say it's time to change Brega to dark red on the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind sources do you need ? Al Araybia had already reported along most of press agencies , Brega had fallen to rebels hands several days ago, when the reality, the rebels were just entering the eastern parts of the town.The piece of news was not full exact, but not totally wrong either, just not precise due to the difficulty in the front line and the continuos advances-retreats during battles. The rebels "twits" according to you are unreliable, so only Ghaddafi's propaganda and Libyan State TV is left, is this the reliable source you need ? If this is the reliable source, so that you should change to the color to Adjabiya too, since according to Libya press agency rebels have all retreated to Benghazi. I think the only solution is to keep the blue point (as you had before)in the town where combats are still ongoing, so Brega and also Zliten (rebels are in the eastern outskirts). Green and reed points are not enough and always matter of ambiguisness. Right now Brega is partly controlled by the rebels (2/3 or 3/4 ? hard to say) and small parts of Zliten (maybe 10-20%), so these places must have a blue point until the situation will be clear. Just a thoughMaXiMiLiAnO 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

The rebels have themselves said today they still haven't taken control of the town or are even in the town itself. Read today's source [3]. Quoting the rebels A spokesman for the rebels in Ajdabiya said they had pushed Gaddafi's heavy weapons out of reach of their forces around Brega but the rebels were not in control of the oil town. All earlier reports (by rebel commanders at the frontline themselves) put them at around 20 kilometers east of Brega [4]. So please enough with the claims they took the town or even a part of the town. They have claimed 50 times by now to have taken Brega. And Al Arabiya is not reliable because it is highly pro-rebel. Until a BBC or Reuters reporter says he is standing in Brega everything that the rebels say should be considered unreliable as well as what the loyalists say. It's a propaganda war people. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough what ? You must stop with you biased news, not me, if Al Arabya not reliable, Al Jazeera not reliable , AFP not reliable, what is reliable than ? Libya TV channel ? Before slandering myself you should get informed too.I have never seen another wikipage so biased in this way, refusing to take into account main international sources and relying only to Ghaddafi's propaganda. AFP has also confirmed rebels have taken Zliten, besides Brega. Journalists cannot be inside a town where fights are still ongoing. .The towns where fights are ongoing,situation unclear and are occupied in parts by both sides, should be coloured in blue, as they were before. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a war and war has continuos changes of frontlines, when i edited correctly about Al Jouf , i have been accused of being a liar, when i edited about Al Qatrun the same thing, It is obvious some towns switches hands several times, early today rebels retreat from Brega residential area again to organize for a new push. It has been like this for awhile. It doesn't mean everybody else except you is a liar. Front changes quickly and news are foggy. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Biased? I was highly offended with that remark. I never talked to you specificly. When I said enough I ment enough edits based on rebel claims. I never said that AFP or Al Jazeera are not reliable, if anything I said BBC or Reuters should be trusted firstly. I sad Al Arabiya is the only foreign media that shouldn't be trusted because it is highly biased and pro-rebel. I never said to trust Libya TV, again, I also said that the loyalist TV is unreliable. I pride myself that I am highly neutral and maintain that the only sources that should be used are eyewitness accounts of BBC, Reuters, AFP or any other journalists. And not what they report the rebels or the loyalists claim. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even rebels at this moment don't say that they have taken Brega or Zliten. It would be outrageous to change it in the article. --FreemanSA (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels are saying they have taken Zliten, and that they defeated an attempt by Gaddafi's forces to retake the town today. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You are again not reading the sources correctly. I get it you want the rebels to win, but you have to read the reports more carefully. The source you read [5] says the rebels (and this is only per their claim, no independent confirmation) defeated the counter-attack on the eastern outskirts of the town where they took up positions yesterday. This even contradicts their earlier claim they are in the center of the town. All reports now state that the rebels are on the eastern outskirts, loyalists on the western outskirts, and nobody sure who holds the city center. EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have invaded Libya in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Gaddafi took over in 1969. :P Please refrain from your personal points of view and try to remain neutral here on Wikipedia. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, I would have invaded Libya as soon as he began arming the IRA in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My friend, ok we must be careful with the sources, but at least try to follow them at 360 degrees, there are not only Reuters and AP in this planet and they cannot be everywhere. FF are still fighting in Brega, some of them managed to skip it forward to the village of Bishr today. Also the situation in Qatrun is unclear, it appears many rebels are inside the town which is encicled by Ghaddafi's forces. I just suggest to put a blue point (unclear situation, ongoing fighting) not just at Zliten but also at Brega and Qatrun. I think it would be fair and balanced. And you know how war is, going forward, retreat, waiting for reinforcement, moving forward, retreat, etc...well, it is complicated, so please consider put the blue point in these important fronts. Cheers. MaXiMiLiAnO 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

