Talk:Casualties of the Libyan civil war (2011)

More sections divided by dates

I think that the dates should be clumped into sections like in the timeline in the main article. Looks more aesthetically pleasing and makes sense. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of a nice quick overview I think that the date-by-date specific events should be in the form of a table. But for a more aesthetically pleasing look maybe we can change the collor of the table?EkoGraf (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I could have sworn it looked longer before! O_O Well when it gets longer then maybe divide it up that way. Errr... if you want to change it, sure, but remember to not use green or red, NPOV and all. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The table of casualties

The table is not going to work unless we have sources giving totals for the battles so far, which we don't. Sources say things like "50 died in overnight fighting in Zawiyah" and "A witness said 22 people died in the fighting on 3 March". We can't add these reports up ourselves, that would be original research.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Zawiyah entry right now [1] has "234-247 65" so your specific example is difficult to use without trawling through the article revision history. These are not directly referenced in this article, the numbers obviously come from the Az Zawiyah article which is linked and reasonable obvious. AFAIK, in principle, we're supposed to copy references over, but that doesn't count as an accuracy dispute, it's just a failure to copy references from the related wikipedia article. Boud (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

"300" rebels died in Tripoli clashes and no Government fatalities have been reported. Really? 74 rebels and 14 government forces killed in the "Battle of Az Zawiyah". Sources? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The linked wikipedia article for Tripoli still presently gives (300, unknown), and Az Zawiyah is linked to the Az Zawiyah related article. Again, this seems to me to be a failure to copy over references from related wikipedia articles. AFAIK the referencing guideline says that refs should be copied over - since a wikipedia article is not a reliable source - i think we do have to use common sense here. People working on individual city articles can sort out details on those article talk pages if it's needed, and if anyone really wants to copy over the references, then it should be fairly straightforward.

i'm removing the "disputed" tag because this is either a disagreement about whether or not to copy over the references from the "source" wikipedia articles, or the factual disputes should be sorted out over on those "source" articles. Boud (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposition for deletion

I wanted to discuss the points user Abductive says the article is in violation of. I think you should have discussed it on improving it before rushing and proposing it for deletion but whatever here goes.

WP:CONTENTFORK - Was moved to this article so the main article on the war would be shortened. Wikipedia promotes this, and 90 percent of what is in this article is not in the main article on the conflict, so no violation there.

WP:NOT#NEWS - Wouldn't call this non-notable and not news since most of the diplomatic wrangling for the no-fly zone is based on the high number of dead in the conflict, which is every day mentioned and cited and is the hallmark of this war. So it is notable and not violating that rule there.

WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research - Now, for this, 95 percent of everything in the article is cited. However, the only thing that comes to my mind that you were probably thinking of not being cited is the combined death toll beneath the table. Which may constitute Original research. For the sake of the posibility it is not verifiably it was noted in the article the combined numbers were not confirmed. However, if you think it's such a big problem we will remove that sentance and all should be good and 100 percent cited. Ok? :) EkoGraf (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the instructions in the deletion proposal, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.", I object to the deletion for the reasons listed by EkoGraf. In addition, i have improved the article (IMHO) by making it clearer that many of the casualties (deaths) of the 2011 Libyan uprising are under legal investigation as possible crimes against humanity. This topic is one of just six presently "under investigation" by the International Criminal Court. The notability as an encyclopedic topic is obvious. Hence, i have removed the tag. Boud (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

hey about NATO killing serven libyan rebels on April 7 in friendly fire?

who's aircraft was it? Uk or France? Help please.

Did the killing of an Aljazera Cameraman should be included as an oposition fatality??? I think not, could someone check this out.--190.118.9.11 (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

uk. casualties caused by NATO section highly bias. please edit

Notable deaths

Don`t you think the death of Abdul Fatah Younis should be added? --Ave César Filito (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Deaths caused by Gaddafi forces: item three in serious doubt, item four and five in the wrong category

This line : On February 24, the IFHR said that 130 soldiers had been executed in Benghazi and al-Baida, after they mutinied and sided with the protesters.[9]

refers to an incident that had 22 of its 130 victims published on Youtube. But the question about how these soldiers died has remained unconfirmed now for seven months. Both IFHR ([FIDH], or Federation International des Droits Humaines, working from Paris, an umbrella- and support organisation for local human rights NGO's all over the world) and the interim government in Libya have been unable to come with credible research, substantiating the claim, initially passed on by hitherto unnamed local sources to IFHR. Even the location remains in doubt.

One of the more serious bloggers compared the bodies on the video footage of the victims with other Youtube material from the same week (where at least one appeared alive and captured by rebels) and came with a credible reconstruction, strongly suggesting that these soldiers were murdered after being captured by a group, fighting on the side of the rebels.

I propose that, since both IFHR and the new Libyan government apparently no longer support the initial claims, this item is either removed, or that it is not presented as a fact, but as an unconfirmed claim by unnamed local Libyan NGO's, passed to the international media through the IFHR. It would then also be fair to add the comment of the then Libyan state television. (See inside above blogspot.)

The next item (February 25) is unsubstantiated by the link to the BBC-article. Also the claimed statement is explicitly speculative and does include (likely around 90 percent) injured, so this figure does not belong under the ,quite factual, single issue heading of 'Deaths caused by Gaddafi forces'.

A more complex issue is raised by the last two items (February 25 and March 20): Who is responsible for the deaths, caused by the uprising as a whole?

The Hague's International Criminal Court has not yet decided that Gaddafi's family and a few of his comrades are solely responsible for the whole war, and they are unlikely to do so. With the last phase of this wear turning very ugly against Gaddafi-loyal cities and against black Libyans, they are likely to rule that responsibility for the casualties lies with all sides who breached the international laws and UN-resolutions. Which means both sides. (Plus those international parties who broke the UN-weapons embargo.)

So it is at least premature and likely out of touch with recent and coming developments to blame all deathts of this conflict on the Kaddafi-side.

I would propose that this means that minimally, the last two items of this list should be moved into a separate category. With civilian victims likely outnumbering dead fighters, and with the who's to blame question still undecided, it might be better to rewrite the whole thing.

Best way for rewriting, I think, would be to list all deaths in the same list, and name those responsible for the deaths, only if they are confirmed by a named, reputable source.

Amsterdam, Pieter SmitPieter Felix Smit (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I phoned a French journalist who wanted to investigate the site where the 22 bodies were found. She says nobody in the new authority cooperates even in releasing the location where it happened, they discouraged her and played down the importance. She says it stinks. Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 'truth' should also be put in this list of war casualties? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

References

NYT article

New York Times has a report on civilian casualties caused by NATO.[2]--Anders Feder (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No more than 30,000 casualties?

The article starts with the claim that estimates vary between 2000 and 30,000. In fact there were claims for 50,000 too. Rebel leaders put Libya death toll at 50,000 Roffel (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

fake news about 6000 dead before March of 2011

The ≈ 6000 dead figure Casualties_of_the_2011_Libyan_Civil_War#Overall_deaths very probably was made up deliberately to provoke war, no such mass grave was ever found yet UNHRC and ICC accepted the allegations as fact. Shame! --Port-Arthur-2018 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

obviously, those numbers reported do not make sense. First casualty of this war again: The truth. --91.60.138.151 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)