Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.

• For discussions regarding the main map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Gulf of Sirt Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Tripolitanian Front" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.
• For discussions regarding the "Battle for Misrata" map, see its dedicated talk page at Wikimedia Commons.

Discussing specific complaints on the Commons talk pages keeps discussion here focused on the article and makes it much more likely that your concerns will be properly addressed. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Too much vandalism

Currently, there seems to be too much vandalism going on. I have requested semi-protection here.--Tingo Chu (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one. There is no hope. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.192 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I work for the CIA? News to me. O_O We have just been getting our info off of the RSs and putting it here. As far as I know, the CIA, MI6, Aussie MI6 (G something or other), Mossad and everyone else haven't had a hand in writing this article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the 'Australian SIS'. 86.24.22.97 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As we see above, it was called "a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history. No doubt the CIA boys have been working hard on this one." Why just the CIA!? Sir William is right, it is unfair to only blame the USA (the UK and France are in there to)?

Wipsenade (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that serious consideration be given to the thought that vandalism is being undertaken by Gaddafi supporters wherever they may be. Including the comment above that "This whole wiki article is utter propaganda. George Orwell must be turning in his grave. It's nothing more than a shameful, shabby collection of pseudo-facts dressed up as history."

We should be asking ourselves who has most to gain from making this suggestion. The US, or Gaddafi? Agent0060 16:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Australian version of the CIA is ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation), just for your information.. Tjpob (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ASIO is the internal Aussie intelligence agency. ASIS is the external one and thus the equivalent of the CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.77.153 (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative name suggestion

Would 2011 Libya conflict work as a good article title? Two reasons why it strikes me as a good title:

• It is not only a consise title, but it also would allow for discussion of the social and political conflict as well as the associated armed conflict.

• It seems to be more common than the current title: I ran some numbers through Google News as quick test for frequency of name use.

• "Libya conflict" (162) + "conflict in Libya" (1,450) + "Libyan conflict" (860) = 2472 hits
• "Libya civil war" (149) + "civil war in Libya" (149) + "Libyan civil war" (82) = 380 hits

Now of course Google News aren't definitive, but it seems clear than formulations using "conflict" are more common. Recent articles in the major newspapers seem to underscore the point: "The African Union, which offered its own peace plan at the outset of the conflict..." (NY Times, 5/27); "The operating center in Tripoli...could be used as a weapon in the conflict in Libya (Guardian, 5/27)...

• A large proportion of the article involves the lead-up to the current violence/armed conflict, including the political crisis and efforts to deescalate violence, and not the violence itself. Further, of the portion of the article dealing with the armed conflict, much of it is focused on (1) the humanitarian crisis; (2) the intervention; and (3) the diplomatic situation surrounding the conflict. All of these events are distinct from a "civil war." A broader title and one in more widespread usage seems appropriate here. Neutrality^talk 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of charming that you are walking into this not knowing the extreme amount of back and forths over the article title in the past hahaha. The original title for the article was 2011 Libyan Conflict, but it was changed to civil war because conflict is not a descriptive enough title. Anything can be a conflict without being a war, and the consensus was that whatever is going on is a civil war. Obviously conflict is the more commonly used term, but there have been other attempts to change it back to conflict and the consensus was to keep the current title. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. It was protests first and then uprising and now civil war. Though there were about two RMs for conflict, which I would support if it is common still. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It must have only been protests and uprising for a few days, the first time I looked for an article on the ongoings in libya it was called conflict. Either way, the majority of the article's existence has been either conflict or civil war. The most important point is that we don't need to dredge this crap up again. We're all unhappy with the current name for different reasons but we should leave it for a while and see what happens. There are numerous other things that need working on in this article to improve it. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The title was originally 2011 Libyan protests from its creation on 31 January to this requested move closed on 21 February. "Uprising" stayed from then until this requested move, closed on 29 March. "Civil war" has remained since then. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad, there were so many drawn-out RMs that I forgot what the title actually was lol... 174.114.87.236 (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and please stop trying to start the same discussion over and over again. The title of the article has been discussed at length and "2011 Libyan conflict" has already been suggested numerous times. Stop wasting your time and effort. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, most of you fail to understand that this is NOT a civil war. The fighting takes place mostly between external armed forces (NATO) and Gaddafi regime. The conflicts between pro- and anti- Gaddafi citizens still takes place but its level of involvement is far too small for it to be called a WAR. Period. I simply will never understand the level of ignorance and close-mindedness of those people "running" Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.204 (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Every news organization and government which talks about the situation in Libya refers to it as a civil war. Are Libyans not killing Libyans? Skipbox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Feh, it doesn't really matter what the name is, the other will just get redirected here, and there's not any POV concern either. As far as I can tell, we have better issues to worry about than the name right now. --Yalens (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

POV in Photos?

Uninvolved editor with no bias here, but I was looking through the photos and what I noticed is all of the photos are either 1) Supportive of the rebels, 2) Show Gaddaffi's forces destroyed or damaged, or 3) Show NATO air superiority. Now, I'm personally supportive of democracy in the middle east. That said, the photos strongly lean toward a POV in support of the rebels. Anyone else notice this?--v/r - TP 02:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your evaluation is still correct.Satiksme (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll add a POV tag to force review. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone reverted the tag and I readded. The photos only promote 1 part of the war. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalemate and Allied war crimes

By June the international press was calling the conflict a fiasco which had reached a stalemate. War crimes allegations against the Allied forces began to surface, including mass rapes of Libyan women at "gang bang parties" and their subsequent murder after by NATO-backed rebels.

Petey Parrot (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your sources for international press are two opinion pieces from the Huffington Post and Washington Post, both US papers; one by a "professional mediator" and the other by an "opinion writer". Your source for the war crimes is a self-described "radical newsletter". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Your addition of a Russia Today YouTube video does not improve this I am afraid. They are heavily biased against the US and under the control of the Russian government last I checked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 00:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the same report from your government BBC and the rest of the global media highlighting the U.N. report, which stated the rebels have committed war crimes. Go sit in a classroom of Luc Ferry and follow Weinergate, it's more up your alley.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why not just link to the story on one of their sites? You know YouTube videos, by themselves, are not RSs. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an extremely POV snippet that relies on opinion writers, which are called "the international press," and a hilariously unsourced blog post that provides zero evidence of said claims, which are treated as legitimate "allegations." Oh, and throw in the conspiracy-ridden Russia Today for good measure. Someone has to read WP:RS. Fovezer (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The American people opposed the arming of rebels by a vast majority, yet the United States did it anyways, allowing the mass rape and gang bang parties of innocent Libyan women obviously without the arms Western Libyan leadership dispered to their people earlier in the conflict to protect themselves from such barbarity. What a scary thought for Libyan women as a whole if the despots in Washington put the rebels in control of Libya. The U.N. has already accused the rebels of committing war crimes.

If we listened to the so-called champion of women in America Hillary Clinton counting chickens before they've hatched again, she would be attached to the Kucinich resolution standing up for her gender across the globe. She'd be Madam President if counting chickens before they hatched was actually quality governmental leadership and strategy.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On June 8, 2011, the U.K. said they would turn their guns on Libyan rebels lynching blacks and attacking pro-West Libya civilians, following a report from Human Rights Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Other reports indicated that weapons with depleted uranium were being used against W. Libya, contaminating the global air supply.

Petey Parrot (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The first article is about Fukushima and only makes a flippant remark about DU at the end, not a "report." The second one is about "fears," but nothing indicating they are being used. DU is used in smaller penetration weapons and ammunition, not in the bombs they are dropping now. Still no RS claiming the use of DU in Libya, either. Fovezer (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On June 9, 2011, the Libyan government in Switzerland denied allegations of war crimes, claiming to be the victims of media fabrication employed to deflect attention away from Allied-backed rebel war crimes, which included engaging in acts of cannabalism. The representative in Geneva said evidence it has obtained would be turned over.

Petey Parrot (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The same day, CIA director Leon Panetta conceded there were "legitimate" concerns about the rebels and their extremism.

Petey Parrot (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that any statements which are not pro rebel are instantly rebuffed by the community here, so I have little hope of the article ever reading like an encyclopedic article should. That being said, in the head section of this article it states "Gaddafi's forces, particularly amongst the foreign mercenaries, are alleged to have widely used rape as a weapon of war, and in some cases victims may recently have contracted HIV.[43][44]". This is true, however highly misleading, as both sides have been accused of using rape, and both on equally weak grounds of evidence. An article with several references which pulls together interesting and relevant facts can be found here: . For those who are not pre-judged about either side, it is clear that for whatever reason, the wikipedia article is skewed as anti-Gaddafi propaganda, refusing to apply the same principles to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.169.242 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement from Pro-Gaddafi Propagandist

Please, remember that Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda; it is a place for knowledge. At the moment, this article is very biased! If nothing will change during this week, I will ask my friend (from Wikipedia administration) to lock this article and fix it. Yes, I know how you love the opposition, but again: Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.111.147.61 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, we are just going by what the reliable sources say, nothing more. Nothing can really be done if there aren't ones that show Gadaffi in a positive light. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I have not even mentioned that this article is anti-Gadaffian! I caught you! It seems that you agree with me that this article is biased, but don't say it!

In the whole time we have been editing this article, that's the bias that has been complained about, and we have told those people the same thing. Don't you think an AfD is a bit extreme? You're going to get a WP:SPEEDYKEEP rather fast. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

An AfD are you serious? This just screams WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for deletion, anyways expect a speedy WP:SNOW close. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this guy likes to bold things to make his point he does have one, I've been so focused on the title of this article that I haven't been looking enough at the content. The opening paragraph says it all, it's loaded with unsourced speculation about when the civil war will end, and in who's favour it will be decided. It also mentions the human rights abuses by gaddafi but fails give prominent mention that the UN believes both sides have committed war crimes. Another good point was made that most of the pictures seem to depict the plight of the rebels and not the regime. I don't think "not having sources" is an excuse for this, I'm not suggesting that we integrate the bs that Gaddafi spews out, but the language of the entire article needs to revamped to remove predictions and to speak dispassionately about the situation. The article has also become way too long and needs to be broken up, some of the subheadings are relevant to the article or deserving of their own, but others have been added by enthusiasts who are forgetting that wikipedia isn't a fanboy repository. This is especially true of the `battles between gaddafi and oppisiton` heading. PS in case anyone wasn`t aware, there are 493 references given in this article!!!!! 174.114.87.236 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources that contradict info in this article, add them, with verification. Otherwise, you can call the article "biased" until "the cows come home," and it's 100% your POV. Tapered (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying that someone's insight is 100% their POV makes utterly no sense, of course that's the case, everyone has a POV when they speak and its their own. If this guy wants to criticize the article as being biased you can't dismiss it by saying "well that's just your opinion". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To delete the article is the worst thing you could do here. If you think the article is biased, then you have to change it by adding "unbiased" or counterbiased information to make it more center. To delete it this way is, compared to the huge amount of time and information given, absolutely useless. WP:SPEEDYKEEP for you, because i haven't seen a dispute of "unbiased" editors against "biased" editors, which ended in unjust favor of the biased ones. Change the article, which you are free to do, but don't delete it.--Mardas90 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Time was given to contradict statements and references given in this article and none have been produced. The Gadaffi regime is censoring news and holding journalists and torturing and executing people. Wikipedia, above all, is not the place for the bias and POV of dictators. It would be very useful to see some statements and analysis by ordinary people, not members of the Libyan government, who think Gaddafi should be left in power and his crimes excused, but we need to see this in some believable and verifiable way. Radical Mallard (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh gimme a break. The internet is full of articles about the peculiarities of the rebels from the eastern tribes, including their central bank. How many revolutions start with a central bank? The internet is also full of articles about the motivations of the former colonial powers in recapturing Libya, from depriving China of an energy source to securing the Mediterranean to maintaining the dollar as a reserve currency. And the internet is also full of articles about the history of Libya, including the fact that although there are certainly those who hate Gadaffi, they are very sympathetic to the way he kicked out the western colonial masters. Anybody interested in making this article more plausible can easily google for these, insert a few sentences and references. Otherwise it is a very disappointing example of how self-policing in the wikipedia can fail so egregiously. Son of eugene (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The internet is also full of lots of porn too, what's your point? Wikipedia isn't here to represent what the internet is "full of", it's an encyclopedia that only accepts verifiable sources, not blogs, not opinion, not original research. I agree that there are many issues with this article and I believe the language of it is written in such a way that it favours the western pov and demonizes gaddafi beyond what is neccessary to communicate the facts of the matter. If you're really concerned about the artcile then YOU should do something to improve it, we've got plenty of people on the talk page who are willing to repeatedly and montonuously point out the problems with the article or the problems with the people who edit it. What we haven't got is anyone actually willing to do anything about it. If you wanna see a change in the article then don't pass the buck off to someone else and tell them to google what you say and fix it, they're not gonna do it because they don't think it needs fixing. If you think its important to do then get it done. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Template Error?

At the bottom of the article, the {{Anti-government protests in the 21st century}} seems to be generating a Wiki-link to Template:Navbox. I checked the template in my sandbox and it renders correctly there, I cant figure out what's wrong. Does anyone else see this?--v/r - TP 01:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The page exceeds the size limit and some templates can't be rendered. I added a toolong tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Missed rebels and losses

Is there some information about missed rebels? Are they deserted, killed in action, murdered or captured? Is there some relevant rebel-based source with this kind of information? I looking on the internet but I haven't find some official national transition council source.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Battles/slashes/raids

I saw that there are frequently changes of article names (battle of Al Zawiya - raid to Al Zawiya). Can we gain some consensus about article names and what is more important some minimum about opening new articles about different battles.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The opposition's rejection of democracy through elections is significant enough to warrant mention in article's lead

Along with being vigilant not to conflate aims of the National Transitional Council with terms suchlike 'seeking to introduce democracy', 'seeking the holding of elections' etc. Its aims bear more accurate description as solely relating to the promotion of its own influence and power along with that of its members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If you for a second think that the NTC rejected democracy simply because it rejected Qaddafi's offer... you must be mad. Loro-rojo (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP is a banned editor. A community banned editor in fact. He is not supposed to be contributing here and you can delete his stuff on sight. He wore out his welcome a loooooong time ago.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the Tripoli government which has announced a peace plan founded on elections and the Benghazi government which has continued war and rejected it. That action speaks louder than any propaganda statements to the contrary. There have not been elections in the regions where the NTC has seized control at any time in the four months since they have done so. It is something they have proved hostile to. What they have been about is persecuting the existence of rival political parties in Benghazi founded upon the ideology of the 1969 revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kynuna (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK man.. Yeah, just like the cease fire they announced right before attacking Benghazi and before NATO intervention. I can't believe that people listen to Qaddafi's empty promises and believe his talks about "peace and democracy". And about the NTC not holding elections... you said it yourself, they have been in power for ONLY 4 MONTHS!! Funny how you attack the NTC for not holding elections in 4 months as anti democratic, but Qaddafi who has been in power for 41 years and has not held a single election is the example of democracy to you. Go away. Loro-rojo (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Four months is enough time to announce and then hold an election. As part of an offer for the acceptance of a framework for peace the Tripoli government has committed for them to completed in even less time than that. In three! The barrier to those elections proceeding is the antidemocratic hostility and nature of the NTC who are themselves wholly unelected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.60.97 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And there is your problem. You believe Qaddafi. It's amazing that he can hold an election in 3 months, considering that he has had over 40 years to hold one but he hasn't. Maybe you should read a bit about who Qaddafi is and what he has done. Your ignorance is astounding. Loro-rojo (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In February a group starts disrupting traffic, setting fire to buildings, and then murdering police and soldiers. They say it is for the sake of having elections called. Some people notice that over time the group itself doesn't hold elections. Then in June, initiative is made for the calling of those elections and the group just rejects that and continues with its war. That is the admission of their hypocrisy, that the elections talk was smokescreen for the agenda of their own power. It's a point of high relevance for exposing the subject of this article. It warrants coverage in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.131.154 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you wish, you may start a Gaddaffipedia on your own, no one will stop you. But it is not helpful for you to demand we introduce a lopsided POV and obstinate denial of the facts into a currently respectable encyclopedia article. --Yalens (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just undid an edit by IP user 124.171.60.97 over the same issue. Can we please get semi-protection on this article or something? Also aren't some of these 124...IP's connected to a sockpuppet account investigation or something?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To all editors the IP beginning with 124. are used by the banned vandal SuperblySpiffingPerson. As he is banned from editing wikipedia the procedure with all his edits is to revert on sight and as for the socks and IPs he uses the procedure is to block on sight. No debate, no discussion, you see an edit that fits the pattern, revert immediately! noclador (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this sockpuppet editor has found a new tactic. I noticed an edit by one of the 124 IP addresses, followed shortly thereafter by an 'undo' (in which nothing was reverted) on the edits by that 124 IP by user 'H3limon' - this user has 4 edits - two of which are on this article, and two of which are on another article which has also seen much activity from these 124 IPs.

User H3limon also removed a pic of a protest in Dublin against Gadaffi because a woman was holding a sign calling Gadaffi a 'murderer'. Both changes have been reverted.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys might wanna read up on IP, before some RS claims censorship lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.136.226 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember the CIA involvement in this conflict. CIA has been trying to topple the Libyan regime since 1990s, training and financing anti-regime forces. The violent start of the protests are testimonial to foreign involvement. UNHCR reported that CIA was directly training and financing anti-regime forces, this was reported in 2006, from sources all the way back from 1996. The same anti-regime forces attempted to topple the regime previously, but they failed. This time US was quick to help them through air power. (Source - UNHCR).

Timeline and list of countries which recognize the provisional rebel authority.

Annoyed at U.S. media failure to provide ongoing record of which countries have now recognized the Libyan rebel authority as legitimate, I came here hoping to find such a list and timeline only to discover it was not explicitly being done.

Included should be Italy, Canada, Germany, UAE, and the rest. As of this writing the U.S. has not. Unsure about U.K. Unsure about a lot of them due to this media suppression for whatever reason.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You may find such a list at the NTC's wiki article.--Yalens (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection expired, please re-protect.

This article WILL be consistently vandalised until the war is over. It was semi-protected for _short_ periods multiple times only to get vandalised as soon as the protection expired. I strongly suggest an indefinite semi-protection as this conflict is likely to go on for some time. 109.230.2.249 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This should be taken up at WP:RPP. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AL QATRUN UNDER REBEL CONTROL, currently attacked by Ghaddafi forces from Sebha

Source? Loro-rojo (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This libyan blogger, It is not an official source, but sometimes local bloggers are the only ones who can provide current news from some parts of Libya off-limits for foreigners. http://twitter.com/#!/libyanproud

Anyway, he later stated rebels have been forced to retreat from Qatrun but they are currently re-grouping. Stay tuned.151.80.66.79 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nearby Murzuq (not in the map) currently under rebel control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.80.66.79 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

foreign costs

Foreign powers have spent a lot of money on this war. I have read figures of 700 million USD [2] from the US, over 100 million CD from Canada [3], and then this from the UK, [4] . Could we get a section on this? It would be quite helpful. (LAz17 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)). France - old figure, [5] (LAz17 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)). UK so far - 250 million pounds [6] (LAz17 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)).

Support - I support this measure, the price of this conflict should be public knowledge. --Smart (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are the other main players involved that contributed funds to the assault? So we have US, Canada, Uk, France... I thought maybe Germany, but maybe not, [7] (LAz17 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)).

Rebel offensive

I suppose that we should start new chapter after Rebel offensive because several days there are not any territorial change or important military event. In medias there are more reports about NATO actions than rebel-Gadaffi clashes.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sudan now a Belligerent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.211.54 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kufra

I think that Kufra should be added on the map.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Support – It is probably more known than Al Jawf (the largest town in the Kufra oasis).--Paracel63 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 2 add ... Sudanese army invades Libya, taking control of the southern town of Al-Kufra.

From Portal:Current events/2011 July 2 add: According to The Daily Telegraph, the Sudanese army invades Libya, taking control of the southern town of Al-Kufra. (The Daily Telegraph) 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the Sudanese allies of the rebels, of Ghaddafi, or are they a third side to the war? — kwami (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

To big article

All templates failed, I suppose because article is to big?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.28.92.39, 5 July 2011

"offering them bribes to reject their her claims" - needs minor grammatical correction so that this makes sense. (Possibly delete "their?") 96.28.92.39 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

well caught this error! fixed it now, thanks noclador (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as  Already done per Noclador. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Paragraph- Please fix

Hello, I can't edit this article, but I noticed there is a repeat paragraph. Could somebody please fix it? (I think the top one is better- it sounds more neutral and has sources cited) Here are the paragraphs as they appear in the article-

"In Tripoli, clashes between demonstrators and security forces took place in the center of the city, according to Al Jazeera. A doctor claimed that government forces had fired on protesters in the city. Crowds of protesters threw rocks at billboards of Gaddafi, and troops attacked them with tear gas and live fire. A resident claimed that armed security forces were positioned on rooftops surrounding Green Square, and about 200 lawyers and judges demonstrated inside a Tripoli courthouse, which was surrounded by security forces.[176]

In Tripoli, clashes between demonstrators and security forces reportedly took place in the central part of the city, and involved thousands of people. According to a doctor, security forces fired on protesters with live ammunition. Crowds in the city threw rocks at billboards of Gaddafi, and troops attacked them with tear gas and live fire. According to a resident, armed security forces were positioned on rooftops surrounding Green Square, and surrounded a courthouse where about 200 lawyers and judges were demonstrating."

Thanks and have an awesome day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.172.13 (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for pointing this out! I fixed it now - good work to read through the article! noclador (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)