At the moment the situation is realy clear. The rebels themselves have stated they have retreated from Al Qatrun and the loyalists have re-taken the town. A large number of foreign journalists from a number of leading media outlets (BBC, CNN, etc) were taken to Zlitan and they confirmed no presence of the rebels in the city except the sound of artillery fire a few kilometers east of the city, no sign of fighting inside the city. And as far as Brega goes, all reports indicate skirmishes on the road 20 kilometers east of the town and a few raids by rebel groups into the eastern part of Brega (which the rebels previously claimed to had taken) and than those groups retreating quickly over back over the frontline to Ajdabiya. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it looks as if the stalemate has continued- despite brief rebel claims to the contrary, the rebels have failed to take and hold both Zliten and Brega. The situation in the southwest is fuzzy at best (though apparently Alain Juppe lent credence to the idea that rebels are making gains there, I have yet to see any RSes confirming this). Until there is a major victory that lasts on one side, it can at least be regarded as a quasi-stalemate. --Yalens (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (EDIT:On the other hand it looks like Bir al-Ghanam has just fallen to the rebels...)[reply]

There is no longer any stalemate now the rebels have taken Bir Ghanam. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]


I agree, the stalemate is over. The rebels have launched massive offensives on all fronts and appear to be having significant success. The stalemate section should be added to the main narrative.

EkoGraf, you keep missing the point that a war like this has continous changes of front, the fact Brega and Zliten centers were free of rebels few days ago, it doesn't mean few days before the rebels hadn't briefly reached them.The fronts change lots of time and Ghaddafi uses the brief favorable spells when his mercenaries manage to repel the rebels, to take journalists there to say "everything is under control" when it IS NOT. The war is fluid, fronts change continously, don t get trapped into the Ghaddafi's tricks. Moreover, the situation is further complicated by loyalists disguised as rebels to avoid NATO strikes and also rebels disguised as loyalists in some small villages. It's not easy to report amongst this kind of situation: journalists are used by Ghaddafi to show only what he wants to show.Anyway, as today speaking, the situation is changing fast and the wave is turning in favour of the rebels. Next days battles for Gharyan and Zawya will be decisive. Also Sebha is shaking and might fall. If rebels will also take Ghadames, Ghaddafi can count his days . On Tuesday he will celebrate his 42th and last anniversary in power, of course he will say everything is under control.MaXiMiLiAnO 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


--Korona (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have finished liberating Tawarga. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

From all of its people it seems. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiji was liberated without a fight. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Same here. The word "liberation" is so flexible it seems))) 95.32.167.148 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New stub: Al-Nidaa Brigade (5th column pro-Q unit near Benghazi)

Fresh news, but given that, in the long run, it'd be of value to have articles on the various named-units of this war, I made a stub for this "brigade". I've noticed there are quite a few "brigades" named after various figures on both sides; has there been any talk of having a series of articles on these various units, and maybe a Category:Units and formations of the 2011 Libyan civil war? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benghazi clashes

last few days there are reports, both from government and rebel side, that there is fights against fifth column or pro-Gadaffi forces in Benghazi. Should we incorporate those information in article (or maybe in specific article)?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for efficient shortening of article

As is well known, the article, in spite of all the associated sub-articles, is brutally long.

Having scanned the article for applicable solutions, I noticed that several sections still retain a day-by-day narrative that perhaps are relics from before the subject matters were assigned their own articles, and which visibly begin at various points and end abruptly at some particular date in the chronology of the conflict. That being said, I think that such areas are in dire need of consolidation. Though no diminutive task, I'm certain the classic Wikipedia teamwork can allow for the article to read much the way it should, with each section maintaining a concise but still informative summary of its branch article's contents. What does everybody else think of this? KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights and violations in Libya

Under this section it is stated that "During late 1980s and early 1990s western languages were removed from the school curriculum". However one of the citations for this claim mentions the fact that these languages returned to the curriculum in the mid 1990s. Acedrian77 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the Presses: Zintan vs. Zlitan

Hey have people figured out which town is Zintan and which is Zlitan so that we report on the proper city and what is actually happening there? See: Libya: The mainstream media invent new map of Libya ... a closer look! --Radical Mallard (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map accurately represents the locations of Zintan and Zlitan. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I placed this notice on two relevant talk pages because this is very important. It appeared that people in a number of news services were calling the town east of Tripoli "Ziltan" when it is "Zliten" and Ziltan is to the SW of Tripoli. I have no connection to the video, I posted it to illustrate the mistake. Radical Mallard (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Ziltan, only Zliten and Zintan.--Yalens (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Mercenaries? (infobox) [DISREGARD THIS SECTION]

