Talk:Timeline of the 2011 Libyan Civil War and military intervention (16 August – 23 October)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead Section

Added a small lead section using content from the main article. Sanpitch (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi quote (Feb. 25th)

"The people who dont love me dont deserve to live" is a misquote by the source in question. Apparently he said, "if the people dont love me, I dont deserve to live". Check out aljazeera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.29.108.181 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the Al Jazeera report that says that quote, this wikipedia discussion is the only thing that comes up. Anyway on March 1 part Zweitina is linking to Syria, possibly a similarly named but different city, just thought I'd give a heads up. Closest thing I see is Port of Zueitina but being a newb I won't mess with that part. Cheers. 75.70.45.40 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was watching the Aljazeera news item as it happened, and I can confirm that (at least according to Aljazeera's translation), he said that he himself didn't deserve to live if the people didn't love him. I'm changing the quote in the article. Cheers, Alfons Åberg (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I also fixed the "Zwaitina" issue. Our article on it is at Az Zuwaytinah. Alfons Åberg (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

House arrest

The current version says on February 22, Younis "escaped from house arrest," but this is not supported by the given reference and is not mentioned in the article about Younis. When is this house arrest supposed to have begun? --LA2 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was added here by user:Zenithfel. --LA2 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Al Manara Media et al

I'm going to remove some of the citations from this site because they appear to just be a propaganda outlet for the anti-Gadhaffi fighters, along with libyafeb17.com B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube and blog "updates" are not Reliable Sources

Youtube and fast moving blog "updates" are not Reliable Sources; get past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before reinserting,please, because these sources have already been disallowed . I have removed some good faith March 18th content from youtube and blog updates; if there is more similar content, it should also be taken out, I think. If anyone wishes to challenge my opinion, please take it to the noticeboard (link above). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Plane shot down

The content related to this well reported event keeps getting removed. This event helps provide a little bit of balance perhaps to the article and the Gaddafi side claims it shows a no-fly zone violation by the rebel side, thus it is quite notable. The photo of the plane falling has been shown on both CNN and CBC backdrops for a few days now so it is notable too. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya districts

As of 19 March, out of Libya's twenty-two districts, twelve were under government control, seven were under rebel control and five were contested territories (see map).

Something is wrong with the above statement, which is there from the start of the article. 12 government districts + 7 rebel districts + 5 contested districts is 24 total districts, yet the article says twenty-two. So obviously something isnt right there.Ratipok (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. —Nightstallion 09:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose tag remove or apply?

I believe we should remove the Prose-tag as calls for a complete overhaul of the article and the more because it would result in a text and not a facts list (the latter being a timeline in essence). - AlwaysUnite (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New organization?

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but there's a lot of days in a month. Like, more than 30 in some cases. In any case, that's a lot of subheadings to fit under one heading and makes the ToC at the top a bit crowded. Should we maybe reformat this into, say, "1. Before the First Battle of Benghazi" or "Initial Protests", "2. Rebel Takeover of Cities" or "Fighting begins", "3. The First Rebel Offensive", "4. The Gaddafi Offensive" (or first Gaddafi offensive if more arise), and "5. The UN No-Fly Zone and the Second Rebel Offensive"?

First of all, that makes more sense in terms of the uprising (or war, or whatever term you prefer); and second of all it helps keep chunks a little smaller and the table of contents a little easier on the eyes. 140.247.147.170 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Many people find it clearer to have a section per day. To reduce the amount of whitespace, I have used {{TOCright}}, and moved all images to the left to avoid clashing with the contents list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking completely eliminating the days, those are very helpful, but splitting the larger sections. As in, "1. Initial Protests, 1.1 15 February, 1.2 16 February; 2. Rebel Takeover of Cities, 2.1 17 February, 2.2 18 February, etc." But I'll definitely say it looks a lot nicer now with key dates highlighted! 140.247.12.151 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

in addition to the white-space problem, the current layout also makes the TOC awkward to read. the 2nd-level headings at "1 February 2011" and "2 March 2011" and just-created "3 April 2011, make it appear – at quick glance – that sections are for "1st of feb" and "2nd of mar" instead of an entire month. is it possible to group some days (3rd-level), perhaps by week with 4th-level for each day (the 4th levels could be hidden by a TOC parameter). should at least eliminate the white-space problem. --96.232.126.111 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

now that sections have been created for multi-day segments (thanks to whoever did it) and individual-date sections (e.g., "25 february") have been demoted a header level, i've invoked "toc limit|limit=2}} to only show high-level section headers in table of contents. this eliminates the vast laundry list TOC.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(btw, the "TOCright" template method, while a good try and i prefer it when needed/appropriate, tends to freak many editors and they remove it)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

article length

as one can see, the article is presently 185,000+ KB. it's only going to get longer because (1) the end of this protest/uprising/conflict/civilwar/revolution, etc. doesn't seem imminent and (2) citations are only about 1/3 flushed out (i.e, bearing core ingredients of "date", "author", "title", "publisher" and "accessdate").

thus, it's (past) time to start planning on forking/splitting the lengthy timeline. i'm sure there are ideas and/or precedent from similar articles (afghan war or iraq war perhaps?).--96.232.126.111 (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever took the time to reorganize! Looks great! 140.247.245.246 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think considering that World War 2 has a year-by-year timeline, a complete timeline of a comparatively small conflict that's not even reached six months yet is totally reasonable Swalgal (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Split attempt by Spesh531

I have reverted a split-off of the first month of the conflict by User:Spesh531

I do not really object the splitting idea itself, but the naming convention used and ignoring the talk page. AFAIK TNC was not even on the drawing board on 15th February, so naming the whole period as Beginnings of the Transitional National Council or Beginnings of the National Transitional Council is not appropriate.

