Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 13

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Please stop with efforts to rewrite the rules. The Libyan government figures and Libyan media are reliable sources so long as they are clearly attributed, which I have done in every single one of my edits. It would not be reliable to state that "rebels perpetrated a bloodbath" by citing Saif al-Islam. But something that is clearly attributed like, "Saif al-Islam claimed that the rebels took hostages" is in accordance with NPOV and can stay. WP:NPOV states that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." . Nothing in the reliable sources section supports your insistence on censoring this article by keeping out certain news stories and documents.SadSwanSong (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The contents cited from the Libyan government's human rights document does pertain to human rights.. Specifically, it focuses on the criteria of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a document that is a major part of work on human rights. SadSwanSong (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We are referring to human rights and human rights abuses. Period.
 * Your paragraphs only mention gaddafi's economic achievements and political organizations. Zenithfel (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to insist you stop inserting this language, SadSwanSong, until we establish consensus allowing its inclusion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To repeat, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a major component on the development of instruments on human rights. Part of the document that the Jamahiriya submitted to the UN focuses on Libya's its economic and cultural accomplishments. The article has a section about human rights, but says nothing about other points of view, specifically that of Libyan state and media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadSwanSong (talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Now stop edit-warring, for your own sake. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is another point, it's the Jamahiras report. Not an independent report. State-controlled reports don't belong there. Economic and social achievements are not human rights. Zenithfel (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your rewriting of the rules or your arbitrary definitions of edit-warring. SadSwanSong (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to re-write the rules. You just got to follow them. Zenithfel (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is heavily POV.
Prior to my intervention, this article suffered from severe POV problems, as though the article was written by NATO/rebels' spokesmen. The "Violence" section solely described allegations about the Libyan Government's side, as did the sections of "Mercenaries", "Human Shields","Censorship of Events", "International Propaganda". There was not a word about the rebels' use of mercenaries, human shields, censorship of events, etc. I made considerable progress in pushing the article more towards a NPOV, but certain editors have been trying to reverse my efforts. The version of the article prior to my edits strongly violates NPOV rules in favor of the rebels, and must be labeled as such.SadSwanSong (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats because all those accusations against the rebels comes from Libyan state tv, Mathaba, press tv, and russia today. None of which are reliable, all of which are state controlled. Zenithfel (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that the western press did not report on the reprimendable actions of the rebels is a clear indicator that western-source media cannot be considered as the "only reliable source". This one-side story is now being repeated with the rebels in Syria. It's "the bad guys against the good guys". Cliches about RT being "bias and unreliable" are unfounded in this particular case, as RT has been reporting both sides of the story (i.e. RT has never denied or shut a blind eye on human rights abuses by Gaddafi's forces; the opposite is true).
 * This article I agree breaks NPOV, but in favor of Gaddafi's side. 99% of the reports against gaddafi's government on not present. That is because if we were to put all the accusation, evidence, and sources which seem to put Gaddafi and his army in a negative light, it would overflow the page. As such we but the general broad information, in which praises about how well Gaddafi handles the economy is not amongst. Zenithfel (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the accusations against Libyan Government originated from rebel-held territory, which were then circulated by the media based in the NATO countries and were largely shown by independent observers to have been unreliable, such as the claims about rape, mercenaries, air strikes, etc. You characterize Libyan sources in support of the Libyan Government as unreliable, but you don't consider that a portion of the western media's coverage consisted of Libya published statements by government officials, summarized stories from Libyan media, etc. Libyan sources represent a significant viewpoint and are an important part of the information on this subject. Wikipedia rules do not ban sources because for having a bias, but state that sources like Libyan television can be included as long as they are clearly attributed.
 * Wrong, information backed by unreliable sources are allowed to be removed, particularly if it is Libyan state TV. Accusations came from rebel held area because in gaddafi controlled area journalists were controlled by minders, and people were not allowed to speak freely.Zenithfel (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, you do not seem to be well-informed about the reporting on the war. Press TV's coverage has been staunchly pro-rebel.
 * Press TV is Iranian state-controleld media. Not reliable no matter what side it takes. Zenithfel (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * All of my additions are from reliable sources and are clearly attributed. I have nothing to prove to you. Rather, you are obligated to provide persuasive justifications for continued deletion of sourced content. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are removing all the rebal claims and shifting the article in favor of the Gaddafi government, balance the POV scale, discuss what parts of the article you have issues with here. For every out there rebal claim to you there is in the article we can discuss here on how to replace it with a claim supporting Gaddafi's stance and how it would impact the article. The goal is to make both sides equal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As for your sources it wont hurt to post them over at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to confirm them as being reliable in this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What? Everything I posted is a reliable source. This includes western, English-speaking media summarizing statements from the Libyan Government, as well as Libyan sources in English. Jamahiriya News Agency is the most reliable source for presenting Libyan Government's POV.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This content needs to be rewritten:

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

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

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


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

Suggested move

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

They are using you as scapegoats. You will be the victims. Our people there, the elderly, and all the population in the city. Do not allow weapons into your homes. Not all these areas, the entrances to the city of Benghazi, we shoot. Leave your weapons out and find yourself an escape. Throw away your arms and find a way out of the city, and then you are saved. Those young men have been taken advantage of. SadSwanSong (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Read, lean and remember Wikipedia guidelines. First of all, your tabloit comment is pure NPOV. All medias reported it, including Reuters . You can find the rest of them in the article. Second of all we use reliable secondary sources. These sources states he said that. Morever on CNN Moussa Ibrahim defended his statements by the end of February repeated the same thing and defended both Gaddafi and Saif al-Islam statements . EllsworthSK (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Reuters page you listed presents what he said in a more complete manner, and doesn't put so much emphasis on him talking about Nescafe, etc. But in the "state response" section of this article, there is undue weight given to "Nescafe". There needs to be a more complete, thorough summary of Libyan Government's reaction to the rebellion.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing emphasis, he talked for cca 2 hours, he said a lot of things and pills in Nescafe was just one part of it. However you challenged whole statement as farce reported by just some tabloit media. That is untrue. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_(vehicle)#Libyan_civil_war

theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/

Limited text, many pictures.

theconversation.edu.au/getting-technical-toyota-pickups-anti-aircraft-weapons-and-the-libyan-revolution-3643

Not exactly sure WHAT "theconversation.edu.au" is, but it is a .edu extension. Their own "About us" states "The Conversation is an independent source of information, analysis and commentary from the university and research sector — written by acknowledged experts and delivered directly to the public. Our team of professional editors work with more than 2,400 academic authors to make this wealth of knowledge and expertise accessible to all."

commanders list
I noticed the commanders list for this civil war is very extensive in comparison to other conflicts and battles on wikipedia. I'd suggest either removing some or having a minimized list with just a few of the top commanders listed with an option (much like how NATO has an expand feature)to show everyone involved. This is especially evident on the Loyalist side where it seemingly lists every Tom, Dick and Jane involved. It may be accurate information, but i think it is just a bit too much to have in the commanders section of the page. Ww2twit76 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I second that motion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye. It's obsessive military fanwanking, basically. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  05:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support that too, dosnt seem neccesary and it makes it look cluttered. Most of those countries did not even contribute in any great sense anyway, theyre just listed for formality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercenaries
The mercenaries section needs some work. It is merely one sided which is contrary to Wiki policy. A POV is a POV. Most of those Africans termed mercenaries were not mercenaries but immigrants and that section should reflect that. This becomes self evident when one looks at the targeting of Black libyans and sub-Saharan Africans which in my view needs expansion rather than glossing over. Many parts of this article fails Wiki policy and it is surprising that some experienced editors on Wiki have not pointed out the flaws in this article. The policy is there for a reason, so fix the problems and remove the tags I have added.Tamsier (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have citations for the statement "Most of those Africans termed mercenaries were not mercenaries but immigrants and that section should reflect that". As I've mentioned elsewhere, there needs to be a distinction made between "Black Libyans" who are actually native to areas within Libya's borders (i.e. Toubous), "Black Libyans" who are actually migrant workers, and the mercenaries Gaddafi shipped in. In the case of the first group, it doesn't seem like there was much discord between them and "white Libyans" (i.e. mainstream Arab/Berber Libyans) during the conflict, and now there is, mainly because the Toubou have been dissapointed by the NTC and now are pursuing separatist ends. There is no evidence we've seen here that the Toubou, despite being black, were ever victimized because they were mistaken for mercenaries (unlike the other two groups). It is well known that the pro-Gaddafi forces had a disproportionate number of Sub-Saharan Africans, whether they were originally migrant workers or shipped-in mercenaries or not (one can imagine that if you're a Libyan, especially a somewhat xenophobic one, it could be hard to tell the difference). It is also known that migrant workers were on average much more sympathetic to Gaddafi (who gave them jobs in the first place) than native Libyans. For balance, it is also important to note that this stigma also effected the Tuareg (who are a mixed Black/Berber population) because some foreign Tuaregs fought for Gaddafi. Yes, there have been cases where civilian migrant workers were mistaken for mercenaries. However, unless you have evidence for your claim, I don't see what exactly is wrong with the page, especially considering how well-sourced it is. --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the page does have the alternative viewpoints present...--Yalens (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor who removed the tags should be aware that, if one takes issue with a tag placed on an article, the proper channel is to discuss it here and remove the tag after concensus has been reached. I don't see any concensus. Indeed I don't ssee them participating in the issues raised on the talk page. I will drop them a message after this and if they have difficulties adhering to Wiki policy they will be reported. Wikipedia is not a place to advance POV.
 * @Yelens : It is very easy to find sources that supports one view. The mecenary section is one sided, and such fails the neutrality test. It is easy to find sources about Hitler's view on the Jews, but does that make it right and merits to be the only view? Absolutely not. This so called Black macenaries imported from Africa was a fabrication by no other than the facist arabs of libya from the top to justify their cowardly killing of innocent and unarmed people, including the raping of women whose crime was immigrating to that country. A rumour first circulated by a former servant of Gadafi. Even under the heading of targeting of Blacks, this article kept justifying that there were African mecenaries rather than addressing the casualty issue. Words such as claim (a big "no no" according to Wiki policy) are self evident in that section when addressing the raping of women, etc. POV pushing is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Human rights investigationBBC.Tamsier (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why dont you add the sources you found to help the article out? I also had noticed that User:Kudzu1's edit came 5 seconds after your first message on the talk page here, and you gave that user a warning WP:Assume good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "facist [sic] arabs of libya from the top to justify their cowardly killing". Looks like a typical disruptive POV-warrior. Nothing to see here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "The editor who removed the tags" did so because, to all appearances, you just dropped them into the page without explanation. You should either post on the Talk page immediately after adding the tags to explain them, or (better) post on the Talk page before adding the tags. It's not my fault you did this improperly. What's more, I have been editing this page for over a year and have been active on Wikipedia for several years longer than that, and I don't appreciate a Johnny-come-lately coming in, dumping some tags on sections we've worked out language for through discussion on the Talk page months ago, then writing a pissy message on my user talk page for taking them off because they weren't adequately explained. You might want to change your approach if you want to be taken seriously around here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You basically typify this characteristic of a tendentiously disruptive editor. You came here and made a drive-by tagging, demanding that others find sources to confirm your view. If you have information that you believe to be reliably sourced, then just add it in yourself. Don't make others work to confirm your opinions. The fact that you almost immediately resort to using the horrendously cliché slur "fascist" to describe the group that your POV is directed against—and then can't even spell it correctly—is further proof that you aren't here to be constructive. Ethnic POV warriors like you are a perennial wellspring of mass disruption on the project. If that is the mentality you are going to wave around on Wikipedia, then you should just leave the project now. You are not welcome here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bursting my brains trying to figure out your ridiculous accusation which has no merit. Human Rights Investigation describe it as ethnic killing based on racism from command level. Somewhat similar to what Hitler did to the Jews but different in terms to scale and geography. You should know. In my book that is fascism. As HRI said, at "command level". That satisfies my "from the top" comment. Who were doing the killing again? The Arabs! So that satisfies my "arab" comment. Oh no, finding sources is easy, which I did above. Sorry Von Richthofen, you came too late. "Ethnic POV warrior"! Speak for yourself. Oh! You may want to read this : "meatpuppetry". Tamsier (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have the sources, then why don't you just add it into the article instead of slapping tags and flippant "warnings" all over the place? I "should know"? Now, will you please share with the class exactly what you meant by that? I won't go into the Godwin's law aspects of this, but I will note that genocide is not the same thing as fascism, your use of that tired epithet notwithstanding. Meatpuppetry? How about I have been editing heavily in this topic area since about February of last year and have had this page watchlisted for as long. If multiple people disagree with you, this does not necessarily indicate some coordinated conspiracy against you. It may very well indicate instead that you really do have some problems with your mentality that you need to work out. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! Touched a nerve. I can only deduce from your comments (above) that my comments (based on the sources cited) were too close to home. I guess Von doesn't like Human Rights Investigations at all. I must preserve Monsieur Von Richthofen's comments for posterity: "pff" [piss off] . You are a hindrance to the project and you should not be here. You (and Kudzu1) also fail to appreciate that, no one own the articles on Wikipedia. I suggest you read on policy before editing. This may help : Ownership of articles. Tamsier (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't have a stake in your discussion here, but I do have the page on my watchlist. The tone of your discussion is a little uncharitable all around. Let's simply focus on the issues, not one another. I hope this is clear to every single editor in this thread and won't need to be repeated. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If people would write civilly about their concerns about the page, instead of emotional rants, and of proposals of what to do about it, perhaps we could work something out instead of flaming each other. It is most likely (in my view right now at least) that everyone who has come to this page has only good intentions. Instead of accusing others of POV pushing, you could talk with others about what you think is lacking in the page. Everyone here only wants to improve the page and to get along, unless my view is wrong and there actually is a POV warrior here. --Yalens (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Emotional rants"! MMM! Where should I start? Being called a "disruptive POV-warrior", "ethnic POV-warrior", "problems with" my "mentality", and to top it all off, being told to "pff" [piss off] (a civility breach). All this after paraphrasing a source. The mind boggles. Edit the article, not the editor. As stated in my original edit (see above), the mercenaries section is one sided. Anyone familiar with the subject would expect Black Africans to pop up there thanks to the cliams circulated. In that section, there is only one view : Black Africans are bad because they came to kill Arabs and Arabs are good. Not only was this a propaganda campaingn based on "racism" (see HRI link above), it also breaches the neutrality policy. As such, it should reflect all the available sources with respect to weight. Also, your claim above regarding the naitive Blacks not being targeted is contrary to the sources cited among others including the Guardian and NPR's interview with this Amnesty International researcher (transcript can be found below). In any case, perhaps linking some content from targeting of Blacks and summarizing the humanitarian section would resolve some issues. Considering there is already a main article - Humanitarian situation during the Libyan civil war, that section should be stubbed. This article is too lenghty anyway for its notability. It's neither World War I nor II. As regards to the name of this article, it is also misleading which I believe had already been raised above by another editor. I will not be getting in the middle of that. There is a difference between civil war and uprising (which is what I've heard it being referred to as in parts of the media, if not, the Arab Spring). This article is written as if World War III has landed.Tamsier (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Where should you start? Clearly, with another emotional rant. And if you want to complain about a "civility breach", may I remind you that you are the one who referred to an ethnic group in this discussion as "facist" [sic], and you are the one who posted a nasty message on my user talk page for reverting your drive-by tagging. If you want to propose a change, then propose a change. Don't just slap tags all over the place, then demand people "fix the problem" without saying what the problem is beyond "I just don't like it". -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Still scratching my head as to how "pff"—a simple onomatopoetic expression of disagreement/disgust—becomes construed as a direct imperative to "piss off". Yes, "edit the article". That is what you have been told. If you have reliably-sourced information that you would like to add to the article, then just do it. Don't slap shame-tags onto the article, demanding 1 2 that others "fix the problem". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse you but I don't work for neither of you. Both of you inserted that POV. I highlighted the problems, told you how to improve the article and directed you to some links so that you can bring balance to the relevant section and fix your POV. You should spend more time trying to improve the article than arguing with me or worrying about my mental state. Now either you fix the problem in accordance with Wikipedia policy or both of you will be reported, immediately. This is a warning to both Lothar von Richthofen and Kudzu1. This is my last comment on this matter until I see something more productive. Any more of such comments rather than fixing your POV will be reported immediately. I hope that is clear enough for both of you. No one is above Wiki policy. Now either you work according to the rules or leave. Don't try my patience.Tamsier (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would find your haughty attitude amusing if not for the fact that I've dealt with folks like you all across this website before and I've never really enjoyed that part of editing Wikipedia. So I'm going to just ignore you and go on editing as I please, and maybe you'll either go away or wise up. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of transparency, I am removing the "mercenaries" section (see below) from the main article until the problems are sorted. Add it back after you have fixed the POV according to Wiki policy. You've put it in so fix it. I've tried as much to help improve this article instead what I get is insults. I am more likely to read an article's talk page and the tags before I take an article as scripture. It is surprising that Amnesty International who carried out a full investigation into this so called mercenaries coming from Black Africa found no evidence to support that claim and described it as a "myth""Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war" (in) The Indpendent. Even the United Nations Human Rights Council acknowledged that, though there were a small number of foreign nationals on both sides of the fence, there is no evidence for mercenary activities as defined by the UN Convention : "Report of the International Commission of Inquiry to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", Advance Unedited Version, Human Rights Council.  Yet, this article keeps telling us about Black mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa. Something is not righ somewhere. You see the problem I'm having? Add this section back after you have fixed the POV. I have taken the liberty of going through the corresponding French and German articles, and lord behold, even those are more neutral and where there is POV, they are indicated as such. The same cannot be said for the corresponding English article. I wonder why. Fix the POV and put it back. One more point, the title of this section is "Alleged mercenaries" not "Mercenaries". The sources I have cited including the first sentence of this section (which I have not touched) even indicate it is alleged.Tamsier (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercenaries
The Libyan government alleged that the armed rebellion was composed of "criminal gangs and mercenaries." A Libyan official reported to Libyan television that security forces arrested Tunisians and Egyptians that were "trained to sow chaos." According to the Libyan Government authorities, mercenaries from Turkey, Egypt, and Tunisia allegedly entered Libya to fight on the side of the rebels. Dozens of them were arrested. Libya's Jamahiriya News Agency reported that the detained men were part of a “foreign network (and were) trained to damage Libya’s stability, the safety of its citizens and national unity.” Military advisors from Qatar participated on the side of the rebels, and were sometimes labelled as "mercenaries" by the media.

After clashes between Government and anti-government forces, allegations arose of the Libyan Gaddafi using foreign mercenaries. The Libyan Government's ambassador to India Ali al-Essawi claimed that the defections of military units had indeed led to such a decision. Video footage purporting to show this started to leak out of the country. Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi claimed in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Nigerien, Malian, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping fight the uprising on behalf of Gaddafi. Chadian sources repudiated allegations that mercenaries from Chad were involved in the fighting in Libya. The Chadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement said that "Chadians are not sent or recruited in Chad to serve as mercenaries in Libya," and that allegations about Chadian mercenaries were "likely to cause serious physical and material harm to Chadians residing in Libya."

According to African Union chairman Jean Ping, the "NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries,". Ping said that for the rebels, "All blacks are mercenaries. If you do that, it means (that the) one-third of the population of Libya, which is black, is also mercenaries. They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them."

In Mali, members of the Tuareg tribe confirmed that a large number of men, about 5,000, from the tribe went to Libya in late February. Locals in Mali said they were promised €7,500 ($10,000) upfront payment and compensation up to €750 ($1,000) per day. Gaddafi has used Malian Tuaregs in his political projects before, sending them to fight in places like Chad, Sudan and Lebanon and recently they have fought against Niger government, a war which Gaddafi has reportedly sponsored. Malian government officials told BBC that it's hard to stop the flow of fighters from Mali to Libya. A recruitment center for Malian soldiers leaving to Libya was found in a Bamako hotel.

Reports from Ghana state that the men who went to Libya were offered as much as €1950 ($2,500) per day. Advertisements seeking mercenaries were seen in Nigeria with at least one female Nigerian pro-Gaddafi sniper being caught in late August outside of Tripoli. One group of mercenaries from Niger, who had been allegedly recruited from the streets with promises of money, included a soldier of just 13 years of age. The Daily Telegraph studied the case of a sixteen-year-old captured Chadian child soldier in Bayda. The boy, who had previously been a shepherd in Chad, told that a Libyan man had offered him a job and a free flight to Tripoli, but in the end he had been airlifted to shoot opposition members in Eastern Libya.

Reports by EU experts stated that Gaddafi's government hired between 300 and 500 European soldiers, including some from EU countries, at high wages. According to Michel Koutouzis, who does research on security issues for the EU institutions, the UN and the French government, "In Libyan society, there is a taboo against killing people from your own tribal group. This is one reason why Gaddafi needs foreign fighters," The Serbian newspaper Alo! stated that Serbs were hired to help Gaddafi in the early days of the conflict. Rumors of Serbian pilots participating on the side of Gaddafi appeared early in the conflict. Time magazine interviewed mercenaries from ex-Yugoslavia who fled Gaddafi's forces in August.

A witness claimed that mercenaries were more willing to kill demonstrators than Libyan forces were, and earned a reputation as among the most brutal forces employed by the government. A doctor in Benghazi said of the mercenaries that "they know one thing: to kill whose in front of them. Nothing else. They're killing people in cold blood".

On 7 April, Reuters reported that soldiers loyal to Gaddafi were sent into refugee camps to intimidate and bribe black African migrant workers into fighting for the Libyan state during the war. Some of these "mercenaries" were compelled to fight against their wishes, according to a source inside one of the refugee camps.

In June 2011, Amnesty International said it found no evidence of foreign mercenaries being used, saying the black Africans claimed to be "mercenaries" were in fact "sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya," and described the use of mercenaries as a "myth" that "inflamed public opinion" and led to lynchings and executions of black Africans by rebel forces.

In October 2011 it was reported that the South African government was investigating the possibility that South African mercenaries were hired by Gaddafi to help him in his failed attempt to escape the besieged city of Sirte. It is thought that two South African mercenaries died in that operation from a NATO air strike on Gaddafi's convoy. One of the alleged mercenaries speaking from a hospital in North Africa stated that around 19 South Africans had been contracted by different companies for the operation.

Tamsier (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC) For the record, my edit has been reverted again this time by Lothar von Richthofen. Tamsier (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten us as to why you cannot add this information to the article. You clearly have a lot to say about it, and you have sources, so why do you demand that someone else do it for you? You haven't helped to improve the article by adding meaningful content; you threw some tags on it, demanding that others "fix it", then caused a ruckus on the talkpage, then proceeded to blank the entire section. Again I ask the question: why can't you just do it? Why do you insist that others need to be the ones to implement your desired changes? You tell us "I don't work for neither of you", then turn around and make ridiculous comments like "until I see something more productive" and "Add this section back after you have fixed the POV"—we aren't your boss, but you have somehow become ours? Come on. You raise a loud clamour about "policy", but when it comes down to actual editing practice, you really couldn't be more clueless. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalized

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

The result of the proposal was closed without discussion, as there is a move moratorium in place for this article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the words "civil and "war" be capitalized? They don't look right being in the lower case format. B-Machine (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I made that nice big tag at the top of the page for a reason.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh then why am I not surprised? lol - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness there had been alot of move requests as of recent that all asked the same things with every time consensus against it, you may want to check the archives on past reasons on why the caps are not in place I think it has something to do with the reliable sources and how the wording is there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Libyan civil war : Mercenaries
Mercenary

Having gone through this article, in particular the the sub-heading "Mercenaries", it was evident that it breaches the neutrality policy. The relevant section spent some time theorizing about Black Africans from Sub-Saharan Africa allegedly shipped in by Gaddafi as mercenaries. That claim, resulted in a backlash massacre of many Black immigrants and native Black Libyans. Yet, international organizations such as Amnesty International (among others) who carried out detail investigation found no evidence of Black mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa and described it as a "myth". I tagged the article, but the tags were removed. All my efforts to improve the article according to Wikipedia policy have been thrown back at me, in spite of the reliable sources I've cited throughout the discussion. Why should I fix somebody else's POV especially when they have no intention of listening to me? I would like to know what other editors think. Does this section in particular conforms to Wikipedia's neutrality policy and weight? The discussion can be found here. Tamsier (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's almost 2 years now or little less still no proof or even a legit statement has been discovered which can speak that mercenaries were hired on Gaddafi's side. Remembering that 1/3 of the population in Libya was black, it's really wrong to call them mercenaries, if you see the videos of Libya's military parade before 2011 as well, you will find almost half of the soldiers to be black. So the point is that "Foreign Mercenaries" should be removed. 122.169.12.10 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been editing this and other related articles for long enough to know better than start discussion about this. We do not use rebel claims as anything more than claims in the article, mercenary part is well documented and sourced by many reliable sources, including interviews with mercenaries themself or reports from countries such as Mali where recruiting has been going on. If you want to align them all to NTC because WP:IDONTLIKEIT be my guest but I shall revert it and than report it if you continue doing so. If you do not understand some rules of the wikipedia I will be pleased to help you on my talk page, not giving lectures here. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I believe I made myself crystal clear when I wrote that Gaddafi spokesman claims are nothing more than Gaddafi spokesman claims. They are not reliable and there is nothing more to discuss. Those are the rules which all editors has to follow. You, me, Kudzu1 or anyone else. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The UK was a declared belligerent. British SAS are not mercenaries. What's more, there's no indication they participated in combat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely agreed. I would caution the editor that POV-pushing really earns a bad rap on Wikipedia, which he seems to edit solely to boost Gaddafi and his acolytes and cast Gaddafi's opponents in a poor light. Clarificationgiven, your edits will draw particular scrutiny for that reason. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That is one source against a preponderance of others, including those profiling mercenaries who admit they fought for Gaddafi and told their stories to the media:  Stop with this revisionist crusade already. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Amnesty didn't say they never used mercenaries, just largely unfounded. Meaning exaggerations. Sopher99 (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And that is not what numerous other groups -- both media and NGOs -- reported. Amnesty is but one source that said it didn't see mercenary activity up against a plethora of others, including people who served as Gaddafist mercenaries and freely admitted it. Stop this revisionist crusade already. It's wasting all of our time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudzu's point of the amnesty source being greatly outnumbered by other sources is right, and to top it off Human Rights Watch, a right group equally as reliable and renown as amnesty, says they found evidence of pro-gaddafi mercenaries. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/04/libya-stop-arbitrary-arrests-black-africans Sopher99 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they were -- I'm not disputing that. I know you are infatuated with Gaddafi, but while I'm no fan of the late dictator, I'm not an NTC partisan or anything of the sort. Of course there were allegations and exaggerations and a lot of people were falsely accused, and that persecution is ongoing. Many of Gaddafi's foreign fighters were likely conscripted from refugee camps. I am not disputing any of that. But it is ridiculous, patently absurd, to claim Gaddafi didn't employ mercenaries and then hide behind a single investigation by one group out of many, as well as a few articles by Russian state media and other anti-Western outlets, to say the categorical fact that the Gaddafists paid foreign fighters to bolster their ranks is somehow reliably "disputed". It's not in dispute. The Tuareg mercenaries who fought for Gaddafi noisily returned to what is now Azawad; others from Eastern Europe and elsewhere who served as mercenaries have told their stories. This has all been repeatedly documented and verified by credible source upon credible source. It's not "disputed" simply because when Amnesty did their investigation, they didn't interview anyone who admitted to being a mercenary. The preponderance of evidence indicates Gaddafi employed mercenaries, and that consensus of sources simply does not exist for the other side in the erstwhile conflict. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not propaganda, and the HRW that particular HRW is only accusing the rebels of having executed men accused of being mercanaries without evidence (trial). They are only saying they did not receive a trial, not that there is no evidence of mercenaries. Sopher99 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because some people were killed without trial and on bland accusations doesn't mean they are saying that there weren't any mercenaries. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in wars based of bland accusations of being loyalist or rebels, but doesn't mean that loyalist or rebels didn't exist in those wars. Sopher99 (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. They're in the article. I've been editing this page since February 2011; I was the one who made the infobox image; I've probably devoted several dozen hours to editing on this article alone. So please don't presume to tell me I haven't added the sources, because I did that like a year ago -- long before you were editing here, at least under your current username. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but what? You can't just run French or whatever your first language is through Babelfish and then post it here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's very clear you are going to ignore the majority of sources in favor of using a single isolated report and some nonsense from Russian state media to revise history everywhere you can on this website to make Muammar Gaddafi look like something other than the child-murdering, torture-mongering, terrorist thug he was. And I will never allow that, because revisionist history like yours does a grave disservice to the truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough already I have placed an RFC tag at the top here to gain more of a consensus, this edit warring though is not solving anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!" Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, Lothar von Richthofen is one of the editors who have made my contribution to this article practically impossible as you can see above. This editor does not seem to find any problem whatsoever with the article and had reverted my edit and kept pushing their opinions during the discussion with no reliable resources to support their position (see above). They also made wrong assertions that Black Libyans were not the subject of attacks when the reliable sources I have cited above contradicts that claim. Both Lothar and another editor (see above) are obviously very close to this article, perhaps too close, hence they cannot see the problems with objective eyes. Honestly, I was thinking about translating the corresponding articles which are more neutral per the sources, but I was not going to spend my time doing all that work to have it reverted by two editors with a mission to promote their POV. I think WP:OWN is a major problem here.Tamsier (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Contributions"? "Contributions"??? I outlined the history of these so-called "contributions" of yours above. You have made zero effort to improve the article yourself, instead demanding that others "fix it" for you, then lashing out when they do not comply with said demands. Your "edit" that you complain about me reverting was nothing more than a WP:POINTy attempt to get people to insert information for you. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Spare us. Your "contribution to this article" has been to slap on a few tags, blank the section a couple of times, and issue ultimatums in your edit summaries to try to bully other editors. If you have information you want to add, then add it yourself. If you think specific pieces of information or specific sources are not noteworthy or reliable and you want to remove them, bring them up specifically on the Talk page and explain what you think is wrong with them. That's how this discussion ought to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been many media reports that Gaddafi hired mercenaries from "subsaharan africa" to fight on his side.Curb Chain (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If User:Tamsier feels that his position should be advanced, he can discuss his position, introducing the prose in the article.  The opposing position as he claims is advanced by the opposition can be discussed as well in like manner.Curb Chain (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that the user that is taking issue still has not added sources to balance things out and continues to push for the removal of the section, there are sourced accounts on mercenaries being used by Gaddafi. I hope this isnt a case of WP:COI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tuaregs returning from Libya into Mali began a civil war there. Please don't claim ludicrous statements about there being no foreign mercenaries when tauregs in Mali confirmed their involvement en masse in the libyan civil war. Zenithfel (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, Kudzu1 was the other disruptive editor who removed the initial tags whilst failing to address the the issues I have raised in the talk page until I issued them a warning . Like Lothar,  - the problem is WP:OWN.  With no regard for Wiki policy, Kudzu1 seems to think he can "go on editing as" he "please"[s]  (see above).
 * @ Curb Chain : Yes there has been coverage of "mercenaries" in the media. But the international organizations who carried out detailed investigations of these so called "mercenaries" from Black Africa found no evidence to substantiate that claim. Instead, they found mass killing of native Black Libyans and immigrants based on racism -.Human rights investigations - Amnesty International [in] : The Independent and NPR - BBC - United Nations Human Rights Council : . I can go on, and on, and on. According to these organizations, there were no such mercenaries from Black Africa. Amnesty International describe it as a "myth". A believe in the myth according to these sources were pivotal for the massacres of the Black natives and immigrants. A myth circulate from "command level". Contrary to what some may think, I am in no way opposing its inclusion. Indeed, I believe it should be include because it is notable. However, it should be presented in accordance with the neutrality policy, weight and reliable sources.
 * @ Knowledgekid87 : Would you be so kind to expand on which user you are referring to? I hope it is not me. But if its, again, I have no intention of decapitating that section from the body of the article, because I believe it is notable. As for sources, I was the only one who kept adding sources throughout the discussion above, whilst others voiced unsubstantiated opinions (see asbove). Further, why should I fix somebody else's POV when they have made it a mission to advance their POV no matter what? Why should I go through the trouble of finding sources, re-writing sections to have it reverted by 2 determined POV pushers? I am not nuts. Besides I've got other things to do than having to babysit two agressive POV pushers.Tamsier (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly invited you to introduce content to the page and bring up specific parts of the article you believe should be removed or reworked on the Talk page. You have outright refused to do so. The proper use of tags is not to drop them onto the page, then go to the Talk page later on in the day to make some general complaint. Be specific and be bold. Although I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that you're here in good faith, considering your refusal to contribute to the article itself beyond adding tags and blanking sections. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it would be constructive if we talked about what's wrong with the page, not what's wrong with each other. It's much more constructive that way. --Yalens (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In the view of the initiator this RfC, it would seem that what's wrong with the page is other editors—editors who won't add "his" information in for him. He claims that it's because Kudzu and I are some nasty POV-pushers who will instantaneously revert him. But if you look at the first edit he made, he slapped tags on the article demanding that others fix the problem. He did not show any desire in adding content himself from the start. This self-victimising line about how evil Kudzu and Lothar are just going to revert his changes is baseless—he never once added any meaningful content to the page to revert. With the WP:SPIDERMAN-ish removal of the entire section from the article, he took WP:HOSTAGE to a whole new level—instead of using POV tags to make other editors do bend to his demands, he disruptively blanks the entire section to force his "opponents" to act. I have absolutely no idea why Tamsier thought that was even a remotely acceptable or mature way of going about resolving a dispute. This RfC is just him continuing to throw his toys out of the pram. He laments about how Kudzu and I WP:OWN the article, then he turns around and says "until I see something more productive" and "Add this section back after you have fixed the POV" as if he had usurped the role of "boss" here. If Tamsier can show that he is actually capable of working proactively and in good faith to solve the perceived problem by adding balancing prose into the article himself, then I think that this will become much more "productive". Otherwise, I'm not going to bend over backwards for an editor user who can't be bothered to take any action to "fix" the problem himself. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that his criticisms of you and Kudzu1 are largely unfair. However, the reason we revert him on the page isn't his unfair accusations that you two have some agenda. Let me affirm that I view Kudzu and Lothar as respected editors here, and the view that they are some sort of POV warrior isn't shared by me or anyone else here pretty much. I just don't think its constructive at all to continue this argument about who is to blame for the argument going on here, as it doesn't accomplish anything. Back on topic: I have read the sources Tamsier posted. While there is plenty of evidence that many blacks who weren't mercenaries were incorrectly accused of being mercenaries and evicted or killed because of it, this piece of info is in fact already on the page. The other claims brought up here, that the whole the existence of Sub-Saharan origin mercenaries in the conflict is a "myth", however, is completely unsupported. In fact, some of the sources that Tamsier posted, like this one [] actually affirm the opposite, that the mercenaries DID participate in the conflict, as our well-sourced section on the page describes as well. Furthermore, unless Tamsier is using "native Libyan blacks" to mean something else, I couldn't even find mention of Toubou being labeled as mercenaries none of the sources Tamsier posted. So unless when Tamsier says "native Libyan blacks" he means, say, children of migrant workers, or something else, that claim is also unfounded. I have seen stories in the past about how Libyan Tuaregs were accused of being mercenaries, but not only was it true that many Tuaregs fought for Gaddafi, the Tuaregs usually identify themselves as "mixed" if black at all, and they are usually thought of (by Libyans, by Sub-Saharans, and by themselves) as being a culturally/ethnically "North Saharan" (i.e. like Libyan Arabs and other Libyan Berbers). The backlash against groups that were perceived to have taken Gaddafi's side also effected many other groups- for example, early in the conflict, when Turkey had been on the side opposing the no-fly zone, Erdogan was subjected to various forms of verbal abuse when he visited Benghazi because he was perceived by Libyans to be pro-Gaddafi (at this point, it seems that they have adopted a more favorable view of Turkey, thanks to his change in position). In summary, the claims that the page is hugely inaccurate and biased on this issue are for the most part unsubstantiated, at least at this point. There have been many unfair persecutions of blacks because of claims about mercenaries, but the page already says that I believe. In my view, that should be what we are saying- or at least that's what I'm saying (and I believe you both agree with me). --Yalens (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hip Hop
This article is hilarious with its "Hip Hop" section being bigger than some of the actual important details of this conflict. Wiki, you have become a parody of yourself. lol

Used to just be a lurker and laugher, coverage, comment, and censorship of this got me to make an account. Wikipedia has always been a self-parody, it isn't going to stop now, a lot more government and similar actors have become involved. Gets worse with interested parties like them deleting posts like mine below, note, I didn't even try to change the article, just made a comment on the discussion page, but even that had to be censored on Wikipedia now.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Censorship".  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures
Why are all the images on this page anti-Gaddafi? I thought this was supposed to be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Than good luck in obtaining free-licence pictures from pro-G rallies in Libya. Carry on. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that the campaign succeeded in putting a bunch of nutcases (yeah, seemingly nuttier than Ghadaffi, look at the manner of his death and what's happened since, oddly not covered in the article and the way it's controlled, not worth trying to put in) into power.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing unusual about the manner of his death, really. Pretty standard for cases in which leaders fall into the hands of those among their people who like them least. Cf. Benito Mussolini on a meathook oops no face. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice comment, and there is an Italian connection too, but it seems to have been really gratuitous in this case, yeah, know my history, don't need to click on wikilinks.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Very Ugly Murder of Ghadaffi
Despite numerous sources having reported the gruesome details, the article doesn't contain any details on the extremely barbaric treatment of Ghadaffi (whichever spelling you favour) at the end. His son Saif appears also to have suffered unusual barbarity (having had all of his fingers severed or similar, although we don't have any clear descriptions of the chain of events leading up to that, rather secret and all).

Ghaddafi may well have had delusions of grandeur, but among those responsible for death and ill-treatment of people by state actors in recent years, he was a very small-time player. Tried to help other countries in Africa, played ball with the EU, even in CIA fact books just before and even after the air raids back in the '80s and '90s, you will see Libya rated as second only to South Africa for per capita GDP in Africa, and top for relative evenness of income distribution. Retained mass support until the outside interference (particularly aerial bombardment) became overwhelming.

Would the gatekeepers of this article object to a subsection describing the death of Ghaddafi in detail and drawn from what they would consider reliable sources? A section headed 'blowback in Mali' would also be most appropriate given the mess the whole intervention seems to have made in the north of that country. Can only suppose the gatekeepers would block any attempt at including accounts of those things, even if from 'reliable sources' by wikipedia standards.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See Death of Muammar Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling it the Libyan civil war is nonsense
Looking at the suffering and brutality, "The Successful Destabilization of Libya with Mass Murder and Access to Formerly Nationalized Oil Resources as Bonuses" might be right, since that is precisely how it progressed. That is too emotional, so,

"The Destabilization and Overthrow of the Libyan Government from 2010 to 2011" would really be accurate and worthy of an encyclopedia.

2010 is probably too late a date, the process probably started when the then Libyan government gave up all of its progress on nuclear weapons in the expectation of better treatment from the US government.

A civil war is a war within a country. This was not, a variety of external aggressors took part, from NATO to other Arab states. Likewise, there was a one-sided supply of weapons to the anti-government forces. In the same sense, there is no way to define it as a revolution. Lenin, for example, had no help before he started one except for the German high command putting him on a train to Finland and then depositing him in Russia as a kind of human bomb. After he'd mounted the coup d'etat in Petersburg, there was no foreign intervention to put him into power. Quite the opposite.

Sure, some French people assisted the American revolution, but it wasn't a sustained process of trying to tip something over, like this Libyan case, also had to do with lingering resentments over what is now Canada.

There is no sense of either a civil war or a revolution in this case, ample sources confirm that external players were very active: severe aerial bombardment (NATO), "special forces" (British, French and U.S. at least, also perhaps Arabs from further east) murdering people, and secret agencies acting in paramilitary roles (the roles of the CIA and MI6 in particular are well documented, several of the anti-Libya Arab kingdoms and emirates took part as well, but that is generally obscured).

The title is simply wrong, it wasn't a civil war, there was an externally coordinated and supported overthrow of an existing government, legitimate or not, to toss the place into total confusion.

If you want to call it a civil war, a good analogy would be the period leading up to the Nazi invasion of the Sudetenland. Nobody calls that 'the Sudeten civil war', the Nazis didn't even do that (call it that), and in that period (and in the former Czech Republic until the end of the war, despite atrocities), there was nothing on the same scale as the suffering caused by the externally induced tipping over of the Libyan government.

Princesstwinset (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, hope every other editor will read this post and make some similar decision. Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Clarificationgiven, but you also seem to have been silenced on this.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks at least for allowing a comment in good faith to stand. Deletion of a polite comment in the first place runs against what wikipedia claims to be, let alone an 'an encyclopedia anyone can edit', sure I would have been expelled if I'd tried to change one word in the article.Princesstwinset (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * . Have you ever considered that there might be other reasons for us not taking these claims seriously besides being NATO propagandists? 48Lugur (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the Gold Dinar theory?
There's a theory that the Gold Dinar is a major reason why the U.S. got involved. Russia Today (albeit, a state-sponsored, and thus, questionable source) gave the green light to run this story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

It seems to be a somewhat popular theory; it's possibly worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.106.231 (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks WP:FRINGE to me. I don't buy any "theories" that RT sells, seeing as how they devote a significant amount of time to NWO crap. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.benzinga.com/news/events/11/05/1101980/theory-libya-attacked-by-us-for-its-gold-reserves


 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/gadhafi-sold-20-percent-libyas-gold-salaries-uprising_n_953552.html


 * http://investmentwatchblog.com/has-the-un%E2%80%99s-intervention-in-libya-been-about-the-libyan-gold-dinar-mexico-central-bank-buys-gold/


 * There's lots of evidence supporting the theory. I am not necessarily condoning it, but the fact that there is significant media coverage makes me believe there should at least be some mention of it in the article.DaltonCastle (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First source is an opinion piece by a staff writer of an obscure "financial news" site. Hardly WP:RS material. Second source talks about Libyan gold, but not this "theory". No dice. The third is an even sketchier "financial news" blog copy-pasting this post from a blogspot blog. Double-failure for WP:RS. You'll have to do a lot better than that if you're going to demonstrate "significant media coverage".... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Disarmament
Should some section in the after math be added about specific disarming of militia groups? It is an event currently being implemented and is receiving some attention from the media. It is a pretty significant piece of information since it results in stabilizing the nation after most of the action has ended.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19744593

There's a lot more than just this. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This should probably be included in the "Aftermath" section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Libyan civil war → Libyan revolution – Six months ago, we decided to wait six months and then come back and re-visit the naming of this article based on what WP:COMMONNAME the sources have settled on. Below are Google news search results for the past month: So the sources are calling it "revolution", not "civil war". This is not surprising since by definition, a revolution is "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed." Moreover, the fact that there were fighting and a large death toll does not alter this reasoning. In the French revolution, there were hundreds of thousands killed, but it is not called a civil war. In conclusion, the name should be changed to “Libyan revolution” per WP:COMMONNAME. Tradedia (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Results for "Libyan revolution": 1,260
 * Results for "Libyan civil war": 139
 * You have got to be kidding me -Just... no. The whole point of the lower case "civil war" was that sources were mentioning a civil war in Libya, but don't call it the "Libyan Civil War" as if it's a proper noun.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you include all article with the words libyan civil war, you get 16,800 results. That is clearly used more often. Jeancey (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not convinced that any "settling" has occurred. I'm waiting for scholarship, not journalism. Seems I forgot to propose the moratorium extension.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. If sources call it a revolution, we should call it a revolution. In addition to the Gnews results, over on Google Books I get 11900 hits for "libyan revolution" versus 1330 for "libyan civil war". (Be careful to exclude older sources which may occasionally use similar language for events around the 1969 coup). bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue with searching for "libyan revolution" vs "libyan civil war" is that the conflict isn't always referred to in that order. Often it is "civil war in Libya" or "Libya's civil war."  Your search wouldn't find those. Jeancey (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The number of sources describing the 1969 events is pretty high, making those results meaningless:       . There's more to naming than raw search results. For example, "libyan revolution" 2011 -wikipedia" yields only 441 results (sources referring to Gaddafi's "revolution" are still not fully winnowed out:    ), while "libyan civil war" 2011 -wikipedia yields a very close 418 results. Google Scholar results are similarly inconclusive: 289 for "libyan revolution" 2011, 221 for "libyan civil war" 2011.  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose The scope of your search is very narrow, overall the term "Civil War" is used more, also google is dubious as you have to nit pick reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not again Otherwise per Lothars arguments. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA nomination?
This article seems to be pretty stable now. Anyone think that it can pass a good article review? If not, what still needs to be done?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing this somewhere, but I think you are supposed to wait something like 2 years after a major event to nominate it, in order to get books and other info that takes time to publish. On a related note, I nominated the Chadian-Libyan conflict recently. Other than that, I would support it. Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if that's not a hard-and-fast rule necessarily, I think it's still a good one to follow—especially considering that a even a formal, proper name hasn't been decided on for the conflict. It's been only a year, and we need to give time for high-quality scholarly sources to describe the event in detail. The end process may involve rewriting significant if not major parts of the article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not always the case. This good article Mass Effect 2: Arrival concerns a product released in 2011. Plus there's already books: . Besides, who needs books when we have plenty of good online sources about the topic, such as Britannica: . Looks like scholarly material to me.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, you can't compare a video game to a conflict that claimed upwards of 30,000 lives and polarised global opinion. When I say "reliable sources", I'm referring to works by reputable scholars, either in published (by a reputable publisher) and reviewed books or in peer-reviewed journals. The first link is to a book literally copied from Wikipedia ("High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!"), and I'm inclined to say the same about the second, given the peculiarly non-field-specific breadth of things that he's "written" about. Britannica alone isn't going to fly. I'm not sure you understand exactly how to identify reliable sources—have a look through the articles here to get an idea. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This just in: Edward R. Miller-Jones confirmed  for straight-from-Wikipedia "book editor".  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. That was failure on my part, should have done a bit more research. Nevertheless, how about these:   . Are they scholarly enough for you? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me say that that game was awesome. Second, good source but still only one. I think we´d need more sources, properly published for that. Maybe waiting another few months, there must be some books being written about the Arab Spring with chapters regarding Libya included. Those can be used later as a rationale for GA. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Source looks fine, and probably should be worked in. Nevertheless, it's but one source. But I'd still give it at least a year for both a decent base of scholarship to emerge, as well as for the legacy of the conflict to be more clear. Given that there's still aftershocks going through the country (e.g. events in Bani Walid), I think it's still too early. Remember that there is no WP:DEADLINE—sometimes it's good to have patience and wait. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you guys have very high standards, but I'm asking to make this article a GA, not a FA. Oh well, I guess I can wait. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

EU and the Hungarian Embassy
Hello all, I would like to make a small edit to this page. I haven't found anything about the Hungarian embassy in this article. It's a side story but when the war started, the EU states withdrew their diplomatic staff from the country. As Hungary held the presidency of the Council of the European Union that time, and only the Hungarian embassy remained functional in Lybia (Functional... Can an embassy be functional? Or open? Or active?) this embassy served as the embassy of the whole European Union throughout the war. I'm not sure on the details, it's just what I heard, I will check the validity of the information and the details, look up some sources then I am planning on writing an extra two or three sentences about it in the article. I just wanted to let you all know before I do it. StarOfFlames (talk) 18:00, 08 November 2012 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.226.198 (talk)

The war started on 15 February, not 17th
The clashes began on 15 February, not 17th The rebellion in Benghazi was the cradle of the revolution Beginnings 15th February 17th in Tripoli February. -- Baba Mica, 12:14, 31 January 2013
 * Yeah, that's what the infobox is supposed to say, but people keep changing it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaddafi's execution
Vast majority of sources, accounts and proofs (from both Libyan sides and foreign sides) show that Muammar Gaddafi and his son Mutassim were executed after being detained. Still, some users surprisingly (at least for me) maintain that the Killed in action banner must be maintained, although it is only applicable to people who died in the battlefield or by wounds inflicted on the battlefield. As both Muammar & Mutassim were detained and disarmed alive, and posterior footage of their corpses show wounds not present on their detention, it is very clear that they had been executed.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PD. More or less, same happens with General Younis on the other side, he had been executed after being detained, not killed in action.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind linking your sources so I can take a look at them? Just 2-4 should be sufficient for me to get a general idea. Jeancey (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaders in infobox
So I was looking through the documentation, and the template docs state that ranks and titles should be omitted from the infobox. I have done this, since it was on both sides of the conflict and seems to not push any sort of POV at all. However, I would like to discuss another point on the documentation, which is that only actual military leaders should be included in the infobox, with an upper limit of around 7 per combatant listed (this is a recommendation however, not a rule). I would propose that we remove those names who are not actual military commanders, such as heads of state (for the supporting countries), The government's spokesman, former prime ministers, Those of Gaddafi's sons who did not hold a military rank (I think Saadi is the only one who did not hold a rank, but he may have, and I might be incorrect in that statement), and those of the NTC who did not hold direct military positions (with the exception of the head of the NTC as the nominal "leader" of the opposition). What are everyones thoughts on this? This infobox is already massive, I am just looking to cut down on it a little. Jeancey (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, including Gaddafi's spokesman as "commander" is just ridiculous, its like making Baghdad Bob a commander to Iraqi war. For NTC I would include Jalil(overall political leader), El-Hariri, al-Digheily, Younis, Mahmoud + al-Attiyah(Qatar) + Bouchard(NATO). Gaddafi side is a bit harder, my suggestion would be: Muammar G., 4-5 sons (depending if you include Saif), Jabr and possibly Abdelhafid, al-Arabi. Also I would remove separations "Muammar Gaddafi's sons:" and "Military leaders:" as Gaddafi's sons are relevant in infobox exactly because they were also military leaders.--Staberinde (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox is far too cluttered with people. This isn't the a massive conflict where there many commanders all important enough to be there. There is no need to have so many people listed. It defeats the purpose of the infobox, which is to provide a brief overview.D2306 (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to Libyan Revolution (2013)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think it would make much more sense to name the article the Libyan Revolution. It fits all of the criteria for a revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyGeorge (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could cite the "criteria for a revolution"? I think as a general rule, revolutions don't have the mightiest air force in the world backing them up.  In any event, it looks like there's a real civil war brewing in Libya today, at least in the sense that the central government cannot maintain order.  Son of eugene (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * More to the point, can you cite a preponderance of reliable sources that refer to it as such? We don't care at all if some editor thinks that the conflict fits X, Y, and Z criteria to be called a "revolution". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think "Revolution" is more acurate in that it was a popular uprising, which is the definition of a revolution, and it was always referred to as a revolution by the media. Charles Essie (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There are people who also think the moon landing was a fake, unless you have reliable sources to disprove the title "Civil war" then your arguement is useless. Please read WP:COMMONNAME. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How about Vice (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7heWIuEJcS4), or CNN (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jINaEYVCk0U). Charles Essie (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is rather strange that this is referred to as a civil war, whereas the events in Egypt are referred to as revolution. The events in Egypt amount at most to a soft coup, since the army remains its preeminent position in Egyptian society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.5.64.142 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been saying, this was a revolution, if you think about there's really no difference betweem what happened in Libya in 2011 compared to what happened in Cuba in 1959 or Nicaragua in 1979, however, I think Libyan Revolution of 2011 might be a better title (in order to distinguish it from the 1969 Libyan coup d'état). Charles Essie (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, among other things, if you want a detailed look at the past discussions please read the archives and the list of move discussions up top in the box here. I know this move has been requested multiple times and debated many as well, nothing has changed source-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pre post civil war comparison section
I know there were huge services for the people pre civil war. Now its chaos. http://rt.com/news/libya-gaddafi-fall-anniversary-981/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. Perhaps it could be part of the 'aftermath' sections.  (For example, there are references in the article as it stands to the per capita income under Gadaffi, so having some discussion of the income, education, and other standard-of-living measurements post-war would surely be more NPOV.) Son of eugene (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (November 2013)

 * 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: Move. The rough consensus is that this is a proper name for a specific event and thus should be capitalized. Cúchullain t/ c 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Libyan civil war → Libyan Civil War – Almost all "Civil War" articles and other historical event articles are capitalized, you never see World War II spelled World war ii. Charles Essie (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This describes a particular historical event, not all civil wars that took place in Libya or were of a Libyan character. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - See the previous discussions. Repeating refuted arguments is not going to help.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm making a different arguement this time, citing a past discussion with a different argurment does not discredit mine, come up with a real arguement and let's discuss it. Charles Essie (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, yours is really just one of the many arguments previously discussed ad nauseam throughout the discussions. Here and here are two places in particular. Word to the wise: talk archives are searchable. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per BDD. --Article editor (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per BDD. Its a singular event - in effect, a name - so should be capitalised. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Boston Marathon bombings is a singular event, yet "bombings" is not capitalized.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be though. Charles Essie (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. No evidence shown that a preponderance of sources outside of Wikipedia think so. We're not trend-setters, we're trend-followers. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if that "trend" is standard English capitalization? --BDD (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, if it's so "standard", I do wonder why so many big-name organisations don't follow it.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the "trend" is capitalization for historical "Civil Wars", the Libyan Civil War is not yet capitalized by many because it was recent history, in time that always changes, for example CNN has already started capitalizing it (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/world/libya-civil-war-fast-facts/). Charles Essie (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not disputing that such a trend could exist, just not sure if it's so far advanced that we could declare it as such. Remember—there are other monikers that this conflict has picked up, like "Libyan u/Uprising" and "Libyan r/Revolution". Does "Libyan Civil War" really trump all other options? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, I'd suggest that we go ahead with the move, and discuss it further afterword. Charles Essie (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is needed before a move, not after. I'm not seeing evidence that "Libyan Civil War" is widely used.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. It's a proper noun and should be capitalized according to standard English capitalization rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, one wonders where these "standard rules" have been in all the coverage and analysis of the conflict... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME does not aply to capitalization, "Libyan Civil War" is a proper noun, and those are always capitalized, (see Naming conventions (capitalization)). Charles Essie (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong support as per, well ... English. Red Slash 06:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot arguments for why "particular historical events" need to have capitalized titles, especially when sources don't capitalize it. (ex: Fox News: "more than 11,000 children have been killed during the ongoing Syrian civil war.") Boston Marathon bombings, 2011 Norway attacks, 1998 United States embassy bombings, M23 rebellion, Papua conflict, Balochistan conflict, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Kashmir conflict, Casamance conflict. Kurdish–Turkish conflict, Sinai insurgency, Northern Mali conflict, Fatah–Hamas conflict, Russia–Georgia war, Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict, South Thailand insurgency, Moro insurgency in the Philippines are all particular historical events. Yet their titles are not capitalized. There's no evidence that Syrian civil war is a proper noun. It "Syrian Civil War" becomes used in the future then we will change it in the future. Wikipedia follows what RS say. We are trend-followers, not trend starters.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014
The first sentence says that the conflict took place in 2009. It actually took place in 2011.

DaKardii (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Ansh666 01:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
Legacy: >> Libya anniversary: Protests and progress(Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)).

Requested Move to Libyan Revolution (May 2014)

 * 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: Not moved. There's no consensus to do so at this time  Calidum  Talk To Me 23:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War → Libyan Revolution – Google returns 7,270,000 results (0.29 seconds) for "Libyan Revolution" and 4,820,000 results (0.46 seconds) for "Libyan Civil War." On Amazon Books, there are 429 results for "libyan revolution" and 326 results for "libyan civil war." While it seems that during 2011, most sources referred to the conflict as a civil war, in hindsight it seems to dominantly referred to as a revolution, including the most famous narrative of the revolution (Exit the Colonel: The Hidden History of the Libyan Revolution). In fact, the most prominent source that prefers Civil War over Revolution appears to be Wikipedia itself. Plumber (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as a revolution is when a government is overthrown and a civil war is when a country is split in two. This was an instance of the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynn58 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The overthrow of the Kingdom and establishment of the Republic was a revolution. This should have a year attached to it if you want to also call it revolution. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this must the 50th time this article is requested to be moved to *Revolution*. Many google results for "Libyan Revolution" actually refer to the 1969 military coup. Also excluding wikipedia, Google returns 44,000 for Libyan Revolution and 116,000 for Libyan civil war, so no. --Tachfin (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing has changed since the discussion held back in 2012. Also please read WP:GYNOT, google hits are only valid if things are taken into consideration. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - google book search indicates that reliable sources prefer "civil war" for 2011 event: 2740 vs 1480.--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

NATO and co involvement section
I'm proposing adding a section especially dedicated to describing the UNSC resolution enforcement by NATO forces and allies. I think it's important as this involvement changed the course of the war. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.195.188 (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's important, but you can expect a lot of resistance to your proposal by some editors who are determined to radically understate Nato's influence on the outcome of the so-called "revolution". 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya vs. Gaddafi regime
In the infobox of this article, the combatant whose flag is a green rectangle (for lack of a less NPOV term, hah) has been "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", with a link to History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, presumably since the beginning of the article (the old Template:Infobox uprising has been deleted). Recently, it has been changed and edit-warred over to Gaddafi regime, which multiple editors (me, Anime, Drmies, and an IP-hopper) have labelled as a WP:POV violation. Can this be interpreted as consensus for "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"? 6 an 6 sh 6 07:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:POVNAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.32.229 (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, WP:POVNAME refers to article titles only. 6 an 6 sh 6 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as an issue now, the name Gaddafi regime does violate WP:NPOV and therefore has been reverted back to "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Only not an issue because of semi-protection. Proving consensus here makes it easier to deal with future disruption, apparently.
 * By the way, the most recent discussion at Talk:National Transitional Council may be of interest as well. 6 an 6 sh 6 19:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is how Gaddafi Regime "violates" WP:NPOV:

Naming

''In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed''. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.32.219 (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Having no objections raised against WP:NPOV and thus already made a consensus, the term Libyan Arab Jamarihiya shall be replaced by Gaddafi Regime by virtue of WP:NPOV, WP:POVNAMING. and WP:POVNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.58.73 (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's already been pointed out multiple times by multiple people in multiple places why that is wrong. Ever read WP:CONSENSUS? 6 an 6 sh 6 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is right and it is only you who says its wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.45.76 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then who said "I don't see it as an issue now, the name Gaddafi regime does violate WP:NPOV and therefore has been reverted back to 'Libyan Arab Jamahiriya'" above? And why does everyone keep reverting it to that? 6 an 6 sh 6 20:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone. Wikipedia rules should be followed first. Not yours. Not even others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.206 (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * How come the word "Socialist" is improperly missing from "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"? The correct name, as most informed people know, is: "Libyan Socialist Arab Jamahiriya". 41.134.206.2 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to be specific, it's Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This is typically shortened to "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" (or even sometimes "Libyan Jamahiriya"), which itself is clunky enough, but is what most sources use. Ansh666 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not an issue. The issue here is that how naming should reflect Libyan history and how others would understand its meaning and context. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is certainly meaningless for non-Libyan readers to reference it to the civil war. Using search engines with that name would not even yield results in relation with the conflict. This shows how Ansh666 is certainly wrong and rules in Wikipedia is definitely right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.23.249 (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that shows anything... Ansh666 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Try Google your favorite words, and you won't find anything related to the civil war. If you try "Gaddafi regime" instead, you will see civil war content. This is because international journalists would like referring "Gaddafi regime" to the ruling government before the civil war started, and even after. You yourself violated WP:NPOV because in your part including pro-Gaddafi loyalists, you would refer "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya". BBC, CNN, Encyclopædia Britannica, The Huffington Post would instead refer the Libyan government to "Gaddafi Regime". You aren't giving due weight to those credible resources because of your bias. You don't even read the entire NPOV ruling before posting it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.12.232 (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, or any other name that requires the use of a "common name" outside of an article title. (Also, indent your posts, per WP:THREAD.) Ansh666 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Read it again. Naming a topic is not limited to just "article titles." WP:NPOV and WP:MOS is not limited too in "article titles". Better read those rules first before you cite. WP:POVNAME says that "Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that 'name' as its article title" therefore, the common name used by international journalists refer to the ruling government of Gaddafi in Libya before and during the civil war can be even used as an article title itself! The "regime" in the common name is acceptable. This is true in Quisling regime.


 * Can you point to a specific sentence or paragraph in either WP:NPOV or the entire manual of style that backs up what you've said? Note that at the top of the WP:POVNAMING section is See article titling policy for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article., and WP:POVNAME is a part of Article titles.
 * Quisling regime is rather different, as it was one of several unrecognized puppet governments of the Nazis, as opposed to the Norwegian government-in-exile. Gaddafi's government, on the other hand, was recognized as the legitimate government of Libya by the UN and the vast majority of the world from less than a week after Gaddafi's coup until well after the formation of the NTC. Even as such, the infobox states its name as Nasjonale regjering, not "Quisling regime" - infoboxes should generally have official names. Ansh666 17:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you notice there is a hyperlink on the statement you copy-pasted? And yes WP:POVNAME is a part of Article titles! In fact, if you read the section, it describes the guidelines on how article titles should be named as "evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". Good to read that you are using "Gaddafi government" and not that great socialist long jarmarahiyya blah blah POV name whatever. Gaddafi regime/government/rule/period is not only recognized by UN, it is also recognized by international journalists as well. Quisling regime is a recognized common name.
 * "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" - WP:COMMONNAME
 * "infoboxes should generally have official names" - not even a rule!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.55.137 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the name of the policy WP:COMMONNAME links to? Ansh666 17:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your question reflects on how you can't comprehend what WP:COMMONNAME policy means, or you are not just reading the policy that's why you need to ask those stupid questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.162 (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to help you through a thought process here. Just answer the question, and see if you can figure out why I asked it. Ansh666 04:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't need your help. You should help yourself by education yourself regarding Wikipedia's policies especially regarding POV's. Your point of view is no match for international journalists and Libyans as well. Anyhow, just click on that link you've ask and read it first before asking silly questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.52.61 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, fine, I'll answer it for you. It's WP:Article titles. Titles. Doesn't apply to anything other than article titles. Are you even reading anything I write? Ansh666 18:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, most people I've talked to on Wikipedia seem to think that "Gaddafi regime" is actually a POV term, as it marginalizes the fact that it was the legitimate government for decades before the civil war. The NTC was not widely legally recognized for the majority of the war. Ansh666 18:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles written in Wikipedia is not only composed of article titles. It seems that you did not read the contents of WP:COMMONNAME and just noticed the title of the page instead! I agree with other people you've talk to about "Gaddafi regime" or "Gaddafi government" being a POV term at some point, but not all the times. Anyhow, it just proves that it conforms to WP:POVNAME. Again, its the POV of international journalists will prevail, not Wikipedia users WP:DUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.52.61 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, then point to a specific paragraph or sentence in WP:Article titles which does not talk about article titles. You also seem to have misinterpreted WP:NPOV: we do not simply adopt "the POV of international journalists", we strive to maintain a neutral point of view. Ansh666 17:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

International journalists provide the most neutral point of view since that is their job and profession. You are just a student and not a journalist so you can't even assert that your point of view is better than theirs. There are lots of insights that Wikipedia doesn't talk about article titles ONLY in that page. An example is very clear: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" in WP:COMMONNAME "which does not talk about article titles" exclusively. Maybe you should ask yourself, are those rules in WP:Article titles prohibit applying them the use outside for article titles exclusively? Or they are prerequisite rules in Wikipedia already present to use for creating article titles.

Don't be desperate enough to use elementary logic to prove you are right. You should accept Wikipedia policies in their context not because they belong to one article. And finally, the neutral point of view coming from international journalists and observers are far more better than your point of view.

If you have read WP:Article titles, then you should be aware of this:

This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based.


 * Ugh, I won't point out how many logical fallacies there are in that last comment, let alone the whole section. Anyways, this conversation is over. I will continue to monitor the page when semi-protection runs out, and your well-meaning but ill-informed edits will continue to be reverted by a multitude of editors, should you choose to persevere. Good day. Ansh666 05:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting your defeat. WP:COMMONNAME is only used for article titles exclusively because it belongs to WP:Article titles page while ignoring its context is a concrete example of a logical fallacy. Its only you and you anon who are reverting edits. Good day too. Hope you better read Wikipedia policies first because it puts yourself in shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.3.217 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Biased and inaccurate article
In its current state (2014-09-05), the article on the Libyan Civil War is biased and inaccurate on many points. Among other things, Ola Tunander's critical book on the war should be considered. He there describes, for example, that "the Arab Spring" in Tunisia has nothing in common with the war in Libya, the war initially fought with foreign participation on the rebel side, many reports that motivated the UN decision were false, crimes committed by the rebel side, and that resolution 1973 was misused. In addition, he explains the devastating consequences of the war for Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.199.145 (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested edit to "about" hatnote
The hatnote currently contains a link to "2014 Libyan Civil War", which redirects to the title of "2014 Libyan conflict". Presumably the hatnote should be changed to link directly to the latter title. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh666 19:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (October 2014)
There is currently a move proposal here that also affects this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2014 Libyan conflict which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2014 Libyan Civil War which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request on 1/20/2015
Requesting that User:112.206.3.217 and User:112.206.52.61 be blocked for edit warring and being rude. Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 21:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That's now what edit requests are for, nor how blocks are issued. See Edit requests and Blocking policy for more information. In any case, these IPs are dynamic and the user rotated off of them months ago. One last thing: per WP:TPG, please place new sections at the bottom of a talk page. ansh 666 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tripoli tapes disclosed
I'm not much into the topic of Libyan War but I'm pretty sure this article might be useful here: |Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war --Emesik (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Biased Pictures
the pictures are too pro rebels and pro nato, many people supported Qaddafi and also many civilians died thanks to nato bombings.--Crossswords (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no SINGLE picture of Qaddafi supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.25.163 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Syrian support for Gaddafi
I've been going back and forth on this for a few minutes, IP 86.129.187.78 added the following to the list of Gaddafi supporters:


 * Syria

I couldn't find any other mentions of this, and it's not really from a reliable source (if the article itself asserted the claim, I'd be fine with it, but it's quoted from a Libyan official). Thoughts? ansh 666 12:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Cause of Initial Protests
The Libyan Civil War (2011) article needs to be fixed in the Anti-Gaddafi Movement section, subsection Beginning of Protests.

The article suggests that the imprisonment of Jamal al-Hajji led to the protests that got the Libyan Revolution going. However, the article of Fathi Terbil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathi_Terbil) and the sources there suggest that protests over Terbil's imprisonment were the actual cause. Yet the Libyan Civil War (2011) page has no mention of Fathi Terbil.

The main source on that page is: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12477275

Thus, the Libyan Civil War (2011) article needs to be fixed in the Anti-Gaddafi Movement section, subsection Beginning of Protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:101:500:BCD5:AB99:10AB:442A (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Supported by"
Pointless addition in infobox. 6 countries already included as part of air strikes which is far more relevant involvement. Also sourcing there is totally subpar, mostly just allegations and rumors. And Iran's "three or four shipments of food and medicine to Benghazi" is extremely minor involvement, basically just a little humanitarian aid.--Staberinde (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You could equally add the UK as much as China as it was trying to sell arms to Gaddafi after Blair's rapprochement. Rwendland (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Real motives...
As per usual bombing for "peace" was never the real reason for the west's illegal war in Libya!

Excerpt from declassified DOS emails:

According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli. This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues: a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya's oil production, b. Increase French influence in North Africa, c. Improve his intemai political situation in France, d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

On another note, on what was commonly assumed to be a simple "popular uprising" was already being externally supported by (especially western), special operatives who were supplying and training these so-called "freedom" fighters:

"An extremely sensitive source added that the rebels are receiving direct assistance and training from a small number of Egyptian Special Forces units, while French and British Special Operations troops are working out of bases in Egypt, along the Libyan border. These troops are overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels."

Yet only a few paragraphs after this admission, caution is voiced about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of concern that, "radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command."

What were Hillary's famous words again? "We Came, We Saw, He Died!"

TRAJAN 117 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Libyan Civil War (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110322213900/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Article/201009115955467 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115955467
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110515162314/http://freedomhouse.org:80/images/File/fop/2011/FOTP2011GlobalRegionalTables.pdf to http://freedomhouse.org/images/File/fop/2011/FOTP2011GlobalRegionalTables.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110909082334/http://www.aslanmedia.com:80/music/306-music-artist-profile/3065-ibn-thabit-the-beat-behind-libyas-revolution to http://www.aslanmedia.com/music/306-music-artist-profile/3065-ibn-thabit-the-beat-behind-libyas-revolution
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110314133238/http://ntclibya.org:80/english/ to http://ntclibya.org/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

the Royal Canadian Air Force revisionist nonsense
I haven't visited this article for years and it has apparently been modified with heavy nationalist and revisionist bias: there was not any "Royal Canadian Air Force" aircraft present there in the initial days of the foreign intervention -the BBC mentioned then that "Canada is sending warplanes to the region"- and none "undertaking sorties across Libya" then (none of the two mentioned sources, BBC and CNN, are claiming so) yet they are unjustifiably mentioned as being part of that initial intervention in this article and another mentioned below, blatantly misleading the readers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensi.fr (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 one external links on Libyan Civil War (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121123033546/http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201107291140-pol-ren1034-last_libyan_mission_for_norway_s_f16s_to_fly_tomorrow to http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201107291140-pol-ren1034-last_libyan_mission_for_norway_s_f16s_to_fly_tomorrow
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003140217/http://www.defencenews.com.au/defence-today-feature-report.cfm to http://www.defencenews.com.au/defence-today-feature-report.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120615130129/http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/173542/reftab/96/t/Up-to-30000-killed-say-Libyans/Default.aspx to http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/173542/reftab/96/t/Up-to-30000-killed-say-Libyans/Default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110324053512/http://www.dawn.com:80/2011/03/19/libya-accuses-rebels-of-breaching-truce.html to http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/19/libya-accuses-rebels-of-breaching-truce.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110804224233/http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf to http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110322055904/http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/297407 to http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/297407
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719061055/http://www.mesop.de/2011/01/16/libya-protest-over-housing-enters-its-third-day/ to http://www.mesop.de/2011/01/16/libya-protest-over-housing-enters-its-third-day/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807191328/http://www.edmontonjournal.com:80/news/Pizza+delivery+service+caters+Libya+front+line+rebels/5044735/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Pizza+delivery+service+caters+Libya+front+line+rebels/5044735/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110227071313/http://www.skynewsbusiness.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=582519&vId= to http://www.skynewsbusiness.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=582519&vId=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130222112232/http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=5628 to http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=5628
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110305151207/http://www.allvoices.com:80/contributed-news/8300956-mercenaries-in-ambulances-killing-injured-libya to http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8300956-mercenaries-in-ambulances-killing-injured-libya
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110714024448/http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=14347 to http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=14347
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110301203758/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Libya-Soldiers-Were-Burned-Alive-By-Their-Own-Forces-For-Refusing-To-Fignt-Protesters/Article/201102415941510 to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Libya-Soldiers-Were-Burned-Alive-By-Their-Own-Forces-For-Refusing-To-Fignt-Protesters/Article/201102415941510
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110814063340/http://www.alo.rs:80/vesti/35945/Srpski_psi_rata_cuvaju_Gadafija to http://www.alo.rs/vesti/35945/Srpski_psi_rata_cuvaju_Gadafija
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111129124335/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-06/libyan-rebels-battle-qaddafi-s-forces-for-control-of-cities.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-06/libyan-rebels-battle-qaddafi-s-forces-for-control-of-cities.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721224156/http://www.ecrgroup.eu/Libyan%20Crown%20Prince%20speaks%20to%20EU%20Parliament-news-308.html to http://www.ecrgroup.eu/Libyan%20Crown%20Prince%20speaks%20to%20EU%20Parliament-news-308.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516041335/http://ejpress.org/article/news/germany/49710 to http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/germany/49710
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114073604/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/africa/25libya.htm to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/world/africa/25libya.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728152435/http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/71535-death-toll-in-libyan-popular-uprising-at-10000 to http://english.irib.ir/news/political/item/71535-death-toll-in-libyan-popular-uprising-at-10000
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110321125028/http://blogs.aljazeera.net:80/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-20-0 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-20-0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110507150720/http://www.ihh.org.tr:80/ihh-dan-libya-ya-insani-yardim-gemisi/en/ to http://www.ihh.org.tr/ihh-dan-libya-ya-insani-yardim-gemisi/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213211905/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/07/123403/african-women-say-rebels-raped.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/07/123403/african-women-say-rebels-raped.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Libyan Civil War (2011). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324215403/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-06/libyan-rebels-battle-qaddafi-s-forces-for-control-of-cities.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-06/libyan-rebels-battle-qaddafi-s-forces-for-control-of-cities.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Libyan civil war (2011). 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628190704/http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/24/worldupdates/2011-02-23T222628Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-550982-4&sec=Worldupdates to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/2/24/worldupdates/2011-02-23T222628Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-550982-4&sec=Worldupdates
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120202150903/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/elders-hold-talks-over-gaddafi-stronghold-2349971.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/elders-hold-talks-over-gaddafi-stronghold-2349971.html

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization
The Libyan Civil War is a proper noun. Title should reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:155C:A39A:F0CD:B06A (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Biased editing, pro-Qaddafi?
So, someone on May 21, 2016, edited something about "fascist insurrectionaries" and nuclear facilities. I don't have an account, and I am on my phone; could someone revert that? 107.77.227.67 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Awakening
on the Libyan Civil War 2014 page there is the section about the (Awakening Group)?? However there are no sources to confirm if its true or not, therefore should it be on the page? MohamedAhtash (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Ahtash (talk • contribs)

Failed link, number 286. Here is the same link recovered: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE7270JP20110616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.130.207.73 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options inquiry
Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options inquiry

The UK parliament released a report about the events leading up to the war in Libya that contradicts many of the claims made by this article. Since this source is much further removed from the events than the media articles that are cited, it should take precedence per Wikipedia's policy. <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"><font color="#FBB117">selfworm <font color="#FDD017">Talk ) 03:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Commanders
While I understand that some people may really want to add Clinton to commanders list, please just go back to editing Trump articles. Infobox commanders list should really never go over 10 people (template itself suggests 7 as max). Previous shorter list was agreed in 2013 and has stayed stable since then.--Staberinde (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Background section is muddled mess
The background section feels like it took two conflicting POVs and mixed them together without any context and spits out a bunch of statistics on top of everything. As a result the section just confuses the reader; there's a glut of extraneous facts and it doesn't do a good job of summarizing the lead-up to the war. I don't have the subject matter knowledge needed to attempt it, but if somebody can try to cut out the unnecessary fact-bombing it would make this article far more coherent. 24.163.50.144 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Libyan Civil War (2011). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110406/libya-rebels-and-pro-gadhafi-forces-matched-110406/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812035932/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41960775/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41960775
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/qaddafi-is-no-mubarak-overthrow-may-mean-descent-to-chaos-.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/10/22/fea02.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=24095
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenewsignificance.com/2011/06/22/top-five-arab-spring-hip-hop-songs/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Pizza%2Bdelivery%2Bservice%2Bcaters%2BLibya%2Bfront%2Bline%2Brebels/5044735/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/118924/20110304/libya.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-02/22/libya-gaddafi-bombs-protestors
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/world/20110221/162698818.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-22/libya-s-crown-prince-says-protesters-will-defy-brutal-forces-.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2011%2F2%2F24%2Fworldupdates%2F2011-02-23T222628Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-550982-4&sec=Worldupdates
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1621425.php/Protesters-defy-Gaddafi-as-international-pressure-mounts-1st-Lead
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ssrn.com/abstract%3D1988915

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan Civil War (2011). 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_print.html?id=4993607&sponsor=
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330072328/http://www.newshoursbd.com/english/2011/08/24/400-dead-2000-wounded-in-battle-for-tripoli-rebel-leader/ to http://www.newshoursbd.com/english/2011/08/24/400-dead-2000-wounded-in-battle-for-tripoli-rebel-leader/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libyan Civil War (2011). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926200332/http://www.freemuse.org/sw41490.asp to http://www.freemuse.org/sw41490.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811032915/http://www.migration-crisis.com/libya/ to http://migration-crisis.com/libya/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libyan Civil War (2011). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312051122/http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2056521,00.html to http://www.content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2056521,00.html
 * Added tag to http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201102219940/Libya-Politics/libyan-ambassador-in-belgium-head-of-mission-to-eu-resigns.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of new discussion
There is a discussion talking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of Discussion on Talk:War on terror
There is a discussion at Talk:War on terror about whether the 2011 US/foreign intervention in this civil war in Libya is part of the war on terror. Please join if you are interested. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Title
Should this title be lowercase like the Syrian civil war? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know that, too. This was renamed to the capitalised title in 2013, see . 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias
This article has numerous choices of words that come across as highly biased against Ghadafi. It reads like a CIA propaganda sheet. Oh, sorry, I forgot, that's what Wikipedia is to all intents and purposes...


 * If you believe this article violates NPOV, you need to be specific about the "numerous choices of words" that violate that policy. DifferenceTone (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Foreign support to rebel groups
I removed from the introduction a mention of "foreign support" to rebel groups, as the provided references do not support it.

There certainly was foreign support after the civil war erupted. Supporters include the UN that in turn mandated Nato to enforce a no-fly zone.

Was there foreign support even before that? Are there conflicting views about this?

Anyway, if foreign support would be mentioned in the introduction, the mention should be more specific, and be backed up by references.

Jussi Hirvi (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

DPRK
With regard to North Korean technology. It refers only to the supplies before the outbreak of war and the subsequent use of these weapons in 2011. Although maybe I missed something. If there is only pre-war time here, then it is necessary to remove the DPRK from the list of weapons supplier countries. DBatura (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Witherwingsblog.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Zimbabwe and Belarus?
Can someone please explain the rationale behind listing these countries as belligerents to a non-Russian-speaker? Thanks! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They were pro Gaddafi. Belarus basically just follows what Russia does, and Zimbabwe follows what China does Farbne (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to support this or is it just your personal opinion? - wolf  08:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0830/Zimbabwe-expels-Libyan-ambassador-after-switch-of-allegiance-to-rebels

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-zimbabwe/gaddafi-mugabe-want-federal-government-for-africa-idUSL143127320070614

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8432996/Libya-Belarus-mercenary-paid-1900-a-month-to-help-Gaddafi-forces.html Farbne (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Why you don't include Zimbabwe? Their 5th brigade participated in conflict Пале (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. FDW777 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Took long to remove it, but finally I have removed it. Infobox should not include highly dubious information. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Al Bayda caricatures of Gadafi.JPG

Requested move 17 July 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; editors agree that the current title is inappropriate, but disagree - or have no opinion - on what title would be appropriate.

As such, there is not a consensus as to where to move it, but the proposed move had the most support and so I am choosing to move it there per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Editors may open a new move request at any time to discuss alternative options. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

First Libyan Civil War → Libyan Civil War (2011) – there were other civil wars in that area before the 2011 one. Also, I added 2011 at the end, for indexing reasons. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no civil battles before the 2011 revolution 102.69.49.136 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a civil war, not just a revolution. What about the Tripolitanian civil war? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. <i style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">S.L.</i> 17:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * that was pre-Libya, when it was called Tripolitania - as such, is already naturally disambiguated Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Still few sources name this article as such. However, most sources reffer to it as the Libyan Civil War, but we could add 2011 in it to remove confusion. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. <i style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">S.L.</i> 17:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So what about the Second Libyan Civil War? Parham wiki (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be changed to the Libyan Civil War (2014–2020)? WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. <i style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">S.L.</i> 17:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was an RM on that that unfortunately closed the "wrong" way (I'm pretty sure I voted against), so it would probably require a new RM to move back. The sourcing that the later conflict was commonly called the "Second" War was rather thin IMO.  That said, even if the 2014 war is kept at its new title with "Second", there's no need for a forced "consistency" argument here anyway, given that wars are very frequently named in ways that are arbitrary and require matching the sources rather than imposing an order that may not really exist. SnowFire (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support. This article was moved on invalid grounds anyway as there were several earlier RMs, yet it was moved on a technical request despite being potentially controversial.  There was no evidence offered this specific event was commonly or even rarely called the "First" Libyan Civil War, although unfortunately some citogenesis might have happened since the undiscussed move.  So both the procedural default should be to restore the old name or a variant thereof, and I'd also support restoring the old name on the merits anyway since it is descriptive and clear, while "First" is basically made-up.  SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, no civil conflict in Libya has ever been referred to as the Libyan Civil War before. Plus, the "Tripolitanian civil war" is not notable enough to justify moving this article, and this 1920–1922 Jabal al-Gharbi civil war is sourced by one book. The only civil wars in Libya that are notable in the modern era are the 2011 one and the 2014-20 one. The fact that it's technically not the first civil war in Libya is not valid grounds for a move on its own. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 22:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the main argument isn't a legalistic one that this wasn't technically the first civil war, but rather the practical one that no sources other than Wikipedia mirrors post-2021-move seem to call this conflict "First Libyan Civil War", regardless of "which" civil war it was. SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the title makes it sound like the common name for this event is the "First Libyan Civil War", which is not true. If there are two civil wars at different times, and there are no established common names, the right approach is to use parenthetical disambiguation per WP:QUALIFIER. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I’ve searched on Google Scholar “First Libyan Civil War” and no source had “first” in its name. WikipedianRevolutionary (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. <i style="color:#667;background:white;border:2px solid;border-radius:4px;padding:0 4px">S.L.</i> 17:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support some kind of move: If this event is not actually known by this name, and we have to disambiguate between other events, the right thing to do is follow WP:QUALIFIER. The solution of adding the year as a parenthetical qualifier falls within this policy. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what it should be moved to; I just know that the current title is bad. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed, but support move to 17 February Revolution, which is a naturally disambiguated title for this particular "Libyan revolution", per WP:NCDAB. This name is routinely used in scholarly literature to disambiguate the conflict, including in a titular manner, as seen here in the Routledge Handbook of the Arab Spring. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: Also see Talk:Second Libyan Civil War — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * since this is a no good options close, please can I request the you amend your close slightly so that we use the sentence case variant Libyan civil war (2011). From an ngram we can see that sentence case enjoys a slight lead, and therefore title case is nowhere near the "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" bar required to treat it as a proper name, per MOS:CAPS. There seems no policy reason why it should be capitalised as it is now. Thanks  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable; I've requested it at WP:RMTR, as the page is move protected. BilledMammal (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)