This source: Libya Mercenaries help rebels win war say UK generals (citation #6 in the article) uses the term 'Mercenaries', and does not use the term 'military contractors' as has been the usual term included in the infobox. A Spanish IP editor changed it to read only mercenaries, and it was reverted, but upon looking closer, I noticed that (there are 2 sources, #5 which is Reuters and uses 'military contractors' and #6 which is Daily Mail, which uses 'mercenaries') the latter source uses 'mercenaries'. I changed it to read 'military contractors[5]/ mercenaries[6]' so as not to misquote nor misrepresent either source.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article also doesn't seem to say anything about mercenaries already fighting alongside the National Liberation Army, unless I'm missing something; it simply reports that some UK generals believe they could be a beneficial asset for the Libyan rebels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - rescanned the article. I was searching for 'military contractors' before (which isn't in there) but the article does use 'military advisers', so I can see why it's cited. Disregard this whole matter then and sorry for my misreading of 'military advisors' as 'military contractors'. Clearly MA's are not mercenaries anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian help

Here I found an article about Polish humanitarian plans for Libya http://www.wbj.pl/article-55392-poland-presents-libya-assistance-package.html?typ=ise Boniek1988 (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels say that they controlled Al Zawiyah

This arab site say that rebels said to Al Arabia TV that "Liberated" Al Zawiyah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.23.112 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelish:We control Al-Zawiyah, hooray!
Translation: We are attacking Al-Zawiyah and hope to control it soon. --Yalens (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens is a good translator, the most likely event is that the rebels hold the southern bit of the town and are attacking the rest, but the town is not fully liberated.MonteMiz (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might need new articles for battles for Gharyan, Aziziyah and Az Zawiyah

Apparently the rebels are already engaged in fighting the Gaddafites in Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, and they plan to take aim at Aziziyah as well according to Al Jazeera's field reporters. We should probably at least make new articles for Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, I think, as they are due to be major battles due to the importance of those two cities. Separate articles from the Nafusa campaign, I mean. --Yalens (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have made huge advances on all three fronts so I think the "Stalemate" section should be removed. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Their only undisputable advance was in Nafusa Mountains. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate section should not be removed but a new section should be started under it. I say wait and see if the rebels capture some or all of the towns they are attacking then update accordingly MonteMiz (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters in Zawiyah have confirmed the rebels have taken the city. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

News that the rebels are assaulting all coastal towns west of Tripoli. Those might all go under one article. Wait and see. 93.232.152.76 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've libertaed Surman now. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A new section on this should be written yes, but the stalemate section stays no matter what. Because the stalemate was an undisputable part of the conflict for five months. Create a new section after the stalemate one. EkoGraf (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any stalemate at all. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sabratha has been liberated so it should be changed to brown on the map. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

All of Zawiya has been liberated now. (92.7.26.244 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Libya conflict: Rebels capture key Zawiya oil refinery found this on BBC--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now,fighting also going on at Ghadames, Qatrun and Ghat. Maybe we should add a third map showing better the situation in the south.Ghaddafi's has three main bases or strongholds :Tripoli,Sirt and Sebha and rebels are advancing towards them. Murzuk is under rebels' hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References broken

Somebody broke the references section. The links to the Al Jazeera Live Blog should be in the article text. The way the {{Reflist}} is currently formatted with those refs listed is preventing all the references from being displayed. Fortguy (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Tripoli

Zawiya is 50 km from Tripoli and there are, according to specific article, fierce and unclear fighting. Garyan is also about 50 or maybe more km from Tripoli so I think that it is to soon to make new section Tripoli surrounded. Maybe Struggles around Tripoli?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The map seems to show there is still one clear road out of Tripoli to bani walid so tripoli is not 100% under seige. A fighting around tripoli section may be a better idea but we already have a new section about the rapid rebel advance so we should wait untill things peter out MonteMiz (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see tripoli sourounded as already been added. does that mean the tripolania map is out of date? It clearly shows the road out of tripoli to the south via beni walid is clear and the map says it keeps going to shabba MonteMiz (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no supply route through Bani Walid apart from the road. With Garyan and the coastal road taken, there is no route for oil to reach Tripoli, and the only option through Bani Walid would be to supply Tripoli from Sirte. Although I think Sirte has a port, you can't get oil that way, and food/arms would not be easy. So, while "surrounded" is an exaggeration, Tripoli essentially has its supply lines cut. — kwami (talk)

Tripoli is indeed surrounded and cut off. Even if Sirte has a port, the NATO naval blockade would prevent anything from getting through. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just a professional note from my experience. Sirt's port has been abandoned for years. Its port gets shallow fast, so it might need almost a year of foreign-professional work to get it going. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few 4.5 inch guns will do the job better still. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Liberation of Misrata

There are some reports that Misrata has been liberated by the pro-government volunteers (Report here). Could somebody verify this claim? Zupi (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we shouldn’t buy any piece of news that emerges from the internets.--Rafy talk 10:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was true it would be reported everywhere. It isn't the first time the regime's spokesman has been known to lie. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well...the same can be said about the rebels' propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.142.172 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very use of the word 'liberated' should have made the news suspicious to begin with.--Yalens (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. Mathaba is the major controler of Gaddafi's government. Their members are like secret agents all around the country, whom take control of the government at the bad times. Therefore, we definately have tons of lies before, which is why the Western and Arab media didn't give it any attention. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg's Chris Stephen, who is based out of Misrata, disagrees with Tripoli Tom and the Gaddafist meat puppets over at Mathaba: [6] -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Days of ongoing conflict is wrong

There is an error... I think he counts February with 30 Days or so (360 days year?), because I think 185 is there since a while and today its the 183. Day since 17. February. So it can't be 185 since a week or so. Maybe this should be fixed or edited manually. Kilon22 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered all of the bits about the breakout from Nafusa under the siege of Tripoli, but the dates are all over the place. Needs to be cleaned up; I don't know the actual dates. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

list od comanders

Is it really necessary to list Charles Bouchard twice? (once as nato once as canada) MonteMiz (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something's apparently happening in Tripoli

Note: Sources are obviously VERY sparse at the moment, and so I'll try to keep things posted as more information becomes available. However... [7] [8] --FineHourglass (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli is close to collapse. There are tens of thousands of anti-Gaddafi demonstrators on the streets, and most of them are armed. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah I heard about the news as well. Lots of intense gunfire and protesters have started marching. Here is the source. [9] Noneofyour (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, Sky News and Reuters are reporting it as well. The rebels are attacking Tripoli in force, while a huge uprising has begun inside the city. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

With the main rebel army 27k from Tripoli, this may very well be the end. Noneofyour (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page desperately needs updating, especially the introductory section. It seems to end in March, yet a lot has happened since.--Halma10 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As rebels are closing on Tripoli, a detailed map of Tripoli would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.156.162 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi Security Surrenders

GADDAFI'S SECURITY FORCES SURRENDER, SAIF AL-ISLAM CAPTURED!!!!! [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt Gaddafi the reference talks about, it was his guards that surrendered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources claim he died, others claim he surrendered, or that he is still on air ranting against the invaders and "small rebel groups". It's all very vague and unclear as of now. Polozooza (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added a reference list with <references />, as the reference template was not working. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show Tripoli As a Rebel Stronghold

Its time has there have been live tv scenes from Green Square that Rebels are in the centre of the city so its time on the maps for Tripoli as a rebel stronghold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.223.201 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking in the worng place, try asking over at the commons [11], im against it though as the status is still unclear in Tripoli. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations

There are too many citations in this article, that especially when accessed on the secure servers [12], the page is not loading. (502 proxy error) and when it does load on nonsecure server, it's crazy slow.

I think things either need 1) splitting out more into subarticles and/or 2) converting the citations to just plain text, not using templates. Thoughts?

Any objections to us doing something to make the page more manageable, both for editors and readers. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting database errors and imagine it's almost impossible to edit at this time. I think this calls for emergency action to split parts of the article out into subpages or even a sandbox and we can reorganize things to make the article more manageable. (any objections to me trying this? editorial-wise, i'm pretty open to how things are done but just want the page viewable and editable) --Aude (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, this article has been a time bomb waiting to go off, it needs structure badly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily moved contents of the international reactions to a sandbox:
User:Aude/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war
Feel free to edit if you want. I couldn't move it to the subarticle, as I see that already has almost 500 references! --Aude (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

I think the course of the war section needs to be split out. Yes, I see there already are timelines. This part of the main article summarized more and have more details in the subarticle timelines? maybe the timelines even could be split into shorter time segments so everything stays manageable. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

Just some ideas:

thoughts?

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being impartial, I guess as an admin, right now... but both those ideas sound good to me. (I'm happy to help with summarizing and stuff, if people want) --Aude (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to handle citations.

I believe it would be best to boil down the citations and just provide a link to the website that offers a citation to the many articles. So the people viewing can search at their own will and we won't need 500 citations.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=446070646"