Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)/Archive 2

Gaddafi Bombards Tripoli (Air Strikes)
http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=231506 --Athinker (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that this merits its own article perhaps something along the lines of Bombing of Tripoli. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be added to Battle of Tripoli (2011), though. Metaknowledge (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But it's not only Tripoli. Al-Jazeera said a few minutes ago that Azzaweya is being bombed, and there are rumors the same is going to happen in Benghazi. Ucucha 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Bombing of Libya (2011) then? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The 2011 Libyan Uprising, or the 2011 Libyan Civil War.Ericl (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Map
Someone should fix the map on the infobox, There are 7 cities with 11 red balls. Bani Walid looks like it belongs in two areas (with Bani in 1 and Walid in the other). and few others. – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also say that the map should be clickable, and be somewhere other than the infobox. The picture in the infobox should be of the protests. Rivkid007 (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Two things: the map should not have info like who did it or how long it took (although the pop. density map is brilliant) and secondly according to the 20th citation, Sirt has been "liberated" by anti-Gaddafi forces, so that should be updated on the map or verified throughout the article. 76.126.68.184 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the issues concerning the map that are mentioned here have been addressed. -- Interchange88 ☢ 00:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Casualties and losses in infobox
There is too much detail presenting itself as fact. Is it really realistic to suggest only two policeman have been killed? If we see a news report of a child being killed, do we add "1 child killed" to the infobox? Right now it looks like this: Casualties and losses

465 protestors killed,

130 rebel soldiers killed[5][6][7]

111 soldiers killed[8]

65 mercenaries killed[9][10]

2 policemen killed[11]

1 militiaman killed[12]

236 mercenaries captured[13][14]

300–2000+ killed [15] 5000+ injured[16][17]

We need to keep this as a summary of the totals, so unless a source states the figures it gives are an estimate of a total, we don't include it in the infobox.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just deleted "111 soldiers killed" as it was a 3-day old report from state-TV and so unlikely to be an accurate total now. Also removed "65 mercenaries killed", as it was a sum of two seperate reports from 19 Feb, not anything like a reliable total to put in the infobox. Both of these figures remain in the Casulaties section where we can give proper context including the dates.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, to remove their casualties from the box just because they are three days old is a little too much. The numbers we have are the only numbers. If you want a compromise solution I propose this. Put 111 soldiers killed (by Feb. 20) and 65 mercenaries killed (by Feb. 19), so that way it will not be missleading. Also those two battles, which in fact are battles since both sides are shooting at each other, should at least be merged into the timeline or uprising article, the information has been edited by many others besides me and that information should not go to waste. Thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it's not simply because the figures are old. The information is in the casulaties section of the article with the clarification that these are single reports. For the mercenaries, one source says 30 mercenaries were killed in one location, and another says 35 in another. Neither sources claims these are anything like the total number of mercenaries killed. To add these two numbers together and represent them as a total in the infobox is misleading. For the state TV report of soliders killed, you could add this in the infobox if you can fit in a disclaimer that it's a state report from 23 Feb. You should discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising - don't jsut add the information back again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mercenaries from Mali
We have once source that states: "...with eyewitnesses saying the French-speaking troops hail from nearby African countries such as Mali, Niger, and Chad. Although there is little independent media access to verify the events unfolding in Libya, experts say Colonel Qaddafi has strong relationships with various African warlords and rebel groups, some of whom may now be filling the role of for-hire mercenaries." This is enough to state "there was a report that Gaddafi had deployed French-speaking mercenaries from nearby countries such as Mali, Niger and Chad" but it is not enough to support placing Mali in the infobox list of countries that have supplied mercenaries. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. While above is entirely correct, please note that this barely differs from the basis for including Chad and Niger in the infobox, which is based on claims by one side of the conflict (quote from the ref: "The protesters accuse Gaddafi of sending foreigners from Libya's southern neighbors of Chad and Niger"). At present, I believe all claims of exact country are based on speculations without uninvolved confirmation. This The Guardian article perhaps stated it best: "Their origins vary according to speculation: Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Mali, Sudan and possibly even Asia and eastern Europe." In other words, including two countries (Chad and Niger) based on questionable sources (one side of the conflict), but not another (Mali) because the source is considered questionable is problematic. Either both go, or neither. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There were multiple sources for Chad and Niger which is why I left them in the infobox, following what you have said and having reviewed these source I think we should remove mention of specific countries from the infobox. We could expand the section dealing with mercenaries per the Guardian article you cite, as at the moment it is merely a list of reports. The infobox however is something the reader sees before reading the article, and should provide only a summary of known facts - there is not space in the infobox to mention the possible unreliablity of reports. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that is the best solution until we start getting confirmed info from uninvolved sources. Here is another source that deals with the issue: "It is said the fighters are from Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan. But the reality is hard to pin down." 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The mercenery thing appers to be an anti-Gadaffi hoax by the rebels. Infact they were local malitia.Wipsenade (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources? I don't see how all of the reports from different regions could be a deliberately co-ordinated hoax.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can understand, few doubt the accuracy of claims saying that Gaddafi use foreign mercenaries. What remains to be confirmed by uninvolved parties is the exact countries they originate from. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, i give you a good link of the current situation of the cities en libya, The link is from "El Pais" the most important newspaper from Spain. Here is the link : http://www.elpais.com/graficos/internacional/revuelta/libia/toma/ciudades/norte/Tripoli/Sirte/elpepuint/20110225elpepuint_2/Ges/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.243.106 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same source says the Warfallah are with the protesters and the Margaha and Gaddafa (Gaddafi's tribe, so no surprise here) with Gaddafi. Time to put them in the info box?--150.244.131.195 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There are Kenyans there to.Wipsenade (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mercenery news
It was confirmed on Thursday by Col Gaddafi's former Chief of Protocol Nouri Al Misrahi in an interview with the Al Jazeera that Malian, Nigeran, Chadian and Kenyan mercenaries are among foreign soldiers helping the besieged Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi fight off an uprising .

I think this aspect is getting very intresting.Wipsenade (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, as I noted previously, this is one side of the conflict (Nouri Al Misrahi defected, and therefore has a clear interest in the anti-Gaddafi side winning). WP:RS specifically warns about self-serving sources. Of course, that is the problem with a large part of the 2011 Libyan uprising (not just mercenaries); most reports are based on info by one side of the conflict, as there are few confirmations by uninvolved parties. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice refactoring
I'd just like ot offer kudos to whomever it was who rewrote/re-factored the "Timeline of mercenary activity" into the current "Possible mercenary activity" section. Nice work! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I started it to clarify that there is are uncertainty surrounding the reports, but it still needs some work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail has a very different map
I just ran across a lovely but far grimmer map in the Daily Mail which credits the opposition with control only over a small coastal region in the East as of February 25. I think it's important to figure out how there could be such a wide difference of opinion. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The present map is problematic for a number of reasons. I believe it qualifies as POV and we should change to a new map immediately/as soon as possible. We find issues regarding credibility of the information -- the map is from a twitter user who cites "sources found on the internet." Do we know what these sources are, and whether they meet our guidelines as credible sources? The map itself points out its own lack of quality by calling itself "a mess" and stating it was created in only 15 minutes. This is the most important story over the last several days and it's concerning to see such a problematic graphic here. I'll note in following this story closely for the last number of days, it's been vague and unclear what areas are still under Gaddafi's control. Also: the term "liberated" is definitely POV, might I suggest a change to "opposition controlled"? This article should serve as a neutral encyclopedia entry and not a political attempt to rally sentiment against Gaddafi -- I might personally sympathize with attempts of that nature at present, but there are other places for that, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the map had gone from the article, and I just reverted its re-addition stating that it was "out-of-date, possibly inaccurate and does not have transparent sourcing". If someone can create a new map addressing these concerns (and the copyright problem) that would be great.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela's Reaction
The map of international reactions appears to show Venezuela shaded yellow, indicating that protests have been made of the human rights situation in Libya. To the contrary, a series of sources seem to indicate that Hugo Chavez continues to back Qaddafi:  Neumannk (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.Wipsenade (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising
Can someone complete the split of Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising ? The duplication needs to be removed from this article, and a summary put in its place. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm starting work on this. Check back in a half hour. Sanpitch (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Summarized the timeline. A significant milestone which seemed to separate the stages of the "uprising" was news reports calling it a "civil war". Sanpitch (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Background/History tone & source issue
The 3rd paragraph in the "History" section is taken solely from a single newspaper site and a blog at that. It doesn't seem that it would fit the nature and NPOV standards of Wiki. I don't know a whole lot about the particular issues the section deals with but I know it needs to be changed. The 3rd paragraph also gives the idea that because of Gaddafi's "absolute failure" (a term that may be hard to fully vindicate) Libya should be a wreck economically and in other ways whereas the 4th paragraph talks about the GDP & education levels being higher than that of surrounding nations calling Libyans rich and well-educated, conflicting with the above. If someone could fix this and add some "facts" that aren't coming from a "staff notes" blog from The New Yorker it would be great. Coinmanj (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No promotional material, please
I'm assuming that everyone here is trying to help. I think that's great, and I personally support whatever we can do to help out the citizens of Libya. However, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for promotional material. period. This is an encyclopedia article people, not an outreach program.

If you're pointing to an external website (even if it's through a wikilink), then you're likely on the wrong track. Please review WP:PROMO.

Thanks. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Gadaffi biases : need neutrality to explain current conflict

 * Nutshell: Anti-Gaddafi biases torpedo explanation, there is still people supporting him, why? What are Gaddafi positive achievements ?

Hello, the recent events are against Gaddafi, pro political rights, and anti-dictatorship, that's a fact.

But! from key indicators (!) : literacy rate, education, Human development index, purchase power, it seems that INDEED, Gaddafi has also positive achievements. Under his rules, the government DID improved a lot the situation of Libyans, and more than in other nearby countries (source in the Background section). He leaded Libya from an almost medieval tribal society (1960's) to the current rich and well educated country. Digging in this direction: achievements, ideological leadership, then only we may explain the loyal and amazing support he still enjoy in part of the society, and so, the ongoing conflict.

However, the current article is almost only anti Gaddafi. Please, help to restore balance by documenting his positive achievement, an social support. Yug (talk)  10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. This article is about the Libyan revolution, not about the achievements of the former government. Neutral Point of View means describing the revolution according to reliable sources and without bias. That’s all. If someone has reliable sources and wants to write an article regarding Gaddafi’s achievements, that’s a different article, and in said article you’ll be able to read about Gaddafi’s achievements, and not the revolution. It’s just two different things Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is reading this article we don't know WHY there is pro-Gaddafi. Almost ALL is pro-protesters. If the situation was so clear, why is there a war ? 140.120.55.63 (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Gaddafi has an army and hired mercenaries. I see what you're saying, but mercenaries do not indicate loyalty, imo. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Add somthing on Gadaffi that is like water supplys and bad things like torture.Wipsenade (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, here’s what I’m getting from the news: the Libyan people are revolting and want to overthrow Gaddafi’s government. Libyans representatives and ambassadors are resigning as a protest against Gaddafi. People on the street are clashing with the Libyan Army, which is still loyal to Gaddafi. Gaddafi exhorted his loyalists to fight the revolt, but as far as I know no one is fighting “for” Gaddafi. Members of the army deserted and basically the whole country with the exception of Tripoli is in the hands of the opposition.

Now, this is what I can read on the news, and what – consequently – you’ll read on Wikipedia. This article deals with the Libyan revolution. It’s not a place to write about Gaddafi’s achievements.

If anyone has reliable sources claiming that, in fact, a “civil war” of sort between anti-Gaddafi and pro-Gaddafi forces is happening, of course cite said sources and write about it. But I doubt this is what’s actually happening, at least according to… uh… all media in the world? So, please, stay in-topic Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated "as far as I know no one is fighting “for” Gaddafi". Are you naive ? There is not +1000 deaths without people to shoot at protesters. After one week of blood, Tripoli is still in pro-Gaddafi's hands, starting to fall (?). There are people fighting for the Gaddafi's status quo. They have been pro-Gaddafi's protests. Key indicators (literacy rate, education, Human development index, purchase power), ideology, may explain these supports. Medias are naturally pro-protester, while pro-Gaddafi's opinions / rational are scare, that's why -as an encyclopedia- we need to dig to find out this. Thus only, we will explain the situation. Yug (talk)  10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As i said, the army is (apparently) on gaddafi's side. That doesn't mean that we have reliable sources for a pro-gaddafi part of population. If a reliable source states so, of course cite it and write about it. Literacy rate etc don't really fit into that, and i also feel it would be OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.57.47 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree: the fact that quality of life improved under his regime does not make this a significant point of his supporters. Supporters might support him for a lot of reasons. Within the supporters, the ones that support him due to literacy rate, purchase power, etc. might be a minority. Without proper analysis, backed by verifiable facts, one can't say anything. And Wikipedia doesn't do analysis by itself; it publishes analysis made by secondary sources.


 * Citing the relevant policy, WP:SECONDARY says: Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.


 * And I will agree with Yug too: I think the article can't be considered "neutral" before it discuss reasons for his continued support (on wherever he might still enjoy it). But as I understand, no pro-Gaddafi data (or anti-Gaddafi data, for that matter) can really be added unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source analysis, that establish its relevancy to this context. --187.40.204.220 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Libyan 'royalty' and 'princes'
Those with a claim to the Libyan throne in the event of a monarchy being re introduced are not presently recognised as royalty by Libyan law. Whatever one thinks about the quality of governance of Libya over the past decades, there is no doubt as to who has been the internationally recognised government. Titles such as 'Prince' are equally not legally recognised at present, and have not been for decades. Speculation about whether a new regime in Libya will involve the reinstatement of the monarchy is just that, and does not justify suddenly calling individuals with claims 'Prince' or 'royalty'. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That is why it is best to use terms like pretender. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, my post above was just to clarify why I had amended the title of that section of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually both pretenders where born before Gaddafi took power which means there titles are recognized by the former kingdom. Even though it is the former kingdom that government was recognized by the international community. If they where born during Gaddafi pretender would be more suitable. Also an example we still use royal titles for former monarchs would be Constantine II of Greece which many people and news still call king of greece. Spongie555 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If one looks at the Pretender article, it accurately, describes these "princes". A pretender is someone who claims entitlement to a throne when someone else is the monarch in power or the monarchy has been abolished. Monarchs have not been the heads of state of Libya for many years. Thus, royal claimants to the throne of Libya are by definition pretenders. It's an objective classification regardless of one's value judgments about whether monarchy is good or bad. (On a side note, Constantine's article refers to him as a former king of Greece. The monarch was abolished, so he's not the king.) --JamesAM (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a response from Prince Hashem al-Senussi, brother of Idris. He is not a pretender to the throne like his brother though. So I guess technically the heading is inaccurate now. - dwc lr (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The former kingdom does not exist, has not existed for over four decades, and is not capable of recognising anything. That argument is as bizarre as saying that Gorbachev is still the President of the USSR.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We still refer to Gorbachev as the former USSR leader. Spongie555 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should refere to them as former princes as they had those titles during the kingdom of Libya like Constantines articles does with former king.(that is what I ment but phrased it wrong) Spongie555 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think maybe we should probably refer to them however the sources do. It is easier that way and it is what we are supposed to do anyway. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Most sources give them a princely title from what I have seen. At any rate all royalty articles on Wikipedia use titles even if the country is republic like Germany, all members with articles of the former ruling families are given titles. - dwc lr (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In some countries the monarchy has been abolished but titles are still legally recognised in some way. In such cases it is justifiable for the title to be used by Wikipedia without qualification. In cases where the monarchy has been abolished and titles are not legally recognised, as in Libya, there is no justification for Wikipedia using what are in effect self-proclaimed titles. If other articles are wrong then that does not justify this article also being wrong. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and should not be giving legitimacy to the claims of royal pretenders. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Germany does not recognise titles either. Most titles are used and given as are courtesy, such as with these Libyan princes where the media are routinely calling them ‘Prince’. - dwc lr (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same with Russia we still refer to the Royal family there by their titles even though it's not recognized. Spongie555 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is 'we'? Do you know of a Wikipedia policy on this because I can't find one. However a royal family requires a kingdom and a king or queen, there is no royal family in Russia. They can call themselves what they want, and others may choose to join in, but the reality is that there has been no royal family in Russia for 80 years. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). There is no distinction made between ‘ruling’ and ‘non ruling’. I don’t have much of a problem with using ‘Pretender’ although there are responses from three members of the Libyan Royal Family now, Crown Prince Muhammad, Prince Idris and his brother Prince Hashem. Only two can be called ‘Pretenders’ so technically the heading is inaccurate. - dwc lr (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still say stick with what the sources say like we're supposed to in this case. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Tripoli
The media is calling the final battle; Battle of Tripoli. I know there is an article already called Battle of Tripoli (2011). It hasn't been mentioned in this article. Also, the media believes this is the final battle, is this correct? and is this battle currently taking place? or the people haven't gotten there yet? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What media? Edison (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The battle is currently not taking place. I believe the skirmishes that take place and the overall rebellion against Gadaffi is termed the Battle of Tripolli. I believe the real battle will be quite bloodys and If I were Gadaffi I would withdraw all my forces from surroundings and defend the city. The main oposition goal is the city and if Gadaffi wins the battle there the opposition morale will be broken severly and the millitary set back would be drastic. This would then allow Gadaffi to take back lost land.Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Was there a "Battle of Cairo" before Mubarak gave up? This is a crystal ball exercise so far, grandiose, and premature. Shootings of demonstrators and atrocities toward civilians do not constitute a "battle" That requires two military forces in conflict. So far one military force only is in action in Tripoli, with big talk from opponents in Benghazi. Edison (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated that article for AfD.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Few points IMPORTANT
First of all thank you for your support. I tried to update the events but as you know there is no Internet access in Libya in the last 7 days My points are: IN THE END THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND PLEASE PRAY FOR US. Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the info box there are no such thing as (1. Libyan Interim Government 2. NCLO 3. Defecting Libyan Forces 4. Militia 5. Defected Tribes) among Anti-Gaddafi forces and also there are not Anti-Gaddafi FORCES there are the PEOPLE OF LIBYA.
 * There is no such thing as Battle of (Benghazi – Tripoli – Az Zawiyah – Misurata) as I told you before there are no such thing as Anti-Gaddafi FORCES, so we cannot named these as battles you may named them as unrest or protests or WHATEVER
 * An also there is no such thing as civil war in Libya
 * If not civil war, what would you like to label what is happening now in Libya? Is it an "uprising" or "revolution" or what?  It is certainly violent, so it is hard to use the word 'protest' to describe what is happening. Does the word "revolution" have connections to Gaddafi that the people would like to avoid? If you watch Al Jazeera Arabic, what is the closest translation of the word used there? Sanpitch (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We can called it "Uprising" against Gaddafi and soon will be "Revolution" 41.252.84.161 (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * May our mutual God and prophets (yes they are mutual of course) watch over you and protect you. I'm sorry about the info, but we only can use the stuff given by the news sources who of course don't have a lot of access to the country. =( Shalom vSalaam! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag in battle info box?
The second flag in the info box under Libya, the one that is the Kingdom of Libya Flag, but with "Freedom" odd;y scrawled across it, is that actually being used. I highly suspect that it is a hoax/vandalism, but haven't been paying close enough attention to tell for sure. This is the file in question: File:Freedom for Libya Flag.png. Ravendrop 08:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

nah, this is just graffiti. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Migraha"
There are at present about 500 google hits for a supposed "Migraha" tribe. But scepticism is advisable here, because such a tribe is not known to any publication on google books and it only seems to pop up with recent news. I think the tribe called "Migraha" in recent news is usually transliterated Maqarha or Magarha in literature (المقرحة). --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox - Leader of the uprising
Mustafa_Mohamed_Abud_Al_Jeleil is apparently Chairman of an interim government based in Benghazi. There are no sources claiming he played any part in leading the uprising. The infobox is clearly entitled "2011 Libyan uprising" not "2011 Libyan government", so do not place his name in the infobox as a leader of the uprising. We can describe his role in the main text, but there is no place for his name in the infobox. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

collapse the References
Is it possible to collapse the references? --Rebel Alliance Coalition (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can only do that on mobile wikipedia. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya, Misurata liberated
BBC Al Jazeera English --U5K0 (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Three sons, three elite brigades, three headquarters...
Doing a bit of editing at Khamis Brigade I found the curious statement that "Gaddafi’s sons Saif, Sa’edi and Khamis are stationed in three security centres in the east, west and south of Tripoli to secure the capital from the revolutionaries" The Khamis Brigade is "The 32nd is the most elite of three "regime protection units," which together total about 10,000 men... These units are the only armed forces directly loyal to Gaddafi, while the rest of the military is made up primarily of conscripts and is seeing heavy desertion". The Khamis Brigade is reported to be headquartered in Misrata/Misurata, and currently under siege by rebels.

Now Misrata is to the east of Tripoli. Is the headquarters of the Khamis Brigade on of the "security centers" described? Is there a "Saif Brigade" and a "Sa'edi Brigade" working out of cities to the west and south of Tripoli? (I don't have any source suggesting such a thing). Wnt (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry but…
… this was just too stupid (no offense meant). I had to edit the “umbrella” bit because it just read too silly. Analysts? Really? Reading that part I could just envision a Monty Pythonesque scene… the analysts in front of the TV… “HMMMM he’s carrying an umbrella” “IT MUST BE RAINING” “CALL THE NEWSPAPERS” Plus, that he is carrying an umbrella lends credibility to nothing. It’s merely consistent. And the source isn’t quite right either. Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take the blame for this. I never really intended the edit, as it was, to stand for as long as it has. I've been rather busy with real life for the last week... but, the thing with "analysis" was just a rough draft, you know? Actually, the whole point was a rewrite of something that someone else wrote to begin with, regardless... so, maybe I shouldn't feel too bad. Hey, at least it wasn't full of typos, right? — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, as i said, no offense meant, it's just that reading that analysts deduced that it might be raining for seeing an umbrella... you know... :D Also i didn't like the "lends credibility" because it's just incorrect, imo.But we're all doing our part here, so that's cool Idonthav etimefor thiscarp 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I agree. :) No offense was taken; Thanks for helping out! — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good God, polite friendly agreement on the internet! The world must be ending soon.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't you know? It's supposed to edit this December, isn't it? *grin* (or is it next December?) — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Map coloring
I have difficulties distinguishing the colors of cities held by Gaddafi and and cities held by anti-Gaddafi forces. I have a weakness distinguishing certain green, brown and red tones, which is an inherited condition that is actually quite common. More distinguishable colors would be appreciated. Or some way to read the map without the colors, maybe by using different symbols. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the second person who has stated that they have had trouble with it, so I am guessing quite a few probably are having issues with this and as it was said above, there should be a colour change. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I complained before, maybe green and yellow on the map together is not that good as I am so confussed, can I suggest, black, white and a middle colour like red, with a well defined border around all circles. Tata. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are different types of colour blindness. I suspect regardless of which colour scheme we use (short of gray scale), it will be a problem to at least some minority of people. Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone having problems reading the map now? Please report comments on the map's talk page or at Commons as it is very hard to keep track of them here.  R a f y  talk 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Evacuations"-section mostly contained trivial information, I removed them
As you can read here not only the UK and India are evacuation it's people. I do not see the need to put in this section that the HMS Cumberland (F85) and INS Jalashwa went to Libya (the line "some nations send ships" should be enough). No need to go into precise details in this wikipedia article. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted all details from section; create Evacuations from Libya during the 2011 Libyan uprising if you feel the world needs to know these useless details... Parts of it looked like promoting of the Royal and Indian Navy and Greece government anyhow... —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing about this conflict for a school project. :) 74.90.233.175 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good. Be sure to check the links at the bottom of the page to find the different interconnected articles so you find the most material. =) Be sure to cite the news sources though. Most teachers aren't very fond of Wiki. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya on the map
Al Jazeera is reporting fighting has ended in Zawiya with an anti-Gaddafi victory. The map continues to show the city as being disputed. Requesting this be corrected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Map
Well maybe this will be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.125.207 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is.Wipsenade (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * From the CIA WFB, ya? Why is Al Jawf not shown with anything? Do not discount Al Jawf good sirs. ._. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Misratah/Misrata (or however you want to spell it, just east of Tripoli) is controlled by anti-Gaddafi forces. "Fighting" is based on the pro-Gaddafi attack that happen on the 24th as reported in BBC's article from that day (see link among sources for the map on commons), but as the BBC and others reported on the 25th, it was repelled by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The same happened in Zawiya aka Zuwarah on the 24th, but it is correctly shown as being under anti-Gaddafi control. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've used it in the article to replace the Gaddafi pic in the infobox, as it seems to be well-sourced. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that this map has sourcing directly annotated to it. The one problem I see is that it doesn't have a date-specific title.  Maps like this should be dated, and new versions (and old versions also!) should be uploaded with new dates.  Hopefully this map will be all red pretty soon when it is updated - but there won't be any reason to include that version in the article at all! Wnt (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the original author of the map, and what I'll do about the dating issue is I'll put a date in the corner and upload a new version. In such a rapidly changing situation, there's no need to upload several different files for what is essentially the same thing, except with minor changes. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Also, my map was originally added to the article, then taken down due to poor sourcing, and later re-added after I added direct sources. -- Interchange88 ☢ 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In previous articles with maps of some breaking story, like the swine flu hoopla, it was an embarrassment when editors who had created maps lost interest and undated maps showed the "Present situation" but were sadly out of date, and no active editor had the savvy to update them. Please stick with this for the long run. Thanks. Edison (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will keep updating it. My map has been replaced with an svg file on English Wikipedia, but there are still several pages on foreign-language WP that use it. -- Interchange88 ☢ 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New'est Map from 02.03.2011 by Euronews

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/libya020320111mwzfaglk8.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.45.54 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

SVG map
I have made a more detailed svg map but someone has been replacing it with a png constantly. Please discuss here why do you think the png is better before reverting it.
 * Hello! I am the author of the PNG map, and I am glad that someone was willing to make an svg version of it, as I do not have such capabilities. It seems that the same user, Zenithfel, has been replacing the svg map with the png. We may have to talk to him directly if he keeps replacing the map. Also, would it be possible for you to be so kind as to put some kind of attribution to me for finding all the sources and preliminary data? Thanks - Interchange88 ☢ 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * imho the map should focus on the cities and do without the bucket-fill of the provinces, as this creates a false impression of scale. 90% of the territory of Libya is very sparsely populated, and this entire conflict is decided by whoever holds the cities along the coast. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The svg image also grossly exaggerates the significance of minor places such as Al Qatrun. I don't know if Gaddafi still has control of Al Qatrun, but it is irrelevant, because it is just a village in the desert. Yet in the map it is given equal importance with Benghazi or Sirt.
 * I would suggest that the svg image is cropped to show the country only as far south as Sabha. I would further suggest that the bucket-fill of the background is removed, and that the cities are marked with a dot size roughly expressing their population.
 * A nice extra would be symbols for major military installations and air bases (see Military of Libya), but this will probably be difficult to fit in the thumbnail
 * Finally, I would recommend that updated versions of the map should not overwrite older versions: once this is over, we will be glad to have a number of maps illustrating the chronology of events, while if we keep overwriting the same map, well, I think we all expect that the map will turn solid red over the next few days or weeks. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now the map is as misleading as before, since the background color is bright green indicating support for Gaddafi. Gray would be better, following your reasoning. Otherwise I'm neutral in this topic. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed; green is a poor choice of color for the background, as it implies Gaddafi control of those areas. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it should be beige or light brown or sandy yellow or grey or anything but green. — Nightstallion 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Ghadamis seems to have been liberated, at least that's the twitterverse's current wisdom. — Nightstallion 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And since when do we use the Twitterverse as a source? =p (other than on official twitter pages) I agree, sandy yellow would be best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - grey is the best choice for province fill in my opinion - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.-Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The current map is excellent. Red1530 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Red is not a good choice for represent the rebels, because it is difficult for colourblind people to distinguish between red and green. Whereas black is a better choice as it is on the older flag of Libya, used by rebels against Gaddhafi's regime. ★ Nacho ★   (Contact me)   ★ 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I came here to state just that. My boyfriend asked me "Uhh... so the rebels control every city then?" since he's colourblind. Black would be perfect for the red instead. If anyone could change that, it'd make a slight minority able to actually use the map. Teafico (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very good idea, a map suitable for the colour-blind. ValenShephard (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the map looks very nice and useful now, kudos to all involved. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that using larger dots for the large cities and smaller dots for the small ones gave a better sense of scale, showing the importance of Tripoli and Benghazi and the other coastal cites, and the minor strategic importance of most of the small interior cities. I wouldn't object to changing the colors for the benefit of color-blind readers.  Is yellow easily distinguished from green? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I liked the map with the scaled dots. Yes, some of the dots seemed a mite too small, but it was much better at, as you said, showing the population density on the coast. If we use this current map, at least make Benghazi bigger. Teafico (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have updated the SVG map and made two others. I'm not sure if they would fit in this article.--  R a f y  talk 03:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Per iyad_elbaghdadi's map at yfrog.com/h056z9j — Nightstallion 08:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Zlitan and Al-Khums are switched around on our map; and
 * Bani Walid is under anti-Gaddafi control.


 * I have corrected the position of those cities. As for Bani Walid It is clearly under Gaddafi's control as they are still arresting activists there. If you know of any developements you can post them on the talk page and I will revise the map accordingly. --  R a f y  talk 12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That report is from 18 February, not current... The lead even speaks of crackdowns in Benghazi. AFAIK, Bani Walid is liberated. — Nightstallion 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That was actually the last reliable source mentioning the town since there are no mention of it in the media. Furthermore I read on some forumtoday a poem dedicated to the people of Bani Walid urging them to revolt.  R a f y  talk 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Al Qatrun (a.k.a."Gatrone")-- it (and the 300+ km of empty road south of it to the Niger border) are now reportedly becoming a destination for sub-Saharan Africans fleeing both Libyan government repression and angry opposition mobs attacking black Africans associating them with Gaddafi's alleged use of African mercenaries. From the BBC:
 * The International Office for Migration tells the BBC that 1,154 citizens from Niger have returned from Libya in the last week. Another 2,000 people from various sub-Saharan African countries have recently managed to cross the Libyan border at Gatrone.

I think it would help to have both Al Qatrun and the even smaller border checkpoint at Tumu on the map, perhaps designated with tiny dots.

Alternately, you could overlay population density on the map in some faint colour shade to demonstrate the emptiness of the country away from the coast. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the map would be too crowded if every detail was emphasised. The purpose of the infobox map is to show the main events in the uprising and who is in control of what. I would suggest making another map with escape routes, major battles, and population density etc... --  R a f y  talk 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Gharyan is apparently back in Gaddafi's control. — Nightstallion 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated along with other cities to yellow... I would suggest not to colour them immediately to green.--  R a f y  talk 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

International Journalist are banned?
BBC News have been filming openly for the last few days. They say they have been invited by the Libyan government to go to the Capital. So I don't think they are banned anymore. Likelife (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? Damn, I told that Libyan fellow otherwise. =/ TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Seif al-Islam Gaddafi announced a reversal of the ban on Thursday.  There was then an effort to show foreign journalists Gaddafi's "control" over the city, which turned into an amusing debacle. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He also had an interview with Christiane Amanpour apparently, though I've not had a chance to watch it. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega, Ajdabiya
Credible reports coming in, according to The Guardian and other sources, that the opposition again controls Brega and Ajdabiya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also been some talk that the re-taking of Sebrata and Gharyan by Gaddafi was just propaganda, but we'll have to wait and see. — Nightstallion 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hadn't heard that. Sebrata falling while surrounding towns remain with the opposition seemed fishy to me, but who knows. What is your source? -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And Abdel Fattah Younes is saying anti-Gaddafi forces have reclaimed Brega's airport, which government troops were clinging to after being dislodged from the town proper at last report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing we can use here – a twitter conversation, this got this reply from iyad_elbaghdadi, who so far has been a really good source. — Nightstallion 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yahoo is reporting that both cities are now held by the opposition. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya Infernoapple (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another source saying Brega is in opposition hands again found here 140.247.244.17 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: Are we sure Zlitan is liberated? According to iyad_elbaghdadi, who seems to be well-informed, it's in Gaddafi's hands... — Nightstallion 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The news reports I'm seeing have Zliten remaining in the hands of the regime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghadames
The town of Ghadames appears to have gone over to the opposition, according to Afrol News, although some reports have fighting still ongoing in the town. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Source: http://www.afrol.com/articles/37489 — Nightstallion 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Info on US & UK is trivial
There are several mentions of the United States in the article that are highly trivial to the event. The world is not centered around the US, nor does the US really have that much dictatorial power. Perhaps this is because the people, like myself, who live in the US digest media that is geared towards an American perspective. Mentions such as travel warnings to US citizens and Libyan diplomats to the US are irrelevant to a summary of a week's events. I'm sure several nations have had diplomats changing shifting sides and travel warnings, many of which are on the same level of significance. I will be deleting superfluous information like this. NittyG (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly true, with one exception: Wikileaks released a lot of relevant information, such as Khamis Gaddafi trying to buy helicopters for the Khamis Brigade, which since apparently used them to kill protesters. Like it or not, the U.S. has become the world's foremost exporter of leaked diplomatic correspondence! Wnt (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Travel warnings? How many Americans actually vacation in Libya? Who would actually care about seeing that information? I agree though that this should definitely not be Amerocentric, especially because the English Wiki is read by many English-speaking Commonwealthers. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And now, on top of that, info is being added about the UK picking up its citizens. This is really not as important as what is happening in Libya, for Libyans, and anything outside of Libya should only pertain to how it affects the the Libyan uprising (at most, sanctions or no-fly zones). Clearly, the English wikipedia is dominated by Americans and British people, and it is being shown from their perspective, which is irrelevant. Unless anyone objects, I am going to start deleting any irrelavent references like these that I see. NittyG (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about moving them to International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising‎ if they are not already there, and if they are, you can take out the ones that you feel are irrelevant? =p Anyone object to that? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All of this is a reflection of the fact that, in terms of current English language sources, this type of material is all that is available. Remember, until Friday foreign media wasn't allowed in the country. Libyan media is largely in Arabic, and is/was state run regardless, so... I definitely support the idea of moving stuff to the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article, however. I would like to say that it's troubling to me, how this sort of subject comes up so often. There always seems to be someone who comes along, at some point, with an anti-establishment axe to grind. It's tiring. Look, the English language world is dominated by the US and England. I don't have a problem with people who go tilting at windmills over that, I just wish that such views didn't have as much sway as they occasionally seem to have. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, few people from those countries, myself included, wactuallyould really actually want to visit Libya (Gadafi ofc doesn't take kindly to Juice), so the info is not exactly useful and the only people who would visit probably know the dangers already. Besides, what country doesn't have a US Travel Advisory? Idk about the other guy, but I do acknowledge, and indeed not care about the US-UK hegemony etc etc. Try using an internal link to Don Quixote with that reference as the display text. I forget the formatting, but it's automatic. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point about visiting Libya. However, when the US State Department issues an official travel advisory, that's a Big Fucking Deal®. That action has (pretty severe) diplomatic consequences, if nothing else. There are travel notices and whatnot, issued to many places, but a full Travel Advisory is a fairly rare thing. Anyway, my only real point is that, given the fact that most English language current event information comes from the NYT, the Guardian, BBC News, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc..., is it really any wonder that there's a bit of a bias? What are we supposed to do? I can't help but to think of the point that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, didn't see the edit. Meh, idk, I mean isn't there something about trivial info? It seems like it's not really something people really need to know about unlike a travel advisory to Egypt or something. Maybe a brief mention or something. Hmmm, I think that a service mark would be better than a registered mark tbh. :p Looking at the advisory. Who the hell is this protecting power? God? Mercs? Well you can try explaining that to them and maybe include stuff from Aussie, NZ and Indian publications. It's kind of like when someone approaches an archaeologist and poses the theory that the Great Pyramid was a pump (this was actually someone's theory), and then you explain that the presence of paintings and that fact that it's an unnecessarily massive structure for such a task mean it's highly unlikey. If that doesn't work, tell them the truth about how humanity works. If that doesn't work, best to call in Piccard (warning, may cause lethal harm to the unprepared) and move on. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

6,500 dead

 * According to the Emirati newspaper Gulf News, an official for the new Libyan interim (opposition) government, has stated that their official death toll currently stands at 6,500 see for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Al-Jazeera is reporting an estimate between 600 - 2,000 people in Tripoli alone which would make the opposition estimate possible. See: . --Kuzwa (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Go by what most are reporting. With no offence intended toward the Interim gov, the numbers might be inflated and counting the missing. Let's go with what most of the sources give. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thumbs up to freedom of the press!!! asdfjkl1234 talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Military equipment from Belarus flown in from Belarus
According to SIPRI Gaddafi's son Mutasim has been flying out valuables from Libya to Belarus and returned with military equipment during the recent weeks. Närking (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And here is a source in English. . Närking (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask for an English one before my comp turned off. While the Beyllorussian gov supplying Gadaffi with old Soviet hardware isn't a very shocking story (very interesting, but their gov doesn't have the best reputation I wanna make sure it's a good source. Are these guys are a reliable source? What do other people think? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another article on this . It's even suggested that the European mercenaries in Libya might come from Belarus. Närking (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah good, might be best to put them in the talk page for the International Reactions directly though. That way people can snatch up the most important details more quickly. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A request concerning this & all related articles
Can editors please add the dates when a given town comes under anti-Qaddafi control? (Or, when it is recovered by Qaddafi's supporters?) Too many articles about the uprising & towns in Libya simply state that a given town is under control of one side or the other, as if it always has been. (Or simply replace the statement one town might be controlled by one group with one that it might be controlled by another; this is a fluid situation, & it might be that control of a given town shifts back & forth -- or neither side actually knows.) That makes it hard for people like me who are interested in watching the progress of this uprising understand what is actually happening. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support 140.247.244.17 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything in edits of the timeline to help with that maybe? It seems like a very good idea to do this, but I think *knock on wood* that most of the towns are falling under Anti-Gadaffi control so we don't have to worry about back and forth yet. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was the instance a few days ago where, in the accompanying map, Tripoli was shown in rebel control after several days of being disputed, then the next day it shown back under Qaddafi's control. I'm not that sharp on the geography of Libya, & all I know about the situation is what I see on the news & what I read on Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the story was with that. (Dates when towns fall to the anti-Qaddafi groups, or are taken back, would help someone like me determine if control of the city was traded, someone got too enthusiastic over the reports we've been getting, or if that was just a mistake.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Article moved without any concensus or asking anyone
The article suddenly got moved to 2011 Libyan Revolt without asking anybody when only one person supported the name change. =/ It's not a democracy, but I thought we were supposed to usually get a concensus first. The guy didn't even cite any sources for the name change. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, it got reverted. Thanks! =D I was wrong btw, he did put a source, but it was an opinion piece, which is just about as bad for this sort of thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the move, as it was done without consensus, and have placed a request that the article be once again move protected.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya, that's why I thanked you. =p Thanks again. I'll put a note for him to come here about the name change. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I'm kind of new to editing wikipedia, and I saw someone else proposed it be changed to 2011 Libyan Revolt a few days ago, and most people supported it. Now that its a few days later I thought there wouldn't be a problem with changing it.. Gabe896 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, everyone makes mistakes here (and I do mean everyone), though they get a bit better with time. If you look through the endless WOT (wall of text) that is the Uprising bit though, you'll see it had more supports than Revolt though, even though a good bit of it is separated by comments. There will probably be another name change thing soon. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, there were no mistakes made here! Gabe was bold, he did exactly the right thing! kudos! Shame on the rest of you for trying to take him to task. He did something, was reverted, and came here to discuss it. The only real issue here is the idea that some sort of process wonkery is required. If we all had that attitude, then nothing would be accomplished! — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was wondering what all that bold talk was about. Well good on him then. :p Are you asserting that getting bogged down in details for every little thing (like the convo about how many languages to put the UN's name in in the United Nations article or Ofra Haza's name in Hebrew, English and Arabic) is somehow not productive? That is proposterous good sir! {Hmm, maybe I should go and put her name in Arabic as well then, be e-Bold :p} TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Domestic responses
I saw someone put all the domestic responses sub sections and made one big domestic responses section. Maybe we should make a separete article for domestic responses? Also do we have any responses from Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai? Spongie555 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it really warrants that? It doesn't look very long to me; unless someone changed it of course. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Alright, maybe it's a little on the long side.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was longer before someone condensed it alittle. Spongie555 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties
I was wondering, in the event that this article is to talk about Civilian Casualties *People who neither protest, nor support the Goverment* what side of the infobox should they be put on? Yes the government is fighting against the people, but they are also put under its rule as it is still their government. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.161.71 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I have seen the article, and it doesn't seem to give the pro-Guddafi side of the story, only the Anti-Guddafi side. I wish Wikipedia could be like that, but it can't. Please give the pro-Guddafi side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk • contribs)


 * Can you find a reoutable source for that?--U5K0 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We are just going by what the sources say as we are supposed to. It is not our fault or our problem really that none of the reputable sources give a pro or even not unfriendly view of Gadaffi. If you can find a source that does and that is not a propoganda piece then by all means please put it in and some of what it says. Thanks. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because it says it isn't a propaganda piece doesn't mean it isn't. They could be lying.--SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's a propaganda piece or not. Gaddafi's side should be covered.  Actually, I am quite mystified why Chavez, Ortega and Castro would be favoring this doomed and unappealing cause, it it would be most interesting to hear more.  Perhaps their local presses offer a defense. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, based on the sources involved, it does matter if it's a propaganda piece. If the source is not one recognized as a reputable/credible source, then it should be added as a backup for factual content. One could, however, write something concerning "pro-Gaddafi factions argue that (x/y/z)", but it would have to be given due weight. And this is not a balanced weight issue..the "Pro-gaddafi" side of things are seemingly much in the minority. However, I would take issue with the idea that reporting the facts of the matter are somehow "anti-gaddafi". Not agreeing with propaganda is not necessarily pro or anti. Stating somehting different than state propaganda is not inherently anti-gaddafi, if it is based on facts from credible sources. Anti-gaddafi would be unreferenced propaganda that swings as far against him as the pro stuff swings for him. This article aims for the middle ground of reality. Jbower47 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Typically the propoganda pieces will differ greatly from our other sources and we will know where it came from. Sometimes they also seem kind of obvious to the educated person. Usually they're written for the more, well, gullible people in the population who are not very well-educated. I know that most Libyans are literate, but I don't know how good the education is there. Well, Wnt, let's take a look at why they might. What do Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega all have in common? They were/are all at one point or another socialist revolutionaries (that probably should be mentioned somewhere as it's only apparent when you look them all up). That is just my thought though. As far as Gaddafi's side of the story, I think that has been reported by various sources. Here is Christiane Amanpour's Interview with him. We also covered Gadaffi's side a bit in the first talk box where he blames everyone from the US and Zionists (like moi) to al-Qaeda. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If "Gaddafi's side should be covered", chances are that some reputable independent third-party source has done exactly that. If not, chances are that Wikipedia doesn't need to, either. Just cite your source if you have one, or else accept that there is a universal "anti-Gaddafi consensus". --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here you got an article, that reflects "Gaddafi's side". You find it below the headline Gaddafi regime calls on UN Security Council to suspend sanctions. --85.178.231.52 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Provide a map scale please
I think all or most of the maps in Wikipedia, including this one, do not provide a scale. A scale would be very informative and useful. Here it would give an indication of just how big Libya is. 92.29.117.180 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

About the heated debate tag
Hmmm, is that tag up younder really necessary? I mean I think we're pretty much divided up between people who are disgusted by Gadaffi and can maintain NPOV in edits and people who are disgusted by Gadaffi and possibly not able to maintain NPOV in edits. Am I incorrect? Is that tag just put there for w/e reason? Does anyone (no trolling) here actually support the pig? Just curious. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if you look at the events from the outside rationally it would look like a bad vs. evil conflict. But I have lived in Libya for some time and I know for sure that a minority of Libyans still idolise him as he is the only leader they and their parents knew. It wasn't quite a shock for me to see some of my Libyan friends in facebook posting pictures of Gaddafi in army uniform just when the uprising started.
 * Also Gaddafi is considered by many nationalist Arabs as the rightful follower of Nasser. He was also seen as a hero by many African since he advocated a unified African political entity (with him as a leader of course).--  R a f y  talk 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How come it seems like we haven't seen much in the way of people supporting him even through vandalism or legitimate discussion though? Is it because the internet is down or other things? I mean all the people aren't fighting. Oh yeah, I remember him pushing for a US of Africa a while back when I was reading about the different ideas for continental countries. I knew he was an old time dictator like Castro, but he seemed no longer relevant to the world (I'm 21, so you get what I mean). Hopefully he goes out with a bang or a short drop and quick stop. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * probally because hes not as propaganda savy as other dictoral nations. North Korea, china for example hire people for cyber attacks so its almost assured they hire people to post internet stuff. theres been more then a few accounts on various sites ive seen that are obviosly like that(eg, a procommunist who would not leave me alone on youtube, it got creepy) 24.228.24.97 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For everyone who commented here: If that's the case (I don't really know), please, please, find some sources and add that to the article. I was the one who wrote most of the Gaddafi's Supporters section in an attempt to help NPOV and explain why he still controlled a significant part of the country, but I'm an amateur and the section's barely been touched since I wrote it. If you have knowledge, add it to the article (properly cited of course!) rather than making the points on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleucus (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sirt color
Shouldn't the color of Sirt on the map be yellow? The article says that there protests in the city, and rebels are converging on the city. I would do it myself but I don't know how to. Gabe896 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it should be red, see . --antiXt (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Press TV is considered Iranian propaganda that sometimes lies. If you look at their headlines, you'll see: "Iran Navy overcomes Israel at sea"; "US behind 95% of environmental disasters"... see what I mean?--Henohenomoheji (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From this guardian article it seems like Sirt is in the control of loyalists. But the 1,000km road running flat from Benghazi to Tripoli reveals stark realities. Pro-regime figures have used the coastal city of Sirte, roughly halfway between the two cities, to regroup and plot how they can square their ledger with the rebels.

Sirte is to Gaddafi what Tikrit was to Saddam Hussein, an almost impenetrable power base, whose well-to-do residents owe their comfortable lives to their patron.

Gaddafi's family tribe is stronger in Sirte than perhaps anywhere else in Libya. As such, Sirte's inhabitants stand to lose almost as much as their most famous son if the west of Libya goes the way of the east.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any difference between Press TV and Guardian, both contain propaganda.--Giornorosso (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're joking. If not, please read WP:RS. 212.10.94.137 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Map color/category changes
I propose changes to the color-coding system for cities and towns on the map. Instead of three categories (Gaddafist, disputed/unclear, anti-Gaddafist), I think a more nuanced system of five categories would be proper (secure Gaddafist, Gaddafist but unrest reported, disputed/unclear, anti-Gaddafist but unrest reported, secure anti-Gaddafist). For example, Sabha would be secure Gaddafist; Sirt and Tripoli would be Gaddafist but unrest reported; Ghadames would be disputed/unclear; Zawiyah and Ra's Lanuf would be anti-Gaddafist but unrest reported; and Benghazi would be secure anti-Gaddafist. This would provide a more complete and truthful representation of the conflict in Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think the information available is of sufficient quality to allow such an approach. It is barely sufficient to support the map as it is. But fwiiw, you can present a more detailed suggestion on this on the map's talkpage, at commons:File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Missing articles about settlements at the frontline
Unfortunately we do not cover all settlements that are mentioned in the news as recently fighted. I tried to find all settlements in the Surt District from Sirt to the east: As Sultan, Mintaqat Wadi Harawah (referred to as Wadi-al-Ahmar, Libya from this article), Marsa al Uwayja, An Nawfaliyah, Bin Jawwad (as Bin Jawad at the map), As Sidrah, Ra's Lanuf. The next settlements in the east are Qaryat Bishr and Marsa Brega. Most of the articles are only stubs, some are missing or only present under different names. Some expanding and cleanup would be helpful. -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Internet crash
Google's Internet transparency report already cited in the article shows an almost complete shutdown of Internet activity after about 6:30 pm, 03 March local time in Libya in a pattern similar to what happened in Egypt. See also Category:Wikipedians in Libya. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 01:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

tribal rifts
I think with all the battles and keeping track of cities changing hands, the article lost focus on the tribal background, which will in the long run be decisive. The shift of allegiances of the populations of Sirt and Tripoli will probably be more decisive than armed skirmishes over the next few days. 

"it appears that the tribes of Tripolitania and the Fezzan have adopted a wait-and-see attitude" (BCC, 1 March). Apparently (according to Al-Jazeera), the Qadhadfa are losing allies, and there is a "rift" developing between Qadhadfa and Firjan in Sirt. This could well be decisive if the rebels are now pushing on Sirt for a "showdown". --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullet events!
I added bullets to the event, starting with March 5th. Reading the events is very painful when it is all one paragraph, with most sentences not related to the ones before or after. Please follow suit - and add bullets to the previous days. This will greatly improve this article.

I decided to group together the fighting going on in neigboring cities, which are more interrelated, as well as events in geographically separate cities that appear to be a part of one offensive (such as air strikes on Ra's Lanuf and Zawiyah).

NittyG (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hate to tell you mate, but there was something about that in the archives, here it is. I think it's not supposed to be bulleted for w/e reason, I didn't read the whole thing (lazy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bullets aren't really accepted as per Wiki style. The prose may be disjointed and inartful, but it's a very fluid situation and we'll have time to prettify the English once it's history rather than current events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer handsomising it over prettifying tbh. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the "timeline" format is getting unwieldy, but the solution is not just itemizing the sentences. We have Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising where a more list-like approach will be acceptable. In this article, the solution can only be quality editing, turning the raw material that piled up into a coherent prose summary. Yes, that would mean actual work for those doing it. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds absurd.

I need to see people accountable to reason here, not a simple "we don't do that because it's not done..." or "we don't do that because it's easier..." Also, just because the majority of the active editors here do not want to take the time to add bullets, that doesn't make it better.

(1) Show me where it is a rule that there cannot be bullets for an article like this. If this is simply a convention, that is not a valid reason unless it has a reasonable basis.

(2) There cannot be editing here that would turn something like this into prose. Sometimes updates are a single sentence, not related to the paragraphs preceding or following it.

(3) The only thing I've heard here is that bullets are not "easy". That is completely absurd. Adding a sentence with a simple star at the beginning is the matter of hitting a single key on your keyboard. Furthermore, once things are clearly bulleted, people can sort similar events. For example, on the date I had bulleted the events, I found that the battles taking place were in at least 2-3 separate places, when they should have been grouped together.

(4) Bullets make it FAR, FAR, FAR easier to understand the content. Perhaps those who don't want to see bullets only care about their own keeping track of events, but wikipedia is about clearly explaining a subject to a reader.

(5) What makes the Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising more of a timeline than the timeline given here?

If someone does not give me a good reason behind this, then I will revert an reversion that is made to an edit where someone adds bullets.

NittyG (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Air Force losses
Have anyone any tally on how many aircraft the Libyan Air Force has lost? Two went to Malta and at least three has been shot down by the free Libyans. Should be part of the "losses" in this article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXOWikgcDpM Ectoras (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Even before any losses, it is difficult to establish what they had at their disposal and airworthy before the current events. The Libyan Air Force article is attempting to keep up to date. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yes, several has also been taken on the ground by opposition forces, so the air force are probably quite reduced. Ectoras (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * they still have of the order of 30 attack helicopters and 30 attack airplanes. That's more than enough to bomb the rebels into oblivion in tactical terms. The reason this doesn't happen is not that they don't have enough planes, but (a) because Gaddafi knows that if he does this, he will have the NATO at his doorstep, UN mandate or no UN mandate, and (b) he doesn't trust his pilots. Gaddafi's Libyan bomber pilots allegedly only fly these missions because Gaddafi holds their families hostage. Which is the reason the bombs miss their targets, the pilots are forced to drop them, but they do not want to drop them on the rebels. It is possible that Gaddafi has some Russian mercenaries capable of flying attack planes, and these will drop their bombs exactly where they are told to, but nobody knows how many of these there are. So my point is, the limiting factor likely isn't the number of planes, but the number of people capable of and willing to use them against the rebels. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Report: Gaddafi agrees to leave power if his safety is guaranteed
Link Macarion (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Something more detailed: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201138133847222111.html - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This was denied by an official government representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A preamble to war?
Over the last 3 days Italy sends in 2 patrol boats, a recognisance vessel and a special op's team. 2 American war ships are on the way and a spy plane is reportedly to be flying between Southern Italy and Tunisia. The UK's SAS troops and RAF troop aircraft rescue UK, German and Irish oil workers from the southern desert provinces, the UK sends 2 supply ships loaded medical supplies to Bengazi and readies fighter aircraft in its Cypriot bases. France sends a patrol boat to Tunisia.Wipsenade (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See the No Fly Zone.[]


 * The US Navy has an Amphib in the med, with a loaded Marine Expeditionary Unit onboard, I hear. This shouldn't really be a surprise. I wouldn't characterize it as a "preamble to war", though. If (when) NATO goes in, it will be a peace-keeping mission. Police action. Regardless, this is all rank speculation, and this isn't a forum, so... — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * :-)Wipsenade (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...So, when/if the boots hit the ground is when we start writing about it. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't Vietnam and Korea "not wars" and in fact "police actions"? Hasn't "police action" generally served as a euphemism for war? See our own article (even if it could use a few additional citations). Anyway, the leaders of the Libyan opposition have been effectively unanimous in explicitly clear statements opposing such a level of intervention. If such occurred, anyway, it would clearly be motivated by Western geopolitical interests rather than any humanitarian concerns -- let's note the stunning US silence regarding murders of protesters by the Iraqi regime several days ago, as well as US silence regarding Saudi movement of weaponry to crush the Bahraini uprising. This is not a forum, however, and this topic should be discussed in terms of its relevance to this article -- I think that it would be appropriate to mention both the NATO military movements near Libya, as well as the repeatedly stated opposition to any invasion by leaders of the Libyan opposition. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, leave it for reactions of notable people in a month or two maybe. Depending on how things turn out in the end. I think that mentioning the opposition is a good idea just so no one gets the wrong idea about what our govs might be up to (if they're not actually doing anything I mean). I left you a (silly) message btw on your talk. :p Sprechen Sie kein Deutsch? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'Policeing' troopers as seen with the USA in Iraq?82.11.106.115 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Quit questioning our actions or we'll invade you. (=p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would note NATO military movements near Libya to.213.81.115.70 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Need more perspective on how the wave is cresting
I can't tell from the article if the rebels are winning, if it has devolved into status quo, or if Qaddafi is starting to turn back the tide. Some time dimension of control in a graph or SIMPLE discussion would be helpful.TCO (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't that simple. Macarion (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)