To be clear, if TNC was being planned already on 15th February (which is possible), it would actually affirm Gaddafi's notion of a islamist-western conspiracy.

I did not revert the newly-created split pages yet and hope Spesh531 comes here to substantiate the naming convention he used. Otherwise I will change the created articles into redirects to the TNC article. Someone can pick them up later and do a proper article. Ihosama (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Per no objections, newly created split pages changed to redirects to NTC article, misspelled one nominated for SD.Ihosama (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Low importance  Done

done. elevated to "c" class - 29 march 2011; click "show" for extension of thread→
Is this really a low importance article in the project scale of Africa and Politics? I cannot imagine what the mid-importance borderline can be, if it's stuck in low category. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC) was WP:BOLD and elevated projects to (1) mid importance (from low) and (2) C class (from start)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move - Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war  Done

done. moved 30 march 2011 (as was main article); click "show" for extension of thread→
Timeline of the 2011 Libyan uprising → Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war — main article has been moved from 2011 Libyan uprising to 2011 Libyan civil war. --93.136.42.181 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Moved per the main article. There's no point in having repeat discussions all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical maps

This edit (just earlier today) removed a map. if i understand the corresponding edit summary – "rm pic updated beyond mar. 28" – correctly, it indicates that map detail illustrates situation as of a date after march 28". all fine and good.

however, it reminds one, that an encylopedia is not just "most recent/current" or a "news" source and it would be helpful to a reader to have some historical maps illustrating the situation's evolvement over time. one for each date would seem overkill, of course, but one at critical stages of change would seem appropriate.

i'm sure other editors have opinions/ideas.--96.232.126.111 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

well, this page is a kind of dump of raw information anyway. It isn't a proper encyclopedia article. Strictly, it should be in Wikipedia: namespace, as an aggregate for information collected for writing the main article. But if people find it useful in main namespace, why not keep it here.

This article can be straightened out once this ceases to be an ongoing day-by-day effort. It will need to recover historical revisions of the map images under separate filenames so the various stages of the conflict can be illustrated. This could already be done today, e.g. create a map showing the peak of the first rebel offensive, another showing the first Gaddafi counteroffensive, and so on.

But the live "Gulf of Sirt Front.svg" map of course cannot be left under any specific date, as it will continue to be updated. If you want to keep a specific revision around, restore it under a separate title, such as "Gulf of Sirt Front 28 March.svg". --dab (𒁳) 14:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2nd

"Defected to the libyan decent nation" - that kind of wording doesn't belong in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.207.90 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rename (Second) 'Gaddafi' counteroffensive

I would like to hear opinion on renaming these two headings into

• a) (Second) Government offensive (formally correct)
• b) (Second) Pro-Gaddafi offensive (sounds very weird)
• c) (Second) Loyalist offensive (factually correct)

- the Gaddafi moniker is inappropriate considering the bulk of the pro-Gaddafi force is formed by regular Libyan Military.

- the counter- moniker it is superfluous and indirectly defines who is "attacker" all the while we do not really know that. The whole conflict is fluid and I would prefer we avoid hidden-meaning nomenclature. Not to mention that the initial rebel "offensive" was essentially just a bunch of mobs killing any official they can find with no real opposition.

I am all for c) any objections?Ihosama (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Government offensive sounds weird, doesn't really sound military. My vote would go with Loyalist offensive. I think the factions should be referred to 'rebels' and 'loyalists'. Pro and anti-Gaddafi over simplifies. Swalgal (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Renamed. Also renamed the rebel actions to better fit the reality on the ground and existing article convention.Ihosama (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Does 'government' or 'loyalist' refer to someone who is loyal to the Gaddafi government, or someone who is loyal to the Benghazi government?

By this point, anyone in Gaddafi's military who is not pro-Gaddafi has either defected or been executed by their more fanatical commanders.

Sand buzzard (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Both "government" and "loyalist" refers to the pro-Gaddafi camp. The Gaddafi gov is STILL the ONLY official one as far as 99% of the world is concerned so many WP:RS tend to use the Gaddafi/pro-Gaddafi/government/army/loyalist interchangeably and from there it trickles into WP articles.

On WP using "Loyalist" term would seem the best as far as NPOV is concerned ans "Rebel" as far as rebels are concerned. Please do not confuse "Loyalist" with loyalty. It is used here in its political meaning to describe a force loyal to its (official) GOV.Ihosama (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I think this article has neutrality issues. Not that I am choosing sides, but this article is full of bias towards the Rebels. For instance, this link from AP about "snipers targeting childrens in Misrata" is one of the issues. The article has no proof about the alleged shootings/killings of children ([link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110408/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_libya_besieged_city]) , yet it is included in the article without question. Why not, then, include reports from Libyan StateTV then? Just to be safe that we are still on the neutral side in this encyclopedia, offcourse. Oh wait, Libyan TV is branded as unreliable propaganda machine as they are writting stories without proof. But, wait, what proof is there for the story in the link above? Reliable and consistent reports from unnamed local sources said something to UNICEF, LOL. What and who are those sources? Maybe the Rebels who are fighting against Loyalists troops in Misrata and would say just about anything so NATO would help them with airstrikes?

The last story is just one of many that is included in the article and is biased towards one side. Wiki is an encyclopedia not a tabloid. Ratipok (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you take sides with a murderer? People see the regime for what it is. A dictator desperately trying to stay in power with millions of people fighting for there freedom. We should be able to take sides against a brutal regime who violets basic laws of human rights. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we rewrite the holocaust articles to be more neutral? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your first statement is the sign that this article is and should be flagged with "Neutrality disputed" at the beginning. Thank you. Btw, what is wrong with the Holocaust article? Does that one also uses references from local unverifiable sources without names and proof and also uses rumors and so on? I doubt it.Ratipok (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people support the regime, some are against it. The goal is to have a neutral unbiased timeline of key events. I'm inclined to agree with Ratipok.

In the past I have seen someone say 'so and so tweeted this and that via twitter'... clearly unacceptable for the standards here. As Ratipok says, Gadaffi's media is not the best source. But, I would think that opposition media should be questionable too... yet for example today I see reporting from libyafeb17.com - they are biased I think? I removed some info about Zintan - and instead replaced a report from the AP about what happened there today.

New info is coming out fast from various sides... so that kinda complicates stuff. :( (LAz17 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)).

Daniel.Cardenas, I do not think that your argument is relevant. I do not side with murderers; but that does not mean that I want an encyclopedia to contain falsehoods about them. Is your opinion that if someone is really bad, then everything you write about this person should be as derogatory as possible, even if this means that we sometimes should resort to direct lies? If you do, we have incompatible views of what an encyclopaedia is. If you don't, then you should be as concerned about verifiability for statements about the murderer, whether or not they are negative for him.

There are other ways to make a moral stand than twisting the truth. JoergenB (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I support Ratipok's view. In particular I think it is important to include the claims of Libyan StateTV, regardless whether they can be supported by facts. Libyan StateTV represent the mouth piece of Gadaffi and their claims should be reported the same way we report Hitler and Stalins' quotes. They represent the official voice of a party to this conflict and their arguments ought to be presented. 173.32.178.19 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The truth is important. Being "neutral" and not labeling a murderer a murderer is a lie. Labeling freedom fighters is the truth, and labeling them rebels as someone who is breaking the law is a lie, far from the truth. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not how neutrality works. No reliable sources in the Western media - which if anything has a anti-Gaddafi bias - use "freedom fighters" as it is always one-sided. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. "Rebel" is very widely used, on the other hand, and seems to be a good descriptor (Al Jazeera, Financial Times, Telegraph, Independent, there are plenty more). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@DanielCardenas, I'm afraid we disagree, and that I have a different and equally valid view on who the murderers are, though noone is perfect (Gaddafi included). However, that really does not matter. I'm sure you would not like it if someone called the loyalists "heroes of the revolution." Thus you can see the advantage of writing in an objective manner. I hate ignorance, and it is important for intelligent readers to be able to read objective information and make opinions on their own, rather than that of someone else. I also think it is important that writers actually read the articles they are sourcing- for example, the "Hillary Clinton freed 30bil in frozen assets to the rebels." This did not happen, was not yet approved by congress, and US only plans on releasing a very small amount, among other issues, which are apparent once one has read the full article which was referenced. Also sometimes, the title can be misleading, especially if it is trying to grab attention. Anyways that's just my two cents on objectivity.Kevinman4404 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I vote for this article to be deleted! Clearly this is not a Wiki article but a propaganda for the Rebels and the West. Yesterday I saw a report, that someone has added in the article, about confirmed 7 civilians dead and others injured in NATO bombing in Tripoli. Now I see that someone deleted the report despite the fact, that it was referenced and in English language.Ratipok (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool your jets, man. Was the article reliable? Just because it is an English-language source does not make it fit for use. Instead of floundering about and pointing fingers on a talk page, you might actually try to solve the problem. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it will help if we point to changes that should be made, article is clearly a fiction at this moment. "Fifty loyal mercenaries and two Libyan conspirators were executed by protesters in Al Bayda. Other conspirators were killed in Derna after protesters captured them, locked them up in a prison, and then burned it down." In Al Bayda HRW found no single mercenary but Libyan black soldiers among those 156 claimed, so we must re-qualify it to soldiers executed. Dernah, was there a trail to call those executed conspirators? Conspirators against what? So please change it. To Libyan security forces in first case and people executed by rebels in second case. http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/hrw-no-mercenaries-eastern-libya-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.38.209 (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We are quoting sources. In cases like this, I recommend that you read the source, see what it really states, and if necessary change our text to render the actual content.

I rewrote the actual passage you mentioned, in this manner. The text was based of a statement by a "political activist" on the rebel side, His statement, including the characterisation of the people killed as "mercenaries" and "conspirators", was quoted by The Guardian, which did not present these terms as factual. I changed our text to do the same.

Thus, now there are a few phrases within quotation marks, with exactly the same wording as in the source. This is not a copyvio; direct quotations should not be changed. The quotes comprise only a minor part of the full quote in The Guardian, and the context is rephrased. Moreover, of course we still give a direct reference to the quoted source. JoergenB (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Recentist" handling of images.

IMHO, the way some of the images are treated is more suitable for a wikinews article than for an encyclopædic one. This article is supposed to describe the timeline of the conflict, not just the most recent situation. Hence, maps showing older "front lines" or cities controlled by the two parties are as interesting as the most recent one.

As it is now, maps of older situations are replaced by more "up to date" ones, as if these were the only interesting ones. Instead, we should present several maps, with either the "most typical" situation for a period, or "the most extreme" one. The extreme positions are suitable for indicating the furthest extension of an offensive for either side.

This would make the article containing more maps than now (as classical encyclopædic war phase articles use to do). There might be an alternative: a series of overlayered maps, on a (more or less) day-to-day basis, accessible at the same article position, and with some means for the viewers to click themselves forward or backwards in in the sequence of maps (without affecting the rest of the article). I do not know if wp has any software supporting such "interactively dynamic imageing". Does anyone else know? JoergenB (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

see also earlier discussion, Historical maps, above (which unfortunately really didn't progress).--96.232.126.111 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

.

New Section

I think a new section is need for the stage from the 11th of April till now of something like Stalemate in the east this present front section has been going long enough for it to be changed. Hooah82 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the bombing that killed 7 in Tripoli

I think we can't hide the information of the media state from Libya. If we believe that a source is not reliable, we should state "according to..." etc. But we should not delete information, let the reader know that that day the Jana news agency reported a bombing in the capital.

Also, there are some serious site that published it. Seven killed in NATO air raid in Libya: report (it describes several houses collapsed), and for example http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-libya-raid-idUSTRE73J6RH20110421 http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201104210756-cro-ren1006-7_libyan_civilians_killed_by_nato_raid_south_of_tripoli

And, if you want independent source, those texts citing libya17feb as source are not an example of neutrality.--Andres arg (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks for providing more links; however the reason for me to remove the claim of seven people killed is that since the start of the air campaign almost every day Libyan State media (TV, radio, ecc.) claim that civilians have been killed, but until today not a single of these claims has been independently verified. Also the so called serious site that publish this claim all state "local TV reported", "Libya's state-run television", "The official Jana news agency reported", so no independent verification and Reuters, the by far most reputable source cited by you states this fact also in their report "The report could not be immediately verified." Therefore I stand by my opinion that this news should not be in the article, because it is not independently verified and wikipedia is not news.

As for the texts citing libya17feb? which ones you mean? could you please point them out? noclador (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Half the article cites/cited libya17feb as its source. Presently it is used almost like an Atom feed by that website's supporters. They do not even bother to primary-source their citations (libya17feb is mostly a "right" news agregator). Just take a loog at the bottom of the reflist.::92.52.55.29 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, I saw that - I looked at libya17feb; it looks like a news aggregator and as you rightly point out whoever uses this should cite the primary source and not libya17feb! However - I think we're to late to insist they find the original primary sources, but if you want we can initiate a demand that whoever uses anything from libya17feb MUST link to the primary source. noclador (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a neutral article still (rethorical question)? The reports from libya17feb ('official' website of the Rebels) are frequently used without question, yet when someone reports of dead civilians from NATO bombing you deleted as rumors or even lies? Common..Ratipok (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

libya17feb looks to me like a news aggregator and as such uses reputable sources. However as the IP pointed out it is bad to cite from libya17feb when actually the primary source should be cited. As for saying that libya17feb is the rebels mouthpiece - that may be, but as long as they get their new from reputable sources and mark them as such, there is nothing against using them to have all the Libya news in one place (one might add that they will be selective in what news they choose, but we are free to look elsewhere for news too). As for the bombing of civilians - until a reputable source (which no Libyan government source at this point is) confirms such a claim. We also do not use Radio Berlin as a reputable source in the D-Day article. therefore i believe the deletion of this "news" from Libyan state sources to be in line with wikipedia sourcing rules; and regarding libya17feb - as said above editors should definitely cite the primary source and not libya17feb in their edits. noclador (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not with the primary sources per se, but that this article is becoming as de-facto mirror for a rebel mouthpiece. Using rebel-selected reports is OK. Using ONLY/mostly rebel-selected reports is professional propaganda.92.52.55.29 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the was number of other sources in the article I think that the article is not using mostly rebel selected reports. noclador (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So the only ones who kill people are pro-Gaddafi forces, and rebels and NATO are peaceful guys who only care for the no-fly zone. C'mon all the media is in favour of the rebels (Western interests, obv). It is ridicolous that we have problems to post here when a NATO kills civilians, today they killed 9 more! But they don't count because the "independient media" can't verify this? I think there is only one exception where the ones who killed civilians are the NATO in this article.

Also let me know if it is okay, or if it is propaganda to the article. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/176117.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/libya-sirte-idUSLDE73L06Z20110422 http://www.escambray.cu/Eng/world/libya1104221104 --Andres arg (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets think for a second: what does Gadaffi want most? Dead civilians in a NATO airstrike! Do you think he would hesitate to show the bodies of them on TV??? Have we seen such bodies? Have we even heard names of civilians killed??? Obviously not - so whatever Libyan State TV says, as long as they don't show bodies or let reporters see such bodies (the Rixos is full of reporters, who would immediately file reports if they would see such bodies) we can assume that Libyan State TV only airs propaganda. As for your 3 sources above "Libya's state television said", "Libyan state television said", "Libyan state television reported". so as usual these claims are unverified and/or propaganda. As said if today a NATO airstrike killed 9 civilians the Libyan government would right now drive every journalist in the Rixos to the site and show them the bodies. But none of that is happening, so calm down and be happy that NATO until now has not killed any civilians but the ones in that village where they blew up the ammunition trailer. noclador (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My answer to your comment is what I said before, we should state "according to ...", "libyan state media says...", etc, but we should not hide info, this is censure. Let the reader decide whether to believe or not. Also, I think in a war it would not be nice to show the dead civilians of their importants cities like Sirte (Gaddafi's birth place) or the capital Tripoli. Have you seen any dead of the 9/11?

And regaring the journalists, I think all those considered independent are in Benghazi. The closer they can be from Tripoli is eastern Ajdabiya. So everytime they kill civils or libyan patriots they won't say anything because they are not covering there. And if for some reason the get proof of it, they will most likely say they were mercenaries or that they were killing innocents. --Andres arg (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

the telesur article is highly POV and by a Hugo Chavez controlled TV-station [1] "Bombings of colonialist forces against Libya", "colonialist coalition", ecc. But I had a good laugh at this nonsense "Segura observed similar situations in nearby cities where people's houses have been destroyed and they have lost all their belongings. We visited several houses that were torn by the bombings and we talked to the people who lost everything for the attacks,” he added." Funny - the houses were bombed and the people survived; nobody in a 25m radius survives a direct hit by a Paveway or a JDAM - so either the people were all not at home when their "homes" in these cities were bombed or it was not their houses that were bombed. Whatever - this source is not NPOV, please discard it. noclador (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

nice grammar. OK, I think I will (kinda tired of censure)... and please, you discard libya17feb (I think that site is more biased than Telesur, PressTV, and Jana News Argency together!).--Andres arg (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

New section

With the end of siege in Misrata and taking of border area in Tunisia, I believe the stalemate section is no longer the proper title to continue updating the timeline. I propose to divide information from the point where they were able to drive forces out of Misrata and take the Tunisian post as Rebel Gains.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Misrata isn't over yet just because Gaddafists have pulled out of the city proper. From todays AJE Live Blog: 5:28 PM. Al Jazeera's Andrew Simmons, reporting from Misurata, says the city has "not been liberated at this stage" despite certain claims being made by opposition forces and that "fierce fighting continues". Capture of border post was one skirmish in the ongoing fight for control over the Nafusa mountain region. The frontline in Cyrenaica remains unchanged. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, and it would be too early to call it so. It would be advisable to wait a few days, but I hope these events indicate some changes.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this bull**** of rebels "driving" anyone from Misrata. "Driving out" assumes a unit is FORCED to leave by the enemy's COMBAT actions. This was not a case in Misrata - the loyalists clearly implemented a fighting (as rebels chose to use the opportunity) retreat per the orders from politicians. A withdrawal that was announced _in_advance_ of it happening. (I believe it is clear they did not leave because of a lack of ammunition.) 92.52.55.29 (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Some questions

Why is the pro-NATO site libya17feb.com allowed here (some tagged as "unreliable source?"), and any site (including BBC or Reuters) citing anything related to libian state media, or any site in the world that doesn't support the attack is deleted inmediatelly? And also, I would like an explanation (if there's any) on why it is not censure.

I think wikipedia is a site where people is responsible to let the reader have as many differents sources as possible to keep articles the most neutral possible, so hidding information is a severe right denied to the ones who enters to the article. I know it has a tag in the begin of the page, but our mision should be to solve this. So here's another question. If you admit this article is completely biased (I guess you admit because that tag has not been removed), then why you are not doing anything to solve this? (this question is directed to those who deleted sources that claimed that NATO killed civilians). What do you propose to have this article neutral?--Andres arg (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Three things:

1) libyafeb17.com collects news tidbits from reliable news sources in addition to unreliable rebel sources. Editors often see something from AJ or Reuters there and don't think to track down the actual article.

2) It is widely acknowledged on this page that libyafeb17.com in and of itself is not reliable and should not be used as a source.

3) "Pro-NATO" is an asinine descriptor, as the site predates the no-fly zone. This uprising was not created by NATO, only preserved by it. NATO is not a primary combatant here; it serves an auxiliary role in enforcing a UNSC resolution which happens to favour the rebels over the regime. This is first and foremost a civil war.

So what are you waiting for? If it bothers you that much, go hunt down some articles! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Andres do you believe that Libyan state media is currently a reliable source? The additions of anything that comes from the Libyan state media is propaganda; it doesn't matter if the BBC or Reuters reports what Libyan state media said - it is and remains propaganda aimed at the Libyan population. I give you an example: during WWII the New York Times carried every day a section with what Radio Berlin had reported the day before. If now Radio Berlin i.e. in 1943 said "Stalingrad was a genial strategic diversion by the Führer!", should we then put that into the Battle of Stalingrad article and say the source is very reliable, because it is the New York Times??? I think no; noclador (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To Lothar von Richthofen: they are pro-NATO because the rebels are the soldiers of NATO itself interests. They are being supported now like when they supported the talibans in Afghanistan, and now they kill them. Rebels are not going to get anything, because whoever is elected president in Libya there is no doubt it will be a puppet of USA that will enforce all those free market economies that they have done and we have suffered it in our country.

If NATO only worried to enforce the no fly zone they just would shot down the planes flying, not randomly bombing in cities or attempting to kill the leader Gaddafi, like they attempted today. They are the air force of the rebels (they bomb tanks, how does a tank fly??), it is not enforcing a no-fly zone! Also, I remember that a rebel plane was flying with a monarch libyan flag, and the NATO just escorted it till it landed, if it was not a rebel plane they would have shoot it down. I can't understand how people like you are supporting those criminal that have done so much damage to the world.

To Noclador: Whatever you say, but any source in favour of rebels is okay, and any source in favour of Gaddafi is not okay. You and the other guy have been arbitrarily deciding what should stay and what should be deleted. For example you said that Telesur was a "Hugo Chavez controlled TV-station", and that is false. It is a site that simpatizes for Chavez, the same way that channels in Argentina support their candidates, and same way you simpatize for liberals I assume.

If you people keep doing this, this article will never be neutral (in my opinion, I think you don't care about having a neutral article, I think you just want to do propaganda for NATO here).--Andres arg (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you think the page is biased, you can work on actually fixing that instead of complaining about it.

The UNSC resolution authorises a no-fly-zone and the protection of civilians, which can easily be taken to mean "bomb tanks and artillery shooting in the vicinity of civilians". This can also entail taking out the command and communications structure of the military. No command/communication=weak army=less danger to civilians near this army.

Here's some news for you, kid. Here at Wikipedia, we don't give two hoots for what you think is the WP:TRUTH. We care what reliable sources report. If you don't like this, then you can just leave. Don't cry on talk-pages about how we are just tools of the evil US and its puppet NATO. Start a blog or other single-authorship page where you can use as many ludicrous articles from Telesur as you want to cite your opinions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

lol, you say "if you think the page is biased" while we see the tag of neutrally disputed, and you tell me to actually fix it instead of complaining while when I do something you insta-revert it making me feel like a vandal. And yeah, im done with this article as I don't have any chance to do anything if you are around... hopefully someone takes care of it. Feel free to put Obama is an angel that will save all the civilians, etc. Good luck--Andres arg (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, you'll find that I really don't do much on this page. I only reverted your addition of the Telesur article because it was complete trash, as far as this project is concerned. It represents a WP:FRINGE viewpoint and does not belong in a legitimate encyclopaedia. Organisations like Reuters and Al Jazeera are legitimate, respectable news sources, not tabloid rags. They provide thorough coverage with low levels of bias. Go look and see if you can find something there. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is overly long and does need a cleanup. For this reason, I've removed many unreliable references, such as those to libyafeb17.com and lesser reliable sites. This might be a questionable move, because "unreliable sites" often just repost from reliable sources, but notable information should be possible to verify with those reliable sources. There are also many dynamic links which are no longer preserved at the publisher's site, which to me suggest they either do not support that information or consider it transient and not notable. I also removed many hidden comments and useless links (like Italian language). Given the article size, please post lengthy comments at this talk page and avoid fancy formatting and templates (their transclusion does increase loading time, for example, non-templated references are preferred here). Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Khaled Kaim

Khaled Kaim does not have his own Wikipedia page. NATO, which enforces the no-fly zone claims it has been has been applying it to both sides but there is evidence of profound Bias, as well as crimes against unarmed civilians by the Western nations. On Saturday, fighting continued over the city, with fleeing civilians reporting both sides shelling each other while the real culprits might be sitting laughing in a secure, undisclosed location like the KFC Yum! Center in Kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.132.150 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

People are making things up

Bellow is the statement that was added in the article, and stayed there for couple of days until I've deleted it, that was simply made up by someone and was not referenced at all. In fact, to cover everything up someone has simply added one reference that doesnt even exist and the other that doesnt even mention the issue. I wonder how many statements like this are there in the whole article.

• The opposition have speculated that the Libyan government's claim of Saif al-Arab's death was a tactic to gain sympathy. Abdul Hafez Goga, spokesperson for the Transitional National Council, said he thinks it could all be fabrication: "Back in 1986, Gaddafi once claimed that Ronald Reagan, then US president, had launched a strike on his compound in Tripoli and killed his daughter. Many journalists since then dug around and found out that the actual child that had died had nothing to do with Gaddafi, that he sort of adopted her posthumously."

Ratipok (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That statement is a quote that you can find in Al-Jazeera's article about Saif's death. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011430224755721620.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.28.132 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, someone then placed the wrong reference to the statement because I checked both of them (when I deleted the statement) and one wasnt working, while the other was different then the one you have posted (didnt mentioned anything about the matter).Ratipok (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

lack up updates

There have been no updates since three days ago. Surely some things have happened since? (LAz17 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).

I've added an update but it doesn't show in the article. You can check the article's history. Either the article is under some sort of block, which accepts edits but doesn't present them in the article, or we've found a bug on wikiedia. -- Mecanismo | Talk 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your updates were on May 1st, not what has happened since then? (LAz17 (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

I've added an update on May 5th, with a news regarding the US's funding of the rebel forces through Gadhafi's frozen assets. I don't know why but that edit doesn't appear in the article, nor in the current vistory version. Does it appear in anyone's article history? -- Mecanismo | Talk 10:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist deleted the updates -Eric

[[User::Materailscientist]] didn't deleted them. After reviewing the history log it appears that somehow wikipedia logged that I removed my own contribution right after I added it, which is very strange. -- Mecanismo | Talk 11:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a report on the technical section of the village pump regarding this problem -- Mecanismo | Talk 11:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the problem regarding updates has been fixed -- Mecanismo | Talk 11:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It has not been fixed - I simply added dates because nobody was adding daily updates. Then again, maybe the situation is more calm? (LAz17 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

Well it's a bit better than before. Not yet top notch, we still need a bit more info on early May. I'm about to add a sentence or two for May 3rd. (LAz17 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).

NATO

Should NATO's bombings be included in this timeline? I have not included them when I update, but I dunno, maybe there is some sense in that. (LAz17 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)).

I do not understand why NATO's bombings should not be relevant. This is an important part of what is going on (whether or not it is defined as "warfare"). Are they bombing the same targets routinely over and over again? Else, a few words about the bombings, on a day-to-day basis, should be highly relevant, IMHO. JoergenB (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

References, last four reuters.com links

www.reuters.com/article2011/2011/...

The last four reuters links contain /article2011/2011/, these links show Page Not Found messages, I assume that it should be /article/2011/, without the duplicate "2011" I get to the correct pages. Also previous reuters-links contain /article/2011/ instead of /article2011/2011/

If I'm right, could someone change that, please?--YoungWee (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and you are correct, there are multiple Reuters links with that error Cthugha (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The addresses are copy-pasted in their entirety. Maybe URLs changed since these references were posted? I will relocate the articles and update the URLs, and post here if I found out what happened. best, Kevinman4404 (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, they are all fixed. I don't know how that happened. Weird!Kevinman4404 (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

17 May Tunisia Fire

There is a bullet in the 17 May section that is unsourced in that the source has been moved or deleted. If someone could please find the proper source, or delete that bullet, it would make the wiki better. Cthugha (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

the error is in the formatting of the article citations, see above Cthugha (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Live Blog

Hi, I'm just curious if the Al-Jazeera live Libya blog meets wikipeda criteria. On the one hand it is a blog, on the other, it is part of Al-Jazeera, so must have some credibility. Also, most of the articles are not in-line with the stance taken by the main Al-Jazeera articles. Since it is continuous blogging from ground staff embroiled in what is going on, they obviously have far more ability to report on the rebel situation- they obviously have little to do with the loyalists. Wouldn't this present an element of bias? If there is, there isn't much that can be done now, but maybe we can filter future edits. We could instead take articles from the main Al-Jazeera articles.

Here is an example of an edit I culled at one point: "Officials say a car bomb in the opposition stronghold of Benghazi has slightly injured two people. The blast caused hundreds of men, many carrying weapons, to come out onto the street and climb on top of the twisted wreckage of the car to yell slogans against Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader. Nasser Warfuli, a local journalist, identified the car as a white Chevrolet, and said it exploded just before evening prayers.[415]" 415.^ a b Libya Live Blog | Al Jazeera Blogs. Blogs.aljazeera.net (2011-05-09). Retrieved on 2011-05-14.

Clearly this is not in line with the majority of content entered into this wikipedia article, and hopefully it illustrates my point that Al-Jazeera Libya Live Blog is maybe not a sufficiently good source for additions to this article.

Kevinman4404 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Live Blog Reply

• I think everyone should be careful as they choose what to take and use from live blogs. Al Jazeera is one of the best in the business but data should have supporting sources. Also, be sure to use permalinks so we don't have link rot. Daniel Musto (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates, quality of information, quality of writing, and references

I just spend a lot of time adjusting grammatical errors and poorly constructed statements, adding proper references, formatting references properly, including and excluding wikilinks where appropriate, and added information in general. Sticking a 'url tag' at the end of a statement is the absolute laziest way of referencing your material and simply means I have to spend my time fixing your laziness rather than improving the overall quality of the article or finding additional information. Also, be aware that when you use news sites, a lot of them simply copy 90% off the first person who reported it. That's why it is best to use sites like Al Jazeera and Reuters for your sources as ABC or NBC or whomever is simply parroting them. Also, if NATO or the U.N. releases a statement, don't necessarily use the news article...just use the actual press release and reference it properly. I'll be looking over this page periodically now and attempting to clean it up. I'd appreciate anyone's help in doing so - there are hundreds of unsourced, improperly sourced, or lazily sourced citations that I need to worth through.

Daniel Musto (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

References/Citations

I think we trim down the amount of citations or put them in a "menu" where you have option to show/hide them. It would make the page a lot shorter. Everytime I want to go to the bottom of the page I do not need to scroll through 500+ citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.82.73 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Figaro reports that the French Government is arming the rebels

Apparently they have the information that France government is arming the rebels at in Western Libya (Nafusa range). I am not fluent in French though, so I dont want to add anything to the article myself, but considering what sources are constantly being used in the article I se no reason why this wouldnt be used as well.

Source: French: [2] Slovene: [3]

If the information is true then France is violating the UN resolution for the arms embargo on Libya. Ratipok (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

also the BBC reports it. However the if France is violating the UN resolution 1970 with this is up for debate... the only fact confirmed is that the rebels got some weapons. noclador (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The later UN resolution 1973 permits any means to protect civilians, so the French military didn't violate it by shipping arms to the rebels. Having said that, it is debatable whether that is proper way of protection, thus the French would be certainly criticized by some. Still, their military surely did risk analysis, hence I don't expect significant criticism in the light of these news. They are certainly not news for any military in the world with functioning intelligence. 1exec1 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of the Resolution, and everyone with logical mind and legal knowledge can tell you that. Of course that France will not say "we violated the Resolution", but make excuses, like every criminal does. 93.141.118.204 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie Phelan

anyone who thinks that this Lizzie Phelan is a WP:RS have a look at her ultra-biased wordpress page [4]. More POV is not possible! noclador (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I guess we can delete all of the statements from Hillary Clinton, Sarkozy etc. how Gaddafi's regime is killing its own people, because they are clearly biased in favour of the rebels. And because there isnt any proof of that, either then words.Ratipok (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

to which office has Phelan been elected? For which reputable news source does she work? As long as neither happens - she is a private citizen, whose opinion is irrelevant here. noclador (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Press TV article, she is also a journalist among other things and, therefore, every view has to be shared in the article. If you are biased towards the rebels and dont agree with it, thats your problem. Interesting how someone would put pro-rebel claims in the article, but when someone else puts something different, it must be deleted asap. Its no wonder why this article is flagged as biased and its neutrality disputed since the begining.Ratipok (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

a compromise - if you can find a source from any Western media that says that truly a million people marched, you can put this claim in - as for now maybe you want to see what Press TV itself reported: "broadcast to tens of thousands of supporters gathered in a central Tripoli square," and if you care for more sources that this was never a million "His defiant audio address was played to thousands of supporters packed into Tripoli's main square during on of the biggest pro-government rallies since the airstrikes began.", "as thousands of Gaddafi supporters gathered in Tripoli’s main square to show that the Libyan leader still boasts serious support from his people.", "http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/15987/defiant-gadhafi-vows-to-defeat-nato", but as all the other sources say it was at maximum "tens of thousands of supporters", I will change the entry to reflect the sources until you can source it properly that it was a million. noclador (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it has to be a Western media source, because they are the only ones that are truly independent and are not biased:)). Judging by the satelitte areial photos of the Green square in Tripoli and the Tahrir square in Kairo and their surrounding flat area, which were packed during the demonstrations, I think we can safely say that at least several houndred of thousands Libyans were present on pro-Gaddafi rally (judging from the reports by Western media months ago, that over one million people gathered in Kairo of course). Whatever the true number, this was the largest crowd gathering in Libya during the recent years. And a lot more people gathered then they were ever present in Benghazi, since the city was "liberated".Ratipok (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1 million people

I don't know of any protests, on any issue, anywhere, ever....featuring 1 million people. In this case it would require the entire population of the city, including those who've fled, & who're too old/young/sick to walk, & who took part in anti-Gad protests. It is utter bollocks.92.16.103.240 (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera reported on 1 Feb that one million demonstrated in Cairo http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/2011215827193882.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopWarCrimes (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe uncited crowd estimates from news media, they always exaggerate. See also the million anti-Iraq-war march in London, 'the' million man march in the usa, the million people against abortion in spain a few years back...none of them actually featuring a million people. 92.16.103.240 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

:: This "million people" event also has gone unnoticed by Press TV, who did not report about it. A person they interviewed claimed that this many people where at the demonstration, which is something different from a report by Press TV! noclador (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the claim that 1 million people protested in Tripoli is disputed to say the least, it should not be added without a RS, something someone says in an interview is sourced to them, not to the interviewer.92.16.103.240 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected

I vote this article to become at least semi-protected so only autoconfirmed users could contribute and edit the article, since there are plenty of unregistrated ones that are doing no more than vandalism in recent weeks.Ratipok (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing your 'million people protesting' thing is not vandalism. 92.16.103.240 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, of course its not vandalism. Never mind that your first edit with your current IP was in fact vandalism. Besides its not just one IP. This article has undergone several major/minor vandalism edits in recent weeks/months and that is why this article should be protected, just like the main one, 2011 Libyan Civil War.Ratipok (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

90% of the vandalism on this article comes from just 1 source- namely User:SuperblySpiffingPerson. The policy with banned users is: "Block on sight!/Revert on sight!" - so, if we rigorously apply this (i.e. revert everything an IP beginning with 124. does), the remaining vandalism is absolutely manageable. noclador (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

None of my edits under any IP have ever been vandalism, anyone can see that this IPs aren't just by looking for themselves, how you think you can possibly get away with such a lie is difficult to understand 92.16.103.240 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya war page

The old format was fine. I want July 4th and 5th news. Please turn back on wiki people. Don't cut it down I want all the details! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.66.195.117 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Graphic and horrific scenes of violence committed by Libyan rebels

There you have it. Keep in mind that you need a strong stomach if you want to view the videos. Link Here, Lets see on how long this will stand without getting deleted.Ratipok (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah it is graphic... and totally insane shit! Already the first paragraph says "The CIA were behind most of the beheadings in Iraq, it is not coincidence that these CIA controlled “rebels” are doing the same thing in Libya." aha... and the top of the insanity of the article you link above is that the article is from Susan Lindauer, who has been officially declared insane twice! If you think that the homepage of US-based conspiracy nut is a source you can trust, then you better not edit wikipedia. And for those editors who still reside in reality: enjoy this hilarious piece of insanity from Lindauer: "Simply put, Lockerbie was a false flag operation to cover up rogue CIA involvement in heroin trafficking out of the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, during the Terry Anderson hostage crisis." noclador (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, even more crazy that Gadaffi "suicide plan to blow up Tropili" among others. Nah, reality.. Ratipok (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On that subject, perhaps someone should create a redirect for the red 'al-bagdad' to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdadi_Mahmudi, seems IPs can't do so. 92.16.125.144 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

To Kevinman4404:

Your source didn't have a direct link, but I've just seen the source where the rebels said they retreated from Brega.

Also, please talk about edits to this discussion page and not edit my user page. Thanks. Raistuumum (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

New Updates.

As of today july 16th the Free Forces have attacked brega and have taken over 80% of the city. www.libyafeb17.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.95.108 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Timezones

I assume/suggest we use Libya time for dates, at least for events taking place within Libya. 92.16.137.222 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop the Presses: Zintan vs. Zlitan

Hey have people figured out which town is Zintan and which is Zlitan so that we report on the proper city and what is actually happening there? See: Libya: The mainstream media invent new map of Libya ... a closer look! --Radical Mallard (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Zintan is held by the NTC and is located in the Nafusa Mountains. Zlitan (or Zliten) is held by the Gaddafists and is located between Misrata and Tripoli. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but we should make sure that Reuters and Associated Press are aware of this, or at least that we have it correct here.Radical Mallard (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for more pages

Just echoing what I'm about to write in a few other discussion threads, but could we create some additional pages for the different battles? Particular the Nafusa mountains campaign, while not over (Tiji, Al Josh etc) has now clearly expanded beyond the mountains, and perhaps "Western talk:Tripolitanian campaign" would be a good addition, along with perhaps a page for the battle of Tawurgha which started and finished yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)