Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 29 July 2012

ATTENTION! As the result of a concluded Request for Comment on this page, a 6-month moratorium has been imposed on new requested moves for this article, inclusive of both capitalisation changes and new terms for the conflict. For the duration of the moratorium, the article's name will remain as Libyan civil war. Any and all requested moves will be closed immediately and permanently as no consensus without further discussion. On 11:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC), this moratorium will expire, unless consensus is achieved for an extension. Expiration or extension of the moratorium will be decided by a new discussion which will begin on 19 September 2012, two weeks before the expiration date of the moratorium. If no consensus is achieved for an extension, the result of the discussion will be default to expiration. Expiration of the moratorium will not, however, mean that the name will necessarily be changed, only that new requested moves will be allowed to be made.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libyan civil war (2011) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Template:Pbneutral

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Libya Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: African This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2011 Libyan civil war was copied or moved into Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

A news item involving Libyan civil war (2011) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 February 2011.

A news item involving Libyan civil war (2011) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 May 2011.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libyan civil war (2011) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Rename to Libyan Uprising

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as no consensus pursuant to RfC result. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Majority of reliable sources refer to the events in Libya as Libyan uprising (3,940) not Libyan civil war (3,030). Therefore we must rename this article from Libyan civil war to Libyan Uprising. The term 'civil war' is also very deceptive; it implies that there were to large armies from the start. When in fact during the first two weeks of the revolution it was mostly unarmed civilians against security forces, the new title of Libyan uprising would fit in far more in the wider context of the Arab spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain where you got those numbers (3,940 and 3,030). They contradict my own impression, which is that "Libyan uprising" seems to be falling out of use in the media in favour of "Libyan civil war". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

Libyan Uprising

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=libya&cp=15&gs_id=1r&xhr=t&q=libyan+uprising&pf=p&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=libyan+uprising&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c1b283e28ea2b583&biw=1366&bih=667

Libyan civil war

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=frgbld&gs_nf=1&ds=n&pq=libyan%20uprising&cp=16&gs_id=1o&xhr=t&q=libyan+civil+war&pf=p&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&oq=libyan+civil+war&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=c1b283e28ea2b583&biw=1366&bih=667

I don’t know where you got that impression from, the term ‘Libyan civil war’ has never really been used by major news networks such as the BBC, CNN or Aljazeera; although it is commonly used by Russia Today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To search for a phrase like "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan civil war", it's obligatory to include quotation marks. If you don't, Google simply searches for "Libyan" AND "uprising" and also finds articles that do not contain the specific phrase "Libyan uprising". Your results include articles about the Syrian uprising, in which passing reference is made to the Libyan civil war. If we *do* include quotation marks, the number of results for either of the two queries are approximately the same.

Furthermore, you are quite wrong in suggesting that major news networks do not use the term Libyan civil war. Indeed, the fact that — amongst others — CNN referred to the conflict as a civil war was a major consideration in the decision to move the article to its current title. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per chat after chat that has already been discussed about this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support It no longer matters if you had this discussion before the fact is that the Majority of reliable sources are now referring to it as “Libyan Uprising” not “Libyan civil war”. Therefore we must change the main title of this article Libyan Uprising. It would be highly hypocritical of us not to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not a fact that the majority of reliable sources refer to the conflict as such. The only 'proof' you presented for your claim thus far is an improper (b/c no quotation marks used) Google news query. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right and I apologize for my mistake. However it is a fact that when done the proper way the majority of reliable sources use the term “Libyan Revolution”(111) far more than either “Libyan uprising”(81) or “Libyan civil war” (73). Therefore I would like to change my rename request to change the title of this article from ‘Libyan civil war’ to “Libyan Revolution”. Considering that the ‘2011-2012 Yemeni uprising’ page was change to ‘2011-2012 Yemeni revolution’ for that exact reason, it only seems logical to change the Libyan tittle page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.189.226 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem is, that there were both a civilian uprising AND a civil war. Contrary to Egypt and Tunisia, in Libya the civilian uprising (unarmed protesters demanding real change) quickly became overshadowed by first the gunning down of unarmed protesters by security forces, then improvised arson and gun attacks against government targets , and a few days later whole sections of the state army turning against their line of command, joining opposition. And then all the militia's also formed and joined and took over much of the initiative. It resulted in front line battles, urban warfare and a number of mass killings from both sides.

