Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 11

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))
 * 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)

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))

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)

Gaddafi only holds part of Brega. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC))
 * And the Sun is blue. Like we didn't know.89.102.1.194 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

Actualy they don't per their own commanders, and source you are looking at that says 5km is out-of-date (around the time the battle was still ongoing), the updated source (one day after the battle ended) says 20km. 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)

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))
 * 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)

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. 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. 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)

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)

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)

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))

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 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)

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

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)

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))

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)

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...)

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

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)

The rebels have finished liberating Tawarga. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC))
 * From all of its people it seems. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tiji was liberated without a fight. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Same here. The word "liberation" is so flexible it seems))) 95.32.167.148 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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))

All of Zawiya has been liberated now. (92.7.26.244 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Libya conflict: Rebels capture key Zawiya oil refinery found this on BBC--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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... --FineHourglass (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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))

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

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))

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

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)

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)

Gaddafi Security Surrenders
GADDAFI'S SECURITY FORCES SURRENDER, SAIF AL-ISLAM CAPTURED!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That isnt Gaddafi the reference talks about, it was his guards that surrendered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Support

 * Support: Pretty much every media outlet is calling it a revolution now. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Check Google insights on this one, Clearly civil war is more popular.-- R a f y  talk 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. Google insights. 206.188.79.137 (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The graph shows that the term "civil war" has become more popular as the war progressed.-- R a f y  talk 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: I think the main article should be named The Libyan Revolution or similar, with a sub-article for the war-stage of this process. And I don't think civil war isn't fitting even for the sub-article as per reasons mentioned above in the "#Libyan Revolution" discussion. 194.16.30.114 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support conditionally: It isn't a revolution yet (the Gaddafis still have some power bases and their people are still fighting), so we should wait a day or however long it takes. However, calling this a civil war seems iffy. I'll put more in discussion. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: The people overthrew the government. That's a revolution. This isn't East vs West, Sunni vs Shia, etc. This is not a civil war. The "pro-Gaddafi forces" are just the Libyan military and mercenaries. Should the American Revolution be called a civil war? No. Macarion (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Per Merriam-Webster a civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." This revolution is a war between the citizens and the military. Also see Top Ten Myths about the Libya War. Vroo (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: Skimming through other users' comments here, I'm torn in having this article renamed to the 2011 Libyan revolution or leaving the 'civil war' in the title (in this instance, the Libyan Civil War would be a much better alternative to the 2011 Libyan civil war). However, I Strongly Support in having this article being split off that would include both the revolutionary AND civil war aspects of the entire conflict, as Kudzu1 had suggested. --FineHourglass (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support: This was a revolution from day one, not a civil war. The revolutionaries, who are untrained civilians forced to carry weapons, fighting against the government's military trained forces and foreign mercenaries. NOT factions against each other. FizzBrine (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support: The loyalists and the rebels are fighting each other since February, so it is certainly a civil war. But a civil war fought against government forces and with mass support completely defines a revolution, I think. Since we saw mass support of the rebels in Tripolitania in August, for me it is clear that this was a revolution and a civil war as well. But primarily this was definitely a revolution. (Think about the Cuban Revolution, that also was a civil war as well.) Also, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support : More and more the journalists I watch on BBC say 'the Revolution that began in February appears to be moving to a conclusion..' kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: The revolutionary objective, removal of the regime, has been achieved since Gaddafi lost control of his capital and main center of operations and was forced to flee. The path to this point forms a unified whole, and a fairly specific end-point, even if there are significant unresolved issues. There was a civil war aspect to the conflict - in the sense of coherent social groups fighting each other -and it is important to take this correctly into the overall historic analysis. In the worst case, in the event that the NTC cannot impose adequate political and military control, one could imagine the current situation sliding into a civil war proper, where demographic or social groups were pitted against each other. This is still for the future to reveal, but I believe the conflict up to this point cannot be usefully called a civil war, which would be to emphasis the internecine aspects above the main achievement: the sudden and complete destruction of the power structure. PS: the people probably agree: a Google search today for the terms is showing almost two to three (58.9%)in favour of revolution over civil war. Concord113 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Also, it should be the Libyan Revolution, the only one so far, so no need to specify the year. Concord113 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support, when we take history into account, the victors of the civil wars get to call them revolutions, particularly if it is civilians against a government. Besides in the end it was shown the average citizen did not support gaddafi or take up arms in defense of him. Zenithfel (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, Al Jazeera, the Tripoli Post, The Guardian, the Washington Post and the Toronto Star amongst many others are now calling it the Libyan Revolution and I agree with their analysis.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You fail to point out that at times they call it a revolution, but also at other times they call it a civil war. They are not exclusivly limited to one name. EkoGraf (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: All the above reasons sum it up well quite well, especially now that the media is beginning to refer to it as a revolution. Fovezer (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: "history is written by the victors" well the victors call it a revolution. For example the Rusian Revolution (1917) was really a civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly not a civil war, and no different from other events which have been called "revolutions." -- Smurfy 18:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support: Gaddafi's regime has been ousted. That alone merits calling this a revolution.  The American Revolution was a war, yet it's called a revolution, so I don't see any reason why this article shouldn't be called 2011 Libyan Revolution.50.129.89.173 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose: Please refer to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war section. I think material not related to the war should be split off and placed into a new page (although calling it 2011 Libyan revolution may be premature, as the likes of President Barack Obama and Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil have pointed out that the real victory will be when Col. Gaddafi is captured), but a war took place. It's lasted for six months and counting; it's not done yet, and I strongly suspect there will be further actions at Sirte and parts of the Libyan South even once Tripoli is pacified. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are also sources such as CNN still calling this an "Uprising" I think we should let things atand as the majority of sources refer this as a "civil war". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose, I aggre with Kudzu1, but at lest WAIT: the war hasn`t finished yet: there`s fighting in Tripoli, while Sirte and Sabha are in hands of Loyalists. --Ave César Filito (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I quote here from Princeton's WordNet:"(n) revolution (the overthrow of a government by those who are governed)". Compare this with " (n) civil war (a war between factions in the same country)". It's quite obvious that the conflict had turned from a revolution to a civil war when an opposing governing council was created in the eastern part of the country, thus creating two warring authorities in one country.-- R a f y  talk 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So your objection is that the rebels were too well-organized? Macarion (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Macarion That's what seems like it. @Rafy The National Transition Council was created to try and take care of the administrative issues in Libya. Its objectives were not solely "fight Gaddafi" but rather form a new government, hold elections, restore civil life, and most importantly conduct foreign policies in a state where the Gaddaffi was left practically powerless. Clealry, the NTC was not another "faction" but really a newer democratic faction that emerged perhaps a bit too prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My objection is that there are two authorities striving to gain control over the same country, sure loyalists always formed a minority (10-15% of Libyans) in my opinion, and rebels were often disorganised but that doesn't change much. I find the situation very similar to the Spanish civil war: republicans were disorganised but enjoyed popular support while the nationalists lacked that support but relied more on professionalism.-- R a f y  talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional oppose, as it's not considered a revolution yet (no matter how weaken Gaddafi got). I don't believe, IMHO, that the current naming is accurate, but we still need to stick to sources. WHy the rush while things are moving fast... Just wait and see <font color="#663300">   ~ AdvertAdam  talk  09:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - if a civil war results in regime change, it is still a civil war. For example, the English Civil War resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, but we do not call it the "English Revolution". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It should be renamed simply Libyan Civil War, c.f. English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Finnish Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, etc.
 * Strongly oppose - Gadaafi isn't done yet. Not only that, but there have been civil wars in the past throughout Africa especially have ended up ousting dictators (the recent Second Ivorian Civil War comes to mind), but they are not dubbed revolutions because they reached the level of civil war. The events in Egypt and Tunisia are called revolutions, and did not end up in civil war. As stated below, this is futile. CuboneKing (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; for the same reasons I oppose the other move below.Yannismarou (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose per everyone above. EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were two different governments with their own unique armies engaging in armed conflict in one country. It's a classic civil war. --Tocino 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reasons are in section below. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose A revolution is a national political event, which is limited in time. If not quickly defeated nor quickly successful, it may develop into a prolonged military battle for the control of the country. We've seen it before, and it's usually called civil war (and history is littered with such developments). 2011 in Libya has included instants of political, revolutionary content. But for the most part, it has surely been a civil war. The comparison with Spain is very fitting.--Paracel63 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral. I think it is too early to call it either way. "Civil war" has been the moniker of choice for the past few months, but that is not to say that it is permanent. Already Al Jazeera is calling this the Libyan Revolution; see the banner on the spotlight page for Libya. It is quite possible that this will come to replace "civil war" in some time. However, the term does not have enough currency at the moment to merit changing this article's name. I suppose that makes this a weak oppose !vote, but hey... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Calling this a civil war is a misnomer. The implication of a civil war is that you have two (or more) large parties/groups of citizens battling each other. However, it is clear that, in general, this is a war between the citizens at large and their government/military. (Compare this "civil war" to the American civil war, the civil strife in Iraq a few years ago, etc.) Also, the involvement of external forces (ie NATO) in the war has been big and absolutely vital to the outcome, more than in the typical civil war. I think simply "2011 libyan war" (big in google insights) would be best until it's actually over, when "2011 libyan revolution" would be better. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this is a textbook case of a civil war. It is from the term bellum civile as used in the Roman Republic, the Roman civil wars, especially Caesar's Civil War. The Optimates weren't "citizens at large" any more than the Gaddafi loyalists. The point of a "civil war" is that it takes place within a state as opposed to against a foreign nation. Especially when one side of the conflict is monarchist or aristocratic and the other is republican, as in the textbook case of the English Civil War (where "civil war" was first used in English).

Or, short answer: WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * By that definition, the British might have called the American Revolution a civil war. There are plenty of conflicts that take place within a state that are not called civil wars (see separatist movements). Besides, Gaddafi is absolutely fighting foreign nations as major belligerents. NATO is virtually the air force for one side. The origin of a term can have little bearing on its current meaning. The popularly understood meaning of "civil war" is that the two (or more) primary belligerents are large parties or groups of citizens within a state. This is a war of citizens, with international backing, against the current power structure, not a large group of other citizens. I think WP:UCN supports my argument.Hazydan (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Libyan Revolutionary War, similar to the American Revolutionary War? 115.132.139.225 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is futile. The American revolution was a "revolution" because the USA seceded from the UK. The rebels in Libya did nothing of the kind, they never tried to secede from Tripoli, they just tried to (and did) oust the dictator. Hence it is a civil war, while the American revolution was not a civil war. But see Russian Revolution (1917) and Russian Civil War for an example how a revolution may involve a civil war and vice versa. The French Revolution was also a revolution, but the French Revolutionary Wars were not a civil war because they affected most of Europe, not just France. I am not sure why we should need to discuss basic terminology here in this section. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The rebels in Libya did nothing of the kind, they never tried to secede from Tripoli, they just tried to (and did) oust the dictator. Hence it is a civil war."
 * So were the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions not revolutions? Macarion (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the Survey section, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better if we choose the "revolution" option. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM Article titles are decided on Wikipedia policy WP:TITLE which is based off analysis of the source material and not the perceptions, judgments, or opinions of editors about what 'makes sense'. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose creating a separate indipendant article called 2011 Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. 66.57.88.38 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of RS since using revolution

 * BBC: revolt and calling it revolution on its main site Revolution retrospective - Memorable moments from Libya's six-month uprising
 * Al Jazeera The Libyan Revolution
 * Bloomberg Revolution, noclador (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What about France?
In the list of the multinational coalition, we are given NATO; and more precisely Britain, the US, even Jordan or some others.. But where is the French flag? This is quite odd that the first allied power involved in the military coalition is not even shown in the list, isn't it? I tried loading it but the text is semi-protected, I can't touch it. Can someone in charge do it please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.77.215 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I should add that France had one casualties. A sailor died from a syncope. He fainted and his comrades didn't manage to save him. He was serving on the French frigate Georges Leygues. Here is the link.

http://www.opex360.com/2011/07/06/libye-un-marin-decede-a-bord-de-la-fregate-georges-leygues/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.77.215 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added France to the full list. France was removed from a position before the full list in with edit summary "The NATO flag covers France and the UK." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but the UK flag was still there. And the US, Norway, Turkey and others are NATO-members too. Why was this rule applied only for France? Anyway, thanks for the change. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.95.79 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The edit I linked made an error. The editor didn't mean to omit France completely but failed to notice that France was not mentioned in the full list and should be added there when they were removed from before the list. By the way, the editor also removed the UK and failed to add them to the full list. Somebody else must have done that before my edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jufra on the map
Suggestion:Ghaddafi's forces have still few strongholds under control: one of the places where his forces are still ammassed is the Jufra Air Base, could you please add it to the map, so we can follow the last leg of the rebels advance towards the last Ghaddafi's strongholds ? . MaXiMiLiAnO 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)
 * Jufra Air Base is less than 8 km NE of the town of Hun. I think this is a case similar to Kufra/Al Jawf, where both places are very near to one another. Thus, for practical reasons, I think it's best we only name one of them on an overview map.--Paracel63 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you want your suggestion to reach the map editors, it's better you mention it to them on the map's discussion page, which is here. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I´m not doing anything and I doubt Rafy would as well, Jufra is name of area right net to Hun, no need to add it on the map since Hun is already there. --EllsworthSK (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jufra gets mentioned more - Jon Leyne suggested it may be the place for a last stand by gaddafi as it has military strengths - if it gets mentioned a lot in the near future, it will be a name for the map Sayerslle (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand. So maybe you would consider writing on the map Hun/Jufra if they are so closed. It seems Ghaddafi is ammassing troops, weapons and ammunitions there so this name can come out soon for one of the next battles after Bani Walid and Sirte, when FF will start moving south.151.83.121.232 (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Add SAS to the parties involved?
Guys we should Add the British SAS to the parties fightening Gadaffi. The SAS have guys on the ground multiple news companies are reporting it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.208.32 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Completing the infobox
I edited the Battle of the Misrata frontline to include the capture of Al Khums and the coastline by rebels. The aim would be to show how the cities in brown were captured to someone who reads about this conflict first. If I look at the infobox, only Tarhuna, Ghadames and Mizda remains, so we should make an article called the Battle of Tarhuna, the Battle of Ghadames and the Battle of Mizda. Also, we should deal with the city of Bani Walid, as I saw today, negotiations are ongoing. Besides these cities, the two remaining conflict zones are near Sirte, which has a well-documented article, and Fezzan, which also has, but it should be called as the Fezzan campaign as I wrote it in its talk section. Beleszólok (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have virtually no information to justify battle-pages for Tarhuna, Ghadames, and Mizda. 15:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, no need for articles on Tarhuna, Ghadames and Mizda. EkoGraf (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No need, but it certainly would be nice to have them, especially if they can be turned into good pages.--Yalens (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But more importantly, no information. The captures of Mizdah, Ghadames, and Tarhuna barely made any news at all, AFAIK. Certainly not enough for an article. I don't think there was even much of a "battle" for any of the towns, at any rate. We don't have articles for every town that was captured in WWII or the American Civil War or [insert major conflict here]. Sometimes, things just are too minor to warrant their own article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Map, Murzuq and Al Wigh

 * Question Why are the towns of Murzuq and Al Wigh marked as held by the rebels? There has been no reliable sources provided for this. As such, they should be changed to green. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right place to post your comment, please use the discussion page for the map (also there are reports of murzuq rebeling and al wigh falling to the southern desert campaign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteMiz (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting Reuters story
This is a very interesting article, I think. To flesh out the battle of Tripoli, detail on possible outside involvement in the civil war and put the timeline events into context.--Paracel63 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New casualty estimate
http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=6862

Gives some details on how the total figure already used in the infobox (which does not add up from the faction's figures) is arrived at. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Beni Walid
Rebels have entered Bani Walid http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94c8a732-db0b-11e0-bbf4-00144feabdc0.html  Reuters also reported so. Sebha under fighting. Still under Ghaddafi's control: Sirte, Hun/Jufra/Waddan, Sebha, Obari, Adiri, Al Qatrun, Ghat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.203.89 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of NATO in abstract/summary in top paragraphs of article
It's bizarre that there's no mention of NATO in the abstract/summary at the top of the article.

In any credible interpretation of events, even one most favorable to the rebels, one would have to say that the conflict involves at least 3 belligerents: loyalists to Gadaffi, rebels, and NATO.

(A neutral exposition would go well beyond this, of course; this could, in absolute neutrality, be painted as a war of NATO against Gadaffi, with mop-up style ground support from rebelling tribes. I'm not saying it would have to be presented this way, but the current abstract leaves out the strongest and most active force in the war.)

Additionally, the article would do well to mention the African Union and how its reaction has evolved, since there is a section on international reaction. Libya is in Africa, after all, not Europe or North America.

There are lots of other ways it could be made more credible, such as dumping the Viagra stuff. No credible source maintains that anymore.

69.228.171.250 (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Meant to login to sign the comment above. I think the history of this article may prove interesting. Son of eugene (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * with Rs you can add what you like - NATO responded to the U.N - so it could be painted as the response of the U>N to a dictator 'stinking with madness and corruption' (Christopher Hitchens description of gadafi) -  after it was Al Q versus gaddafi, then it was crusaders- like stalin who went from popular front, to 'social fascists' to signing a pact with hitler and helping him conquer France - dictators will say anything to retain their hold, their descriptions of events veer wildly  - the roles of Algeria and QAtar will be interesting too . Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * what is your point? It is undisputed that the rebels could not have ousted Gaddafi without the NATO intervention. And the NATO intervention was based on a clear mandate by the UN Security Council. This is well covered in the article. If you have a specific suggestion for a rephrasing of the lead, let's hear it.
 * the rest of your comment doesn't really show an understanding of either the situation, or of Wikipedia. Libya is a Mediterranean country. Of course it is "in Africa", but it is much more within the strategic sphere of interest of Western Europe than of most African countries. The African Union so far hasn't really done or said anything of relevance to this conflict. It isn't the fault of the NATO or the UN that the AU has failed completely to live up to its responsibility to take care of African issues. Your claim that NATO was the "most active force" is nonsense. NATO could have obliterated Gaddafi in a few days if it had really participated in the war. Instead, it limited itself to attacking pinpointed military targets, taking extreme care to avoid the remotest possibility of civilian casualties. Gaddafi's troops have been rather more "active" in this sense, just shelling the hell out of cities without even bothering to take aim. Finally, your claim that the accusation that Gaddafi has provided his troops with viagra to enable systematic rape has been debunked stands completely without basis. On 6 September, this accusation was still repeated as credible, even though it is impossible to verify it independently at this point. If you want to claim that it has been debunk, do it, but make sure you cite your sources. If you don't have any sources, don't bother making oblique insinuations. --dab (𒁳) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.38.143.81, 2 September 2011
Can someone update the page, mentioning that Gaddafi still has not been caught and now calls Sirte capital.

68.38.143.81 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Source for the capital change? JguyTalkDone 21:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.-- Hallows  AG (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Niger and Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi
How should we handle, for the purposes of the infobox, apparent Nigerien cooperation with the NTC in detaining Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi after he fled to Niger? -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He wasnt arrested, he is under surveilance just like the 31 other defectors from Libya, source aljazeera live blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Latest from Al Jazeera quotes a U.S. State Department official as saying he's been placed under house arrest. May not qualify for the tag, but I can't think of a better one... -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In theory, this conflict is between GADAFFI and his people, with NATO supporting the rebels- It’s the people picking up guns and killing his supporters, NATO is only providing air and training support. (I know theories are meant to be broken, but that’s really not the point; in the interests of allegedly sacrosanct neutrality, it needs to be kept that way until the situation on the ground changes.) As to silly allegations one side or the other have made, they should remain, but in context- “At one point, GADAFII alleged al Qaeda operatives were supporting the rebels with drugs.” or whatever.

SIRTE
Rebels forces have entered Sirte http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8766599/Libya-rebels-enter-gates-of-Sirte.html

Fighting ongoing. Plz change the point to blue color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.81.158.118 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War – Right, giving this another try. Request this be moved to "Libyan Civil War" based on the discussion above. Seems to be least contentious name, since there was no other civil war to speak of before. Gryffindor (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose What consensus? A past discussion Talk:2011 Libyan civil war/Archive 10 has proven that there were other civil wars in Libya according to historians. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the interim, at least. I’d be more comfortable waiting until this thing plays out, THEN decide how to proceed. However, I am a bit wishy-washy on the matter.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Why Is Murzuq Still Regarded As A Disputed City?
There have been no news reports I have seen in recent time that suggest it is still a disputed city.75.72.35.253 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Killing of black people and sub-saharan Africans by the Libyan rebels
I may have missed it, but the article does not appear to mention the reported murder, killing and ethnic cleansing of Black people and people from Sub-Saharan Africa.

I do realise that Fox News, Sky News etc do not cover this but CNN and other credible news sources have covered this. I was going to edit the article to include this information but thought best to raise it here.

See article from Independent Newspaper (based in UK):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html

Extract: "Around 30 men lay decomposing in the heat. Many of them had their hands tied behind their back, either with plastic handcuffs or ropes. One had a scarf stuffed into his mouth. Almost all of the victims were black men. Their bodies had been dumped near the scene of two of the fierce battles between rebel and regime forces in Tripoli"

CNN reports on the killings as well:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/08/30/prism.libya.africans.cnn

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/08/31/robertson.libya.african.jails.cnn?&hpt=hp_c2 Akinsope (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

UNHCR also reports on the killing:

http://www.unhcr.org/4e57d1cb9.html

UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres has issued a strong call for sub-Saharan Africans to be protected in Libya as reports emerge from Tripoli of people being targeted because of their colour as the city fell to rebel forces.

Is there a reason why the Article appears to ignore the ethnic cleansing of black people in Libya by the rebels.

Akinsope (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the Kim Sengupta article - didn't see the words 'ethnic cleansing' - is there a reason you use that provocative phrase? - I think, with RS, you should add something - I've heard of fears of this, and the article in the Independent says he saw people having been killed that can't have been killed in action since they were handcuffed, one had a drip in his arm, terrible,  - candidly, I'd say that if I see mercenaries i feel an especial sort of revulsion, because the fighters are there for money alone, because gaddafi offered them a lifestyle they couldn't get at home , but they didn't care about the repressive side of the regime, were they all migrant workers, no fighters at all?- (I think I heard even Mandela loved gaddafi, its a strange sort of blindness imo, that is grateful for 'support', but can't see that it is cynical, as hollow as the various policy stands of a Stalin,)  - half of me feels 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' - the other half realises two wrongs don't make a right - but , with RS , I think you should add  to the article. But 'ethnic cleansing' isn't there in the Independent article, don't let hatred of the rebels distort what you add - Gaddafi wasn't, isn't, perfect you know.Sayerslle (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The UNHCR Report mentions that black people are being systematically targeted. The other reports say the same.

Ethnic cleansing is defined by Cambridge English Dictionary as: " the organized attempt by one racial or political group to completely remove from a country or area anyone who belongs to another particular racial group, using violence and often murder to achieve this" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/ethnic-cleansing?q=ethnic+cleansing

I do not have a hatred of the rebels, please do not infer such. I am just disappointed that the systematic targeting of black people is being ignored. I just hope that the Wikipedia elite are not using a different yardstick to make edits when it comes to black people being "ethnically cleansed". Akinsope (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a serious issue that should be at least mentioned in the article. I've seen consistent news reports for months now, of some rebels targeting and/or arresting any Black Africans they encounter. About 2 days ago Alex Thomson (journalist) (on Channel 4 News) had an interview with a group of terrified Black immigrants who were arrested by rebels in Tripoli who feared they would be killed. Thomson managed to convince the rebels to release them since he had shown that they had wives and families in the city and were not mercenaries, but the fact remains that they were arrested simply because they were black. I wouldn't call it "ethnic cleansing", but there definitely seems to be a kind of lynch-mod mentality amongst some of the rebel fighters. --Hibernian (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think Ethnic Cleansing is happening in Libya, I am currently researching some sources in order to verify them. But I understand that a town called Tawergha may have been wiped off the map. Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata. Tawergha a town near Misrata in Libya has been reported to be wiped out. I am not up to speed on Wikipedia's rules etc on so I am slightly reluctant to edit the article without being certain of the verifiability of the reports. But if you are interested please see this link: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/08/13/tawergha-no-longer-exists-only-misrata/ Akinsope (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need a better source than a rebel commander, who may have been speaking hyperbolically (or out of hand; Halbus wasn't the only rebel commander involved in the push toward Taworgha), and was speaking before the town's fall, to say Taworgha has been "wiped off the map". And I think Hibernian's description of the apparent crimes targeting black people in Libya as being born of a "lynch mob mentality" is more accurate than calling it systemic ethnic cleansing. Of course, that depends on what reliable sources say; it's not our job to come to our own independent conclusions in assessing a situation hundreds or thousands of miles away. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * HERE IS YOUR BETTER SOURCE: 95.32.6.194 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is one of the more POV-dripping sources I've seen in a while. Please don't try to use it as a source. All reports that I have seen indicate that Tawargha was like Brega, Ayn Ghezaya, Bir al-Ghanam, and Zliten: a town pretty much taken over by loyalists to form an "immovable" obstacle to rebel advances.
 * For what it's worth, the Toubou people, a black group in the southeast of Libya, have been among the main rebel fighters in the fighting in the southern desert. They aligned with the rebels because Gaddafi had committed acts which have been described as ethnic cleansing against them in the last decade, including forced evictions and razing of homes. Clearly there are issues with racism amongst certain rebel elements, but it can't be considered systematic. Nor should Gaddafi's treatment of minorities like the Toubou and Berbers be ignored. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that "Human Rights Investigation" is NOT a reliable source. It uses a name similar to Human Rights Watch to try and gain some fake credibility. It is an anti-NATO, anti-rebel, pro-Gaddafi blog. For example, it was already busted for lying about who was using cluster munitions used in Misrata. Fovezer (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Lothar and all.. I agree. My yardstick for "ethnic cleansing" is different to general yardsticks as these tend to be retrospective. So I shall agree with the above consensus until better sourced material on ethnic cleansing develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)  Thus why my edit on the article omitted the term. ThanksAkinsope (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We definitely need to cover reports that blacks are being targeted. But assuming someone is a mercenary because they're black isn't the same as ethnic cleansing, which is a much more vicious thing. Also, though this is OR, I'm not sure 'black' is the right term. As noted, the Tubu are black, but they aren't being targeted. Language, age, and gender are likely contributing factors: if you're black, male, not a child or elderly, and can't speak Arabic well, you'll be suspected of being a mercenary and risk summary execution. But if you're black and don't otherwise fit you won't, though there have been repeated reports of rape in the refugee camps (we don't know by which side). That is, AFAIK it's black immigrant men of military age who are being killed. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have to protest at the idea that its "blacks" that are being killed (implication being because they are "black"). It is not because of them being black that makes them suspicious, but rather that they are foreign (hence why the Toubou, a black people native to Southern Libya, who in fact have good relations with the rebels, many of which joining the rebels in fighting). Also, I may note that foreign-origin ethnic Tuaregs from Mali and Niger are also under the "potential mercenary" category as many mercenaries working for Gaddafi were Tuareg. The blackness of these foreign Tuaregs is questionable, as although they often (but not always)have black skin, they often have more "white" facial characteristics, being Berbers after all. At least in my opinion, the media has drawn too much attention to the fact that many killed are black instead of the fact that they are foreign workers.--Yalens (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Verified: Blacks are being killed in Libya; Verified: Blacks are being targeted in Libya; and Verified: Sub-Saharan africans are being targeted in Libya.

Note, the above does not state: "All blacks are being targeted in Libya". The article previously omitted a serious issue and element of the civil war in Libya, the article also omits the term "ethnic cleansing" but the dictionary definition has been stated above already and such a term should probably be left out for now until such a time and if credible, verifiable sources use it. 90.216.93.110 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is info about Africans being detained for no reason by the "rebels".--Metallurgist (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just that the ongoing pogrom of Black Africans is not mentioned in this article, but a complete whitewash of human rights abuses by the rebels. Gaddafi's human rights abuses are described in detail (as well they should be) yet there is no section for the war crimes/human rights abuses by the rebels. It's like the US State Department wrote this article to reinforce its narrative of "Gaddafi all bad, rebels all good". In any civil war there are human right abuses/war crimes on both sides of the conflict, to simply mention the truth about what the rebels are doing is not to side with Gaddafi or against the rebels, it's responsible scholarship. The lack of mention of atrocities committed by the rebels in this article is morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. Utterly sickening the way people are whitewashing this article to push a particular political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.150.146 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, this debate over "ethnic cleansing" is a semantic distraction-- innocent people are being killed on the basis of their color/national origin-- use whatever damn phrase you want, but it deserves mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.150.146 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That it is actually on the basis of their color is contentious though.--Yalens (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And in case people like Kudzu pretend not to have seen it i repeat it here: - independent RS confirmation of ethnic cleansing. 95.32.6.194 (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Two things here. First, thank you for bringing this to my attention; the information in this article has been added to a number of relevant pages now, including this one, as you'll be happy to hear. Second, please assume good faith; this article was just published yesterday and I actually had not seen it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * from the article you cite moscow ip - "Any rebel abuses pale by comparison with those of the regime." "As the besieged Misuratans  fought - some of the artillery fire raining down on them came from tawarga .." didn't see the phrase 'ethnic ccleansing' - Why don't you add stuff to the article if you think it is significant, following the source, and if you use your own wrds at all try and avoid pro-gaddafi hyperbole, instead of attacking other editors "..pretend not to see.." - don't judge everyone by your standards. - Orwell "everyone believs in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bthering to examine the evidence." -   Sayerslle (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course the author has to add usual anti-gaddafi ritual crap in the article (it's a media of the one of belligerents after all). However, unlike what he sees now with his own eyes this time, (1) there's no proof that the mentioned charred remains were victims of Khamis Bde or any other loyalist unit (and even when and where they actually died) except rebel claims (btw loyalist didn't bother to execute even the well-known convicted alQaeda members and common criminals in Abu-Salim which all were later freed by rebels and laid havoc to the Tripoli streets) and (2) from the footage i've seen the loyalists fighting in Misurata never looked particularly cruel or indiscriminate to me - even the heavy artillery was employed in direct fire role, and the rocked fire at the port actually pales in comparison to ANY rebel rocket fire on the loyalist towns, with their self-made crappy launchers with little or no aiming, in fact those are 1000 times more dangerous to the civilians in range (and sometimes the rebels themselves) than anything ever used by loyalists. This is how propaganda works: it prevent the people to think independently. As for me, now i have no time to add something big in decent english; and when i had, all my edits tend to be reverted really fast by some users who supposedly believe in the loyalist rapist cannibals and the rebel saints, so i better put some useful info right here for anybody willing to improve neutrality of this article. 95.32.96.134 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The words “ethnic cleansing” carries a LOT of baggage; Maybe it IS ethnic cleansing, maybe not. I submit that until this thing is over and investigated fully, that particular term should be avoided. We don’t yet know really who did what and why they did it (we may THINK we know, but we don’t).Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proof of NTC allowing ethnic cleansing
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903532804576564861187966284.html

In it, Jibril, the NTC prime minister, says he won't interfere with what's going on in Tawergha. The article goes on to detail how the town of Tawergha was emptied of its mostly black residents by rebels. Then, they wrote stuff about negros being slaves and started burning down houses. They are not allowing anybody back in, and have tracked down some people who fled Tawergha to Tripoli, whom they have captured for interrogation.

I believe this, combined with the known lynchings of blacks, shows what can be considered ethnic cleansing. House_demolition 128.62.24.195 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Amnesty International's new report has also says the NTC may be guilty of war crimes for their targeting of sub-saharan africans, torture and summary executions Source here. This should be integrated into the article --Anon854 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * article on gaddafi shipping African migrants to Europe after NATO air strikes -  - "the result was a tide of men and women, infants and the elderly being shipped across the Mediterranean in leaky boats and the resultant tragedy of dozens of dead bodies washing up on Europes southern shores.."  Sayerslle (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Amnesty International is not neutral. (Almost any other source could be offered.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for section about regional repercussions
This article (near the bottom) has some quotes from highly-placed people saying that the conflict, and in particular the proliferation of weapons resulting from it, could be a vastly destabilizing influence on the surrounding countries. I considered adding this to the "After Tripoli" section, but perhaps a new sub-section is needed? Esn (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The The World War II article has “Aftermath” and “Impact “ section, with “Casualties and war crimes”, “Concentration camps and slave work”, “Home fronts and production”, “Occupation”, and “Advances in technology and warfare” subsections to the later.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Transition (post Kaddafi) need a comprehensive article
We are now and for the last 1 months in the transitional phase, which is as important and complex as the revolution/civil war itself. A clear, comprehensive, separate article on this transitional phase and its actors, problematics, dynamics, and moves is very much need. Yug (talk)  21:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No transition has begun yet- Right now it’s still in the “Kill GADAFII” mode alone. Once it does however, that should be addressed QUICKLY.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of all three timeline articles links in infobox?
Does anyone think this is a good idea? I.e. linking to both main timeline article and the three (in the future possibly four) separate "calendar articles" in infobox? Me think so, to easy get to diff. articles.

--Paracel63 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
"United Kingdom 1 airman killed in traffic accident in Italy[33][34]" -- Is this really a casualty of the war? Yes, he was on the way to the front, but I dont see how it counts really. If someone being deployed, but still on base, died, would that be a casualty? "Netherlands 3 Dutch Marines captured (later released)[35]" -- If they are released, how are they still casualties? "United States 1 USN MQ-8 shot down[36][37]" -- a drone is not a casualty "Netherlands 1 Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx captured[35]" -- This appears to be about a helicopter, not a casualty. "United States 1 USAF F-15E crashed[38]" -- crew survived "United Arab Emirates 1 UAEAF F-16 damaged upon landing[39]" -- link is dead, but it appears the same as above

These should all be removed. They are not casualties.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur, they shouldn't belong here. Especially the one about the traffic accident in Italy, which is just ridiculous to include. Dtnoip28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
 * I agree, materiel losses are not casualties of war. 99.69.86.204 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I may only agree on the issue of the planes. However, war articles regulary include the numbers of soldiers captured during the war. As far as the killed british soldier goes, the international media and the British government/MoD declared him a casualty of the war. The Iraq war, Afghan war and Vietnam war articles include hundreds of US soldiers killed in non-combat situations, and dozens of them even not in the war zone but places like Kuwait, Bahrain, Thailand, Japan, etc. So personal opinions don't count when something is properly sourced. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thats fine then. Im not that up on war standards, but if theres precedent, no problem. As for the captured, they were released so I dont see how theyre still casualties.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that he died on the other side of the Mediterranean in a traffic accident, and that the victims of Fort Hood shooting, which was more directly related to the War in Afghanistan than this incident is to Libya, didn't count as casualties to that war, I say we remove this. Or at least move it to an article that handles this sort of thing.50.129.89.173 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Numereous war articles include in their infoboxes the number of soldiers captured during the war. We already include in this war's main infobox the number of loyalists captured. Besides, we already noted that the three have been released. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Captured is one thing. Released is another. Metallurgist (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone put the plane crashes back. Ill remove them. Metallurgist (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be careful not to confuse casualties with fatalities. In war casualty statistics, injuries that preclude an individual from returning to active duty are usually included in casualty counts even if the individual survived the injury. AJseagull1 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the car accident should be in the casualties. If another soldier got AIDS in a brothel near his base, then dies in the following year, he will be in this section too? 70.25.27.98 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting point I would like to bring up is that said base has already been in existence before the war. It's not like the base popped up the moment Military Intervention was approved. Therefore this was a routine supply delivery that probably would have happened regardless of Britain's involvement with the no-fly zone. In fact, this incident probably would have happened if there wasn't military intervention.50.129.89.173 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AJseagull1 said “Please be careful not to confuse casualties with fatalities.” In fact, “caulty” means anything that degrades the service unit, component, whatever’s efficacy: Injuries, killed (“in action” or otherwise), even mechanical equipment that is damaged (beyond repair or not). “Generally” it is understood to mean only personnel (killed or injured) as a result of war-related activities.

"United Kingdom 1 airman killed in traffic accident in Italy" ¿If a soldier headed to D-Day died from an accident as sea, wouldn’t he be listed as a casualty? ¿Was he where he was supposed to be doing what he was supposed to be doing? It should stay.

"Netherlands 3 Dutch Marines captured (later released)" This should be removed unless there is some other justification.

"United States 1 USN MQ-8 shot down" Is a casualty in the broader sense, but CERTAINLY not for the intention of listing war DEAD. It could be listed in another section, but I don’t see the importance.

"Netherlands 1 Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx captured" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.

"United States 1 USAF F-15E crashed" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.

"United Arab Emirates 1 UAEAF F-16 damaged upon landing" Should be listed with the drone, unless some other justification exists.

In the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth cases, if the crew was killed or injured to the degree they require extended hospitalization (and it appears they were not killed), I sumbit listing them is really pretty silly.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the only problem with comparing the dead Briton with a D-Day Soldier on the way to the front is that the airman wasn't on his way to the front; he was simply on a routine resupply of a UK airbase, which would have happened regardless of the UK's involvement. 50.129.89.173 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Flag
Maybe we should create "new flag", green flag to symbolize "Libyan Arab Socialist Jamaharia" (sorry for bad typing word), because for example in Czech section of article "Khamis Brigade" and "Khamis al-Gaddafi" is now libyan kingdom flag as symbol of services of these loyal Gaddafi units and Gaddafi son. Its strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.53.47 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Other articles such as the Freedom in the World report by Freedom house shows Gaddafi era freedoms with the new flag. Other countries such as Nazi Germany have seperate flags for their respective political eras, and this one should too. 38.112.107.215 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we should NOT create a flag for them; They should be allowed to do that for themselves.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk)