Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Gaddafi forces

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

Human Rights Violations

[edit]

The issue of summary executions based upon allegedly being a mercenary are important but should be presented as claims at this point. I wonder if we should also include references to pro-Gaddafi human rights violations? I just saw evidence of summary executions of rebels on al jazeera during yesterday's fighting. Jazzbox (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

[edit]

Seems to cover much of the same material as the page for the Libyan People's Army. I propose they be merged into a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltaft (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the articles should be merged. It looks like there is a lot of additional military details you have. There is a political side and a military side to the anti-gaddafi forces but at the moment it seems like it is mostly a military issue. Personally I think we should stick to the names used in popular media such as "Anti-Gaddafi" and "Opposition." While "Libyan People's Army" may be technically correct you don't hear it much in Western media. 76.121.211.107 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

Why is this titled anti-Gaddafi? I know that is what it is, but I feel like it is a bit loaded and Gaddafi-centric. I would propose "Libyan Opposition forces" as the alternative, or perhaps someone else has a better alternative. I dont want to start a huge naming war over this, but I do think this title is what I said above, and detracts from the articles.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Gadaffi is more a figurehead but of late it is commonplace to place blame against a leader (eg. Saddam) then make the populace suffer the consequences as in the 1.3 million dead in Iraq in the past 10 years. But as to the question of the definition of "Anti-Gadaffi forces" it would be a wilful omission to disregard the UN which is hurriedly drafting intervention licences of member states and those NATO countries who have already massed in anticipation of an overthrow and the British whose troops have embarrasingly already been caught trespassing by libyans. The intelligent observer will question whether Libya's status of the most oil-rich nation in Africa has anything to do with this attention and intent to intervene when genocides were allowed to transpire in Rwanda under the UN's watch. Gadaffi's ability in transforming Libya into Africa's most literate and socially responsible state obviously counts for little. The question for analysis here is : why are there anti-Gadaffi forces? Tribalism is a logical reason but NATO and western interlocutors are not tribes of Libya. The key UN principle is political self-determination and so the key question becomes: why is the UN intervening in this case and positioning as the international anti-Gadaffi force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heybigbrother (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppostion forces, or free libyans forces might be better. but i think its more of everyone learning there leason from things like rawanda and taking action sooner. not soon enogh, but its still better than never. Joesolo13 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The naming seems to change depending upon what network one watches, and on the progress of the conflict. Presently "Opposition Forces" is used a lot, but sometimes "Pro-democracy" is used by Al Jazeera. In general "Anti-Gaddafi" forces is really blatantly clear. On the flip side I read "Pro-Gaddafi," "Libyan," "Government", and "Loyalist." These are the names we see in Western publications. I say avoid correct but non-Western titles. 76.121.211.107 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most sensible namings would be Gaddafi, Libyan Opposition, and Coalition or Allied forces--Metallurgist (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metallurgist That seems clear to me. There should be a qualification between the NATO force heading the no-fly zone and the more offensive air force that is targeting tanks composed of British, US, French... thus the Coalition is composed of both 1) NATO led (for the no-fly zone) and 2) Allied (?) led offensive force. "Allies" seems clear to me since it is roughly the same group that chased the Germans around the same area in WWII. (PS., my dad was a metallurgical professor) Jazzbox (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Command

[edit]

It seems like we should discriminate between the new working government and the military that taken as a whole seems to constitute the "anti-gaddafi forces." The "Forces" seem to imply the military. In the next few days it may well become more obvious who is in control of the military. In my previous post the Telegraph reported that a council had been formed for the military. Bottom line: we should have maybe a paragraph for the working government and a paragraph for the military. The net whole is probably the "anti-Gaddafi forces" as long as the fighting continues. Jazzbox (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have these forces clashed with one another yet?

[edit]

Via for control, making sure that they are the ones that come out top?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.167 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an assassination some weeks back, yeah: Abdel Fatah Younis. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libyan Uprising.svg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Libyan Uprising.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda

[edit]

Can someone please do something about the countless users removing Al-Qaeda from the list of Rebel factions? It has been confirmed countless times and is the only faction on the list actually sourced. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone has a dissenting opinion, you have this talkpage/topic to share it. -- Secondat of Orange (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Three valid opposes and only the nominator in support, after a full listing period. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gaddafi forces → Libyan opposition – This page should by moved to Libyan opposition, for consistency with the similar articles for the Bahraini opposition and the Syrian opposition. Charles Essie (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The proposed title lacks clarity. There seems to be at least one big difference between this article and the other two that are listed as examples by the proponent – (AFIAK) the other two opposition movements have not defeated their opponent. Gaddafi is no longer in charge in Libya, and there is likely to be some opposition to the new government. Changing the title to just 'opposition' removes the clarity regarding which regime is being opposed. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: 1. Consistency is not a sufficient reason in and of itself. Particularly consistency with articles for other countries is not a good reason to move a page. 2. For reasons highlighted by BarrelProof, this change would add significant problems in terms of what it is covering. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BarrelProof. --BDD (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Gaddafi forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Gaddafi forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Gaddafi_forces&oldid=1252375904"