One could argue to simply call it the 'Libyan war (of 2011), because Nato involvement was so crucial in crippling government supply lines and taking out tanks and airplanes. And in giving so many local fiefs the courage to start their own militia.

But as the current events show (many militia's still armed and active, refusing orders from any authority, doing their own arbitrary justice) the armed actors are indeed the main defining characteristic of the Libyan uprising. That would justify calling it a civil war. There WAS a libyan war, and because on the ground the majority of the armed opposition were improvised militia, it was a civil war.

The best way to do respect to it, is to clearly introduce the beginning of the civil war. We could rename the section "Uprising and civil war" into: "Uprising turning into civil war", which would necessitate some re-editing, because lots of peaceful protest continued while the civil war grew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We had this discussion year ago. Between now and than several cities were destroyed, full-scale military action was in place, White House, European Union, European states, Arab states, United Nations, ICRC, MSF and gazilion of other organization called it civil war. There is nothing more to discuss. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

References

1. "POPULAR PROTEST IN NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST (V): MAKING SENSE OF LIBYA" (PDF), Middle East/North Africa Report N°107, International Crisis Group, 2011

Counterproposal RfC: Move moratorium

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

The result of the proposal was the article will be subject to a move moratorium for 6 months. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A 6-month moratorium is proposed on new requested moves on this talkpage, inclusive of both capitalisation changes and new terms.

Consensus for this motion will be determined below by a discussion lasting no more than two weeks (starting 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) and ending on 1 April), and will judged and closed by an uninvolved administrator (to be found by neutrally-worded request at the administrator's noticeboard). If no or unfavourable consensus is judged, new move requests will be allowed as usual following the closure of the discussion. If consensus is judged to be in favour of the moratorium, it will begin immediately following the closure of the discussion.

For the duration of the moratorium, the article's name will remain at the status quo. Any and all attempted move requests will be closed immediately and permanently as no consensus without further discussion. A notice linking to the discussion result will be posted prominently at the top of the article to advise against initiating requested moves.

At the end of 6 months, the moratorium will expire, unless consensus is achieved for an extension. Expiration or extension of the moratorium will be decided by discussion, with the default result (i.e., no consensus) being expiration. Expiration will not, however, mean that the name will necessarily be changed, only that new requests will be allowed.

The move proposal in the section above will be frozen during the discussion period, as will any new ones proposed during said period. If the moratorium is not enacted, all frozen proposals will be reopened to discussion. If the moratorium is enacted, all frozen proposals will be immedately and permanently closed as no consensus.

Any proposed edits or amendments to this proposal may be discussed below. Participants are advised to look through the talkpage archives to familiarise themselves with the history of requested moves and naming discussions of this page.

List of past move discussions: 1–8 9–11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21–23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31–32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

NOTE: This is not a requested move. Discussion of preferred titles here is inappropriate.

Discussion

• Support as proposer. We need to give some time to let a commonly-accepted name for the conflict come into currency among reliable sources before going around trying to conjure up our own neologisms. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support This will only help, we have to wait for dust to settle down, country to stabilize and RS to establish their own consensus on the name of the conflict (yes, they do that). EllsworthSK (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Enough already, wait a bit and then have a discussion to rename, per WP:COMMONNAME currently the sources point to "Civil war" but this could change making a dozen move requests is not the answer until when or if that happens and can have a consensus on it in it's favor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support These discussions are getting tiring because it's just an endless rehashing of the same arguments. Maybe once the conflict has made it to the history books we can determine what the WP:COMMONNAME for it will be. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This tendentious re-re-re-...-re-proposal is asking the other parent so many times that the kid is about to be strangled and quietly buried in the back yard. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment At this rate April 1st may be too soon, would April 8th be better for a lapse of time? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the painfully slow rate of feedback here, I'm not sure what even another week would do, but I have no objections. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Since everyone who has responded thus far is in favour of the proposal, I fail to see why we would need another week of discussion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll put in a request for closure at a noticeboard on 1 April; if an admin decides more time is needed, then we'll extend the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support This lengthy dispute has clearly been a huge drain of energy that could be focussed on the article itself. Hopefully the answer will be clearer in six month's time. Thom2002 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Two weeks have now elapsed. I have requested closure at WP:AN. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

commanders list

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

I second that motion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Aye. It's obsessive military fanwanking, basically. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 05:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Mercenaries

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

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

Furthermore, the page does have the alternative viewpoints present...--Yalens (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor who removed the tags should be aware that, if one takes issue with a tag placed on an article, the proper channel is to discuss it here and remove the tag after concensus has been reached. I don't see any concensus. Indeed I don't ssee them participating in the issues raised on the talk page. I will drop them a message after this and if they have difficulties adhering to Wiki policy they will be reported. Misplaced Pages is not a place to advance POV.

@Yelens : It is very easy to find sources that supports one view. The mecenary section is one sided, and such fails the neutrality test. It is easy to find sources about Hitler's view on the Jews, but does that make it right and merits to be the only view? Absolutely not. This so called Black macenaries imported from Africa was a fabrication by no other than the facist arabs of libya from the top to justify their cowardly killing of innocent and unarmed people, including the raping of women whose crime was immigrating to that country. A rumour first circulated by a former servant of Gadafi. Even under the heading of targeting of Blacks, this article kept justifying that there were African mecenaries rather than addressing the casualty issue. Words such as claim (a big "no no" according to Wiki policy) are self evident in that section when addressing the raping of women, etc. POV pushing is unacceptable in Misplaced Pages. Human rights investigationBBC.Tamsier (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Then why dont you add the sources you found to help the article out? I also had noticed that User:Kudzu1's edit came 5 seconds after your first message on the talk page here, and you gave that user a warning WP:Assume good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"facist arabs of libya from the top to justify their cowardly killing". Looks like a typical disruptive POV-warrior. Nothing to see here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mercenaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamsier (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, my edit has been reverted again this time by Lothar von Richthofen.

Tamsier (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

References

1. "Gadhafi forces retake rebel town, state TV claims". CNN. 24 August 2011.
2. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/africa/2011/02/22/live-blog-libya-feb-23
3. http://www.eurasiareview.com/21022011-civil-war-in-libya-gaddafi-uses-pak-and-bd-mercenaries/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. Walker, Portia (13 May 2011). "Qatari military advisers on the ground, helping Libyan rebels get into shape". The Washington Post.
5. http://www.turkishnews.com/en/content/2011/12/31/qatar-creates-anti-syria-mercenary-force-based-in-turkey/
6. ^ "Special Commentary: Can African Mercenaries Save the Libyan Regime?". The Jamestown Foundation. 23 February 2011.
7. Namunane, Bernard (25 February 2011). "Kenya: 'Dogs of War' Fighting for Gaddafi". AllAfrica. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
8. http://www.afrol.com/articles/37490
9. "AU: Libya rebels killing black workers". CBS News.
10. Plasse, Stephanie (24 March 2011). "Libya: Gaddafi and His Mali-Chad Tuareg Mercenaries". Afrik News.
11. ^ "Tuaregs 'Join Gaddafi's Mercenaries'". BBC News. 4 March 2011.
12. ^ "Gaddafi Hiring Tuareg Warriors as Mercenaries in Libya: Reports". International Business Times. 4 March 2011.
13. ^ "Gaddafi Recruits 800 Tuareg Mercenaries". Al-Ahram. Agence France-Presse. 3 March 2011.
14. Onians, Charles (20 August 2011). "The Irish teen who tracks and kills Gaddafi's snipers". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
15. "Gadhafi Using Foreign Children As Mercenaries In Libya". NPR. 3 March 2011.
16. Meo, Nick (27 February 2011). "African Mercenaries in Libya Nervously Await Their Fate". The Daily Telegraph. London.
17. "European mercenaries fighting for Gadaffi, expert says".
18. "Srpski "psi rata" čuvaju Gadafija!". Alo!. 23 February 2011.
19. "Text Message from a House in Libya: We Are Being Slaughtered Here". The Telegraph. Kolkota, India. 23 February 2011.
20. "Defying Gadhafi's Crackdown; Analysis with Dr. Drew Pinsky; Interview with Kevin Smith". CNN.
21. Dagbladet, Svenska (2 March 2011). "The Revolution That Came from Serbia". Presseurop. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
22. "Gaddafi's Fleeing Mercenaries Describe the Collapse of the Regime". Time magazine. 24 August 2011.
23. Khan, Huma (22 February 2011). "Benghazi Doctor: Gadhafi Using Foreign Mercenaries to Quell Protests". ABC News. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
24. Hamilton, Douglas (7 April 2011). "Africans say Libyan troops try to make them fight". Reuters Africa. Reuters. Retrieved 7 April 2011.
25. Cite error: The named reference AmnestyRape was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
26. Allison, Simon (4 November 2011). "SA mercenaries in the Mad Dog's war". Daily Maverick. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
27. Scholtz, Herman (23 October 2011). "Report: SA soldiers helped Gaddafi". News24. Retrieved 28 October 2011.

Libyan civil war : Mercenaries

Having gone through this article, in particular the the sub-heading "Mercenaries", it was evident that it breaches the neutrality policy. The relevant section spent some time theorizing about Black Africans from Sub-Saharan Africa allegedly shipped in by Gaddafi as mercenaries. That claim, resulted in a backlash massacre of many Black immigrants and native Black Libyans. Yet, international organizations such as Amnesty International (among others) who carried out detail investigation found no evidence of Black mercenaries from Sub-Saharan Africa and described it as a "myth". I tagged the article, but the tags were removed. All my efforts to improve the article according to Misplaced Pages policy have been thrown back at me, in spite of the reliable sources I've cited throughout the discussion. Why should I fix somebody else's POV especially when they have no intention of listening to me? I would like to know what other editors think. Does this section in particular conforms to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy and weight? The discussion can be found here. Tamsier (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's almost 2 years now or little less still no proof or even a legit statement has been discovered which can speak that mercenaries were hired on Gaddafi's side. Remembering that 1/3 of the population in Libya was black, it's really wrong to call them mercenaries, if you see the videos of Libya's military parade before 2011 as well, you will find almost half of the soldiers to be black. So the point is that "Foreign Mercenaries" should be removed. 122.169.12.10 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing this and other related articles for long enough to know better than start discussion about this. We do not use rebel claims as anything more than claims in the article, mercenary part is well documented and sourced by many reliable sources, including interviews with mercenaries themself or reports from countries such as Mali where recruiting has been going on. If you want to align them all to NTC because WP:IDONTLIKEIT be my guest but I shall revert it and than report it if you continue doing so. If you do not understand some rules of the wikipedia I will be pleased to help you on my talk page, not giving lectures here. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I believe I made myself crystal clear when I wrote that Gaddafi spokesman claims are nothing more than Gaddafi spokesman claims. They are not reliable and there is nothing more to discuss. Those are the rules which all editors has to follow. You, me, Kudzu1 or anyone else. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its not propaganda, and the HRW that particular HRW is only accusing the rebels of having executed men accused of being mercanaries without evidence (trial). They are only saying they did not receive a trial, not that there is no evidence of mercenaries. Sopher99 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because some people were killed without trial and on bland accusations doesn't mean they are saying that there weren't any mercenaries. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in wars based of bland accusations of being loyalist or rebels, but doesn't mean that loyalist or rebels didn't exist in those wars. Sopher99 (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. They're in the article. I've been editing this page since February 2011; I was the one who made the infobox image; I've probably devoted several dozen hours to editing on this article alone. So please don't presume to tell me I haven't added the sources, because I did that like a year ago -- long before you were editing here, at least under your current username. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but what? You can't just run French or whatever your first language is through Babelfish and then post it here. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

'Single isolated' Fail, there are more sources confirming such information, and it's been already added in talk, so read, think, then write. It's more about what actually happened, you realize 'no proof' regarding any allegations?? Seems like you are still living in feb 2011 and reading gossips, which makes you look like just a edit warrior who's vandalizing reliable information as per the personal likeness. Remembering that's it's july 2012, story is very clear, You have already failed to backup your lies, so i urge you to back them up, instead of sharing your fairytales. Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

• • Spare us. Your "contribution to this article" has been to slap on a few tags, blank the section a couple of times, and issue ultimatums in your edit summaries to try to bully other editors. If you have information you want to add, then add it yourself. If you think specific pieces of information or specific sources are not noteworthy or reliable and you want to remove them, bring them up specifically on the Talk page and explain what you think is wrong with them. That's how this discussion ought to go. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There have been many media reports that Gaddafi hired mercenaries from "subsaharan africa" to fight on his side.Curb Chain (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If User:Tamsier feels that his position should be advanced, he can discuss his position, introducing the prose in the article. The opposing position as he claims is advanced by the opposition can be discussed as well in like manner.Curb Chain (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that the user that is taking issue still has not added sources to balance things out and continues to push for the removal of the section, there are sourced accounts on mercenaries being used by Gaddafi. I hope this isnt a case of WP:COI - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Tuaregs returning from Libya into Mali began a civil war there. Please don't claim ludicrous statements about there being no foreign mercenaries when tauregs in Mali confirmed their involvement en masse in the libyan civil war. Zenithfel (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For the record, Kudzu1 was the other disruptive editor who removed the initial tags whilst failing to address the the issues I have raised in the talk page until I issued them a warning . Like Lothar , - the problem is WP:OWN. With no regard for Wiki policy, Kudzu1 seems to think he can "go on editing as" he "please" (see above).

@ Curb Chain : Yes there has been coverage of "mercenaries" in the media. But the international organizations who carried out detailed investigations of these so called "mercenaries" from Black Africa found no evidence to substantiate that claim. Instead, they found mass killing of native Black Libyans and immigrants based on racism -.Human rights investigations - Amnesty International  : The Independent and NPR - BBC - United Nations Human Rights Council : . I can go on, and on, and on. According to these organizations, there were no such mercenaries from Black Africa. Amnesty International describe it as a "myth". A believe in the myth according to these sources were pivotal for the massacres of the Black natives and immigrants. A myth circulate from "command level". Contrary to what some may think, I am in no way opposing its inclusion. Indeed, I believe it should be include because it is notable. However, it should be presented in accordance with the neutrality policy, weight and reliable sources.

@ Knowledgekid87 : Would you be so kind to expand on which user you are referring to? I hope it is not me. But if its, again, I have no intention of decapitating that section from the body of the article, because I believe it is notable. As for sources, I was the only one who kept adding sources throughout the discussion above, whilst others voiced unsubstantiated opinions (see asbove). Further, why should I fix somebody else's POV when they have made it a mission to advance their POV no matter what? Why should I go through the trouble of finding sources, re-writing sections to have it reverted by 2 determined POV pushers? I am not nuts. Besides I've got other things to do than having to babysit two agressive POV pushers.Tamsier (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is it possible to just remove 'foreign mercenaries'? Because it's almost 2 years now, and there's still no proof which can even provide a legit statement that on Gaddafi's side any foreign mercenaries were hired.

Also remembering that 1/3 of the population in Libya included black people, it's really wrong to call them mercenaries. If you see the videos of 2009 or before, where you can see libya's military forces you will find almost half of the people of black race. So the point is "foreign mercenaries" ""should be removed.""

Capitalized

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

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

Shouldn't the words "civil and "war" be capitalized? They don't look right being in the lower case format. B-Machine (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm I made that nice big tag at the top of the page for a reason.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh then why am I not surprised? lol - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness there had been alot of move requests as of recent that all asked the same things with every time consensus against it, you may want to check the archives on past reasons on why the caps are not in place I think it has something to do with the reliable sources and how the wording is there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Pictures

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

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

Added one.Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No point in adding Silvio

http://www.iol.co.za/news/africa/i-was-against-libya-intervention-berlusconi-1.1095328#.T92aylKcDnR

Since he himself denied having any role in whole intervention, i don't think he should be added, just because he was the prime minister doesn't means he sure got role, for example if you remember Kosovo War, where a few Russian Volunteers had fought alongside FR Yugoslavia, but doesn't means any politician or leader had involvement. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

During war he was head of the state of Italy which participated in war heavily. Italy sent jets, warships, cargo, logistics etc. What he claims is of no importance. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Parliament's decision like he told, while he was against it, he didn't commanded anyone.Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not remotely a good comparison. Bob Gates opposed the intervention in Libya too, but he was still U.S. defense secretary, and he was in charge of the military organization during the operation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Robert Gates, Opposed but he worked into it as per the job and came with results regarding the intervention, we don't have him added here anyway.Clarificationgiven (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• B-Class Libya articles
• Top-importance Libya articles
• WikiProject Libya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class African military history articles
• African military history task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles