Wikipedia

Talk:Libyan civil war (2014–2020)/Archive 1

< Talk:Libyan civil war (2014–2020)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Tartan357 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
Archive 1 Archive 2

Merge?

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be best to leave the Tripoli & Benghazi articles seperate, or should we merge them into this article? MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • They can be regarded as individual battles/offensives within the wider conflict, but I do think this article needs to be expanded with these items for now, then we can consider splitting in case there are more developments and in case there will be a future WP:SIZE issue. This one was created as a main umbrella article for the current situation, so maybe it is too early to have sub-articles. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Quite possibly. When I initially created the two articles the two incidents seemed more region specific. However as this has grown it has taken on more of a national tone. The Dignity Operation now seems not just to refer to Benghazi alone, but to Libya as a whole. So e.g. when the head of the Libyan Navy announced his support for Haftar in Tripoli, that announcement was clearly important, although didn't fit neatly into either of the articles. I think we're in agreement - this article should be the primary focus, and then more region specific items can be brought up in the smaller articles. MrPenguin20 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The merging is   Done, but there are some dead links from Libya Herald that should be replaced, the sooner the better. Meanwhile, I will work on properly citing the sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have rechecked the links and it appears it was just a temporary site crash. Apologies. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything looks almost fine now. In a few hours I might do some general checks to see if any copyediting procedure will be required. Thank you for the impressive work on the Benghazi and Tripoli articles. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Unneutral naming

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

the name of the article is unneutral,and is biased towards one side of the colfict,a neutral naming must be found for this article,becuase this is an armed coflcit between a general trying to seize power whom is even outside of the country,and between islamist group ansar al sharia,so the conflict is narrow.Alhanuty (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The word is used by numerous reliable sources ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) and note that most of them equally use 'revolt' (+ [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] and a lot more), while some use 'rebellion' [16] [17] and even an anti-Haftar commander called the offensive "a rebellion against revolutionaries, the state and the legitimate revolt". Conflict is a very broad term and can reflect the whole post-civil war violence. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Alhanuty, I've moved the title to Operation Dignity (the codename of Haftar's offensive), which is a common name among the sources. I agree that it is too early to use loaded terms like 'uprising' or 'revolt' right now, since the events are still developing. There is also 'offensive' but I didn't want to use it because it would require more precision that can make the title too long. I hope this satisfies. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Civil war

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am not sure how many hundred dead are needed to call the conflict a war, but I think this number has now been reached? Contributorzero (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are indeed sources calling it a civil war, but we go by the common name among sources, not by the number of casualties. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see your point for the overall title, but if some sources are using the name civil war, shouldn't the lead say something like "The 2014 Libyan conflict, also known as the Libyan Civil War, is an armed conflict taking place in Libya that began on 16 May 2014 after forces loyal...etc". (I also suggest that the page currently titled "Libyan Civil War" would be better titled "Libyan Revolution" if we use the COMMONNAME principle.) Contributorzero (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The renaming of civil war to revolution was discussed several times on the article's talk page (see this for example). I have created a number of redirects to this article with civil war and I think it is preferable to wait before we decide on using the term in this article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I did not quite follow your line of thought. Could you clarify why you think we should not use the term "civil war" anywhere in this article? Contributorzero (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You are suggesting that we add Libyan Civil War as another name to the conflict, but we already have an article by that name. That leaves us with something like Second Libyan Civil War, or perhaps 2014 Libyan civil war. However, we need sources for these, and I fail to see any. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple news sources (The Mirror, The Guardian, Belfast Telegraph, Miami Herald, Middle East Eye, etc) that identifies the conflict as a civil war. On the other hand there are also multiple news sources that still uses phrases like "on the brink of civil war", "spiraling into civil war", "descending into full scale civil war", etc. The name 2014 Libyan civil war would reflect the situation in Libya right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.185.55.87 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I dont think the term "Civil War" can be avoided on the basis that it is inconvenient for wikipedia editors, because they already have an article by that name. Contributorzero (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The whole unwillingness to name it a "Civil War" reminds be about Clinton administrations unwillingness to call the Rwanda Genocide for what it was, a genocide, and instead preferred to call it "acts of genocide". The conflict in Libya is a civil war.

Role of Obaidi

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Whilst I understand why Obaidi was originally included in the infobox (as he headed the "Official" LNA as opposed to Haftar's LNA), I don't think he really should be there anymore. The fact that he's reporting to the House of Representatives (which is generally pro-Haftar) suggests he's not active in the anti-Haftar fighting, as if he was then A - He'd likely already have been removed from his position by the HoR, and B - It's likely there would have been slightly more controversy over him suddenley turning up in the Haftar stronghold of Tobruk. Instead of being a player, Obaidi seems to be generally being ignored by both sides (e.g. ignoring his calls for a ceasefire). MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You make good points. What is your source that he is in Tobruk? Contributorzero (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This article detailed his submissions to the HoR in Tobruk on the 10th August. Then in turn this article spoke about how a memo written by Obaidi ordering all sides to commit to a ceasefire was ignored. Unfortunately you now have to pay to see most of the article, although for the first one you can still see, for free, that he appeared before the HoR in Tobruk on 10 August. Most of the information in the articles is now on the wiki page though in the August section. MrPenguin20 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I can see enough of the first one to agree with you. He might not be pro-Haftar, but it seems unreasonable that he could be there and be fighting against Haftar. Contributorzero (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tripoli airport

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone else think it is officially time to split some content from this article into Battle of Tripoli Airport? It is being widely covered in the news and I believe it is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Contributorzero (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Dawn name

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Operation Dawn or Operation Libya Dawn?? Contributorzero (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Libya Dawn (عملية فجر ليبيا) is the full name, but it seems to be referred to as just Operation Dawn in a lot of coverage. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed GNC

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I invite editors of the 2014 Libyan conflict page to have a look at the related discussion below and leave any comments they want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Self-proclaimed_General_National_Congress
Contributorzero (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamist

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The use of the word "Islamist" in this article is simply misguiding and grossly oversimplifies the reality. It is simply a convenient word for journalists who want a narrative for the conflict. I am aware we have to come up with some way of explaining what is happening on the ground, but simply saying "Islamist-dominated" GNC or "Islamist forces" does not really add any insight.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. The conflict is more driven by a mixture of ideological, regional, and group interests, with the groups on each side often fighting for a variety of reasons. So Haftar claims he's fighting Islamist forces, whilst the other side (bar the Benghazi Council) tends to justify itself not by claiming it's fighting for Islam, but that it's fighting for the original Revolutionary goals, whilst denouncing Haftar et all as counter-revolutionaries. It's tricky. MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I would also agree if the term is not widely used by RS. However, the anti-Haftar militias in Benghazi are commonly described as Islamists by the sources and it also helps the reader make a distinction between both warring sides there. No comment on Operation Libya Dawn groups mostly fighting in Tripoli. I agree that those are not necessarily called Islamists so I support unlabeling them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the Benghazi groups are definitely Islamist - I was referring to the Libya Dawn groups. MrPenguin20 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Individual editors agreeing or not that the word "Islamist" is meaningful is not really a debate for this particular page. Enough people in the world find it meaningful for reliable sources to use it. As far as Operation Dawn is concerned, reliable sources say the attackers are Islamist, as is obvious really. Today, for example: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/tripoli-airport-2014823183122249347.html . Contributorzero (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I Have some chat with peoples in Tripoli that Ops Dawn Group Fighters was Indeed Has 'Islamist' Tendency... some of them even have Sympathy to ISIS in Syria... and have aim to Impose Strict Sharia in Tripoli, so its not wrong at all if they considered IslamistAhendra (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Libya Dawn fractures

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/08/31/libya-dawn-fractures-and-supports-the-house-of-representatives/#axzz3CB5i1jrD

Can anyone see enough of this article from 31 August to make the appropriate comments? It looks like important news. I haven't found similar articles in other sources, has anyone else? Contributorzero (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a map of the military situation in Libya similar to the maps of the Syrian Civil War and the Northern Iraq Offensive?

Don't think so. I'll get to work on one. Given how the fighting is somewhat restricted to Tripoli & Benghazi I'm thinking that two separate maps focusing on each city might be the best option. MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be very difficult to produce any maps with meaningful accuracy. I think most towns are not overtly supporting one side or the other. A map of the situation in Tripoli or Benghazi would be excellent if we can get detailed up to date information of which neighbourhood is controlled by who- but can we get that without being a government? I think it would be really good to get a map of the situation, but can it be done? Contributorzero (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the hardest part is showing control, as the situation seems to be highly fluid without clear cut front lines (in Tripoli at least). As such I think the best option would be a map showing important locations, e.g. bases/encampments of various factions/government ministries etc. This in turn can serve as a guide to augment the readers understanding of exactly what's going on, as without any kind of visual identifier often it's difficult to understand the meaning of saying that there's been clashes in X. It's probably easiest in the case of Benghazi where a map can highlight the various bases formerly used by Saiqa - and which how now been taken by the Benghazi Revolutionary Shura Council - given that Benghazi as a whole seems to be under the control of the Islamists. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought Benghazi seemed under their control, but articles like this [1] keep appearing. The same applies to fighting on the outskirts of Tripoli. Your point about "a guide to augment the readers understanding of exactly what's going on, as without any kind of visual identifier often it's difficult to understand the meaning of saying that there's been clashes in X" is a very good point. Readers without particular knowledge of Libya may be baffled by unfamiliar place names. Maybe readers would be helped by something highlighting Benghazi, Tripoli, Tobruk, Zintan, Misrata, Warshefana and Camp 27. I think the important thing is that the map doesn't try to be definitive about control on the ground, because then it will probably be wrong. Contributorzero (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah exactly. Unlike say the Syrian Civil War, or the previous Libyan Civil War, there are currently no clear cut frontlines. Instead militias tend to control certain places, and have certain areas of control. The recently added map on the page is good for highlighting important locations, but yeah it's not quite right - e.g. Tripoli isn't under the full control of Operation Dawn. MrPenguin20 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I am not at all happy with the recently added map from an IP address. I think the map overstates Islamist control in both Tripoli and Benghazi, and I don't currently know any sources that give Abdajiya to Ansar Alsharia. Zawiya and Khoms are also suspect. Until I have seen references it looks like biased in favour of the Islamists. I'll provisionally delete it. Contributorzero (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the map but I forgot to log in. I did not explain it since it isn't easy for me to write in English ;D I took the information from the article itself, so if you think it looks biased it´s not because I am "in favour of the Islamists" but because the article is wrong.
  • Tripoli: The following day, Operation Dawn forces announced that they have consolidated the whole city and adjacent towns after driving out rival Zintan militias 90 kilometers south of the capital
  • Ajdabiya: later launched nighttime air strikes on what they claimed to be an Ansar al-Sharia base in Ajdabiya, which had recently been taken by Ansar al-Sharia.
  • Benghazi: Forces loyal to General Haftar appeared to have had the territory under its control in the region reduced to Benina International Airport ; On August 17, the Al-Saiqa special forces abandoned their last stronghold in the city, Benina Airport
I took the information about Khoms and Zawiya from here.--Wiki erudito (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The article isn't wrong, you are not using the information in it properly.
  • Tripoli: The following day, Operation Dawn forces announced that they have consolidated etc. The article headline is that they claim control, not a confirmation of that. I know of no reliable source that confirms the Islamist claim.
  • Ajdabiya: later launched nighttime air strikes on what they claimed to be an Ansar al-Sharia base in Ajdabiya, which had recently been taken by Ansar al-Sharia. was from Aug 1 but 30 aug Demonstrators in Ajdabiya support HoR [2]
  • Benghazi: On August 17, the Al-Saiqa special forces abandoned their last stronghold in the city, Benina Airport
Not having a "stronghold" does not mean they have given up or lost control of the city or that they are gone forever, it is a fluid conflict
25th Aug: Fresh clashes Saturday in Benghazi http://www.webcitation.org/6S6QPzb6U and Benghazi clashes rage on[3]
30 Aug Demonstrations inside Benghazi support HoR [4]
1st Sept:Fighting in south east Benghazi [5]
Overall I think the map was misleading. Contributorzero (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
For the Tripoli situation, it does look like a lot of sources say Islamists are in control of the city, so it would probably be reasonable for a map, but there are also articles like this [6] (Aug 31) about fighting in the west of Tripoli and this [7] (1st Sept) which says Zintanis are active in the south western part of Tripoli. Contributorzero (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Benghazi: "its control in the region reduced to Benina International Airport". OK, I added the airports to the map and keep Benghazi in Ansar al-Sharia held territory, like this quote says. And the article isnt´t wrong, right?
  • Ajdabiya: Demonstrators aren´t fighters, it's a military map. We know that there is Ansar al-Sharia inside [18] but in contrast we have no evidence of Operation Dignity men inside and no reports of fighting, so putting it as contested would be a presumption.
  • Tripoli: the first article reports about clashes in the west of Tripoli, but then says "the coastal road linking Tripoli and Libya's western town of Zawiya", and speaks of suburbs in reference to the clases, in opposition to the "situation in the capital", so I think it´s not talking about Tripoli itself. This article of Libya Herald (more reliable) reports about the same clashes without even naming the capital. [19] And the second one says it pretty clear on the first sentence: "Fighters from the Islamist-aligned Libya Dawn militia, which has seized control of Tripoli". Then says that there are Zintanis in the "south and the west of the city", but not the "southern and western" parts of the city.
--Wiki erudito (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your quote from article, it is made incomplete in a way which changed the meaning. It says "Forces loyal to General Haftar appeared to have had the territory under its control in the region reduced to Benina International Airport." It is then followed by "Speaking to al-Arabiya News, Haftar denied that Benghazi was under the control of militias, and instead claimed that his National Libyan Army was in control of the city, claiming instead that his LNA forces had only withdrawn from certain positions, and had done so for tactical reasons".
Regarding Ajdabiya, I did not say you should presume it is contested, I rejected your assertion on the map that it is uncontested. Since you mention it, I would find it strange that ansar al sharia allow protests against them in a city they control.
Regarding the other places, my points stand as they were at 18:32 on 2nd September, please read them. Contributorzero (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/08/25/heavy-casualties-as-benghazi-clashes-rage-on/
  2. ^ http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/08/30/demonstrations-on-friday-for-and-against-hor/
  3. ^ http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/08/25/heavy-casualties-as-benghazi-clashes-rage-on/
  4. ^ http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/08/30/demonstrations-on-friday-for-and-against-hor/
  5. ^ http://www.libyaherald.com/2014/09/01/fighting-in-south-east-benghazi-as-ansar-renews-benina-attacks/#axzz3CB5i1jrD
  6. ^ http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/xinhua-news-agency/140831/heavy-fighting-continues-libyas-tripoli
  7. ^ http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/false-dawns-and-tattered-dignity-libya-1702999862

Vandalism

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs to be surveyed for erroneous additions. I have tried to eliminate egregious ones that stuck out to me, such as listing the dead Khamis Gaddafi as a commander and the support of the long-defunct South African Republic for the House of Representatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFC4:3410:D1F2:B50F:A50F:D832 (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose page move to Libyan Civil War of 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Since sources seem to now agree in using the term "Civil War", I propose a page move to Libyan Civil War of 2014. Contributorzero (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My observation is that the majority of news sources still talks about the conflict being on the edge of becoming a civil war. It's definitely a civil war, but news media are still hesitant to call it just that.
Your observation is interesting. Are opposing or supporting a move? Or neither? Contributorzero (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to its original title because I fail to see any consensus yet for such naming. Controversial moves like this should be made through formal move requests. This will also affect the naming of the 2011 civil war article and more editors' input is required. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections, it was not controversial. It is your move that was done without discussion. Contributorzero (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I support changing it back to 'civil war' as that is a more accurate reflection of the current situation than 'conflict'. DylanLacey (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Contributorzero, I hardly call this a consensus. I didn't say I was opposed to such move (though I also feel uncomfortable supporting it). It not only affects this article but possibly the 2011 civil war article as well, and move requests are the most appropriate way for such decisions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Name change to Civil War

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why was the article name changed without consensus? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alleged airstrikes on Zintani airfield - Fact or Fiction?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[20]

This link implies that there has been an aerial attack upon a Zintani airstrip. However, there seems to be a lack of other corroborating sources to conclude for sure that this event did, in fact, transpire. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the pages to 2014 Libyan Civil War and 2011 Libyan Civil War, per the discussion below. With respect to the new idea brought up at the end of the discussion, if necessary, please create a new move request to discuss that proposal. Dekimasuよ! 03:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


– I have moved the article back to its original title due to the nature of this decision, as it affects more than one article and a formal RM is certainly required. I know that some news organizations remain hesitant to call the current conflict a civil war, but still, several reliable ones frequently refer to it as such:

If a move is decided upon, I believe the proper titles would be 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2014 Libyan Civil War. ansh666 01:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment if that is moved, then "Libyan Civil War" should become a disambiguation page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the title changes, the following articles should also be moved accordingly:
Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You mean 2011 Libyan Civil War? --George Ho (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • To me it doesn't really matter whether the date comes first or not, though I believe that in the future our readers will remember the location of the conflict rather than the year. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It was requested that I close this RM, however, I have recused myself from administrative actions in this topic area so that I can participate in the discussions and serve as an involved mediator. I have not participated heavily in the discussions so far, but I will stand by my administrative recusal.
  • Therefore, in lieu of closing, I will vote support, to moving the two articles, using the "year first" format, with the generic title becoming a disambiguation page, and concur with Fitzcarmalan that related pages may need to be moved as well to avoid ambiguity. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sockpuppets

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was recently edited by another sockpuppet of Caradoc29105 and more are expected to come. Fortunately, the sock was blocked and I have requested for the page to be protected, like I did with Khamis Gaddafi, but I was told this time that one sock is not enough to warrant this. Two things can be easily noticed about Caradoc: adds hoax content to articles and his contributions (along with his socks of course) are all mobile edits. Anyone can check the SPI archives to know more about Caradoc's behavior. Unfortunately I won't be here long enough and I might embark on a months-long wikibreak, so whenever someone finds out that he is editing the article, please don't hesitate to make a request at WP:RFPP to avoid further disruption. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Belligerents Column

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

There is adequate evidence for Qatari, Egyptian, and Emirati support to various forces but can the same truly be said about Turkey and Sudan? The evidence for Turkish material assistance to the neo-GNC/Tripoli-Hasi authority seems especially thin. In fact, there appear to be clearer indications of Belarussian arms shipments to militia factions. For the case of Sudan, it is not clear cut what position that state is actually taking. Following the weapons shipment accusation, a joint meeting of Sisi and Omar al-Bashir has resulted in both claiming that they will support and train "the Libyan army." The cabinet associated with the HoR has also shifted toward expressing support for Sudanese mediation.

The supporting countries for the belligerents may need to be updated. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey and Sudan have both been accused by Haftar and the Libyan government respectively of supporting "terrorism" in the country and these two are one of the war's main belligerents. However, I agree that more evidence is needed to confirm that they are on the anti-government side, so I'd support removing them for now. But if someone insists on keeping them, we can add "alleged" next to each. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good. I would support either removal or putting the qualifier "alleged." I would say the case for Sudanese involvement seems slightly stronger than the alleged Turkish aid to the anti-government side (Turkish weapons would make a decisive impact on the conflict and Turkish diplomatic behavior does not show sufficient indications of support), though neither is adequate to be listed as confirmed supporters of a specific belligerent. The case for either country directly assisting a particular belligerent is far weaker than, for example, alleged Sudanese support for the Machar-aligned rebels in the South Sudanese civil war. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to talk about the third column (radical jihadists). I agree with Lacertilia the Magnificent's introduction of a third column that clearly defines the radical jihadists as a separate side in the conflict. Fitz, you made an argument that the radical jihadists have not been in a conflict with the unrecognized government so thus they should be in the same column with a separation line. You also made mention of the Syrian war. I would remind that in Syria you have the YPG which at the moment is not in a conflict with ether the Assad government or the non-ISIS rebels but they do have a separate agenda and are in their own column due to this. So, they (the radical jihadists) don't need to be in a conflict for them to be in a separate column. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Prior to adding the third column, I examined the Syrian war's listing of four categories/classifications of belligerents. My reasoning was that the 2014 Libyan Civil War's box could have a section for each belligerent that displayed the prerequisites necessary to constitute an independent and notable political/military force. The forces aligned with Ansar-al Sharia appeared to have met this criteria. I agree with what you stated about the YPG column and its implications for the Syrian conflict. That reasoning was part of the rationale as to why I placed the new GNC and the AAS-allied forces in separate columns. The YPG has exhibited closer ties with some Syrian rebels than the Libyan jihadists have with other Libyan factions. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL sanctions in tact

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to the involvement of ISIL in the 2014 Libyan Civil War, this page is subject to sanctions, meaning:

  • All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.
    • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
    • Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.}}

Please edit carefully and mind consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to the respective parenthetical titles. Although there appears to be an absence of consensus for the specific proposal of moving to "First" and "Second", the objections to these titles do not apply to the alternate proposal to move to the parentheticals, which is common Wikipedia styling for ambiguous titles. bd2412 T 15:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

– Just like the First & Second Ivorian Civil Wars, the First & Second Liberian Civil Wars, and the First & Second Sudanese Civil Wars. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Charles Essie (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that my close above should not be taken to preclude this option, if there is support for it. Dekimasuよ! 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support – The present title is untenable, and quite wrong in its ordering. In cases where we have a proper noun, the year should come after the name in parentheses. This is because, at present, the year is implied to be part of the proper noun. This is not true, the year is not part of the noun, but merely something appended by Wikipedia. As such, proper titles if we were to take this format, would be "Libyan Civil War (xxxx-xxxx)". However, I think that I prefer the "first" and "second" proposals as being more WP:CONCISE, and easier to follow. However, if others favour the parenthetical title, that's quite fine with me too. Either way, we must remove the year from the proper noun, as it simply isn't supported by reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 21:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support "LCW (2011)" and "LCW (2014)" - spelled out completely, of course, I'm just being lazy. "First" and "Second", though, have the same thing that RGloucester complains about: reliable sources do not refer to them as first/second, unlike the Liberian and Sudanese examples (incidentally, I couldn't find anything for the Ivorian either). ansh666 21:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really think we should be using a title that isn't used in any sources (first,second). If someone can come up with sources, fine. Regarding RGloucester's objection to "year first", I really don't think it matters much either way, and would see no problem with going to "LCW (year) as suggested by Ansh666 and RGloucester. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Note 1793–95 Tripolitanian civil war does create a little ambiguity problem with "First Libyan civil war" as well, but that is addressed in a hatnote already. A minor issue but something to consider for the discussion. Gigs (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There must have been prior civil wars, but history of Libya doesn't tell much. Probably the history must have been lost, but we can't treat these civil wars as First and Second. --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, "Libyan Civil War of 1791–1795" redirects to "1793–95 Tripolitanian civil war", but, trivially, that was several years after the start of the Constitution of the United States. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Common name. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd support either Libyan Civil War (2011/14) or Libyan Civil War of 2011/14 per Ansh666, and I oppose the proposed titles due to the lack of sources backing them up.
Dekimasu, I forgot to bring this up in the previous RM, but don't you think Post-civil war violence in Libya should have also been moved to something like Inter-civil war violence in Libya? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Please feel free to do what you think is necessary, especially since the target is unblocked. Dekimasuよ! 00:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 Y Moved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is quite clear that the parenthetical titles are favoured, and as I said above, I'd be happy to support their use. They do what needs to be done, which is to remove the date from the proper name, so that we can follow reliable sources. Let's get on with it. RGloucester — ☎ 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Libyan Civil War of 2011" would be a lot better than "Libyan Civil War (2011)" for most of the subsidiary articles mentioned in the previous move request. For example, "International reactions to the Libyan Civil War of 2011" is much clearer in scope than "International reactions to the Libyan Civil War (2011)", and "Timeline of the Libyan Civil War of 2011 before military intervention" is preferable to "Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2011) before military intervention" or "Timeline of the Libyan Civil War before military intervention (2011)". Do these need to match the main articles, and/or should we go with "Libyan Civil War of 20XX"? Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

New Map

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What do you think about this map.hereLindi29 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have made a new map for Libya, EkoGraf Lothar von Richthofen Boredwhytekid and others,everyones opinion is welcomed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module:Libyan_Civil_War_detailed_map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Libyan_Civil_War_detailed_map

Alhanuty (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


Looks a very good map and great work. This would help readers understand the front lines and zones of influence better. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS in Libya? Is it true or is it propaganda?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the acronym says, ISIS is an organization active in Syria and Iraq. What this organization has to do with Libya? I have a sense that some people deliberately try to connect some organizations in Libya(especially Derna rebels)with ISIS to justify an intervention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppaaaooo13 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet another map

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks to the large amount of work you all put into the detailed map above, I been able to create File:Libyan_Civil_War.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 23:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I prefer not to have to take bold actions, but I believe this map is better than the current one in the article. Anyone going to offer an opinion or should I just replace the top with the bottom?

 
 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a new color in place of green, green was used on the pro-Gaddafi map of the 2011 war. Try with yellow...--78.0.121.150 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"Timeline" section

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does this section have too much information, or does it need reformatting? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It does. How about we take of some information and turn it into an article?

Gaddafi loyalism?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is there Gaddafi loyalist icons at New General Congress and their leaders?--213.220.243.47 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Libyan National Army split

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

If Abdulsalam al-Obaidi is cooperating with the new government in Tobruk, who are the pro-GNC faction of the LNA? Have army men like al-Obaidi, who were not obvious in declaring support for Haftar, been mixed up with forces of Libya Shield fighters (who were also official state forces)? Is there clear evidence of any actual LNA forces fighting against Haftar? Contributorzero (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any evidence of LNA forces fighting against the government. My understanding is that in May the Army split between an "Official" section (loyal to the official government, which was then the GNC), and a pro-Haftar faction. Then in turn the official faction became loyal to the HoR when that assumed power. I seem to remember seeing a video of some Libyan Army staff pledging loyalty to the GNC & denouncing the HoR last week, although nothing seems to have really come of it. MrPenguin20 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Another thing that is unclear! Do you think it would it be best to take the LNA out of the Islamist side of the info box or leave them in there? Contributorzero (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be best to take the LNA out of the Islamist side. News media refers to Haftar's forces when mentioning LNA. The Islamist militias are predominantly referred to as Dawn of Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.104.236 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Truth is that there is only "islamist" (wich are not rebels but the official representatives) in Libya, the others are Egyptians and European mercenaries. So each video you are viewing are propaganda, there is no Libyan in Haftar's army and Islamic State. Islamic State is backed by Saudis, Haftar's Army by USA and Egypt. On the ground Libyan are living in fear while they watch complete strangers invade their cities and rob their banks and oil field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.56.79 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert of edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This revert by editor Cchen23 restored two problematic points to the lede:

  • Turnout was very low at 18%.[1]
    This is mentioned in passing in an article in Aljazeera. The article says nothing about any lack of legitimacy of the election. If this is a complaint of the election losers find a source and we can put it in. Other wise it does not belong in the lede. The lede is to summarize main points.
  • It also restored:
    Haftar called for new elections and the Council of Deputies was appointed to replace the GNC.
    Not true. It was the GNC that called for the elections. See: Libyan Council of Deputies election, 2014 (Important factoid since it was the losers in the election who attempted to restore the GNC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/libyans-mourn-rights-activist-amid-turmoil-2014626161436740827.html

Map troubles

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The map is a little hard to read. Most of the color scheme makes sense, but I can't tell the difference between territory occupied by Daesh (ISIL) and Ansar al-Sharia. Is Ansar al-Sharia the one in white, or is it even marked on the map? Utahwriter14 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the one in white - seems like there isn't much left. It was a lot clearer when Ansar al-Sharia held more territory, for better or worse. ansh666 01:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Terminology may be shifting, but that's an extra good reason to expect full discussions of these renames. I've applied move protection through 10 June 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


Second Libyan Civil War (2014–present) → Libyan Civil War (2014–present) – Consensus hasn't agreed yet in RMs. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC) – George Ho (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move revert, per previous RM and comments above. ansh666 02:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose this was to add clarity (plus there were genuine references). Why would anyone want to make things more confusing? part of the purposes of titles in wikipedia is to make things easy to find. Ericl (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • No, the refs aren't genuine, I explained above. ansh666 22:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This move needed to be discussed before it was made. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    why make it more confusing? Encyclopedias should be as clear as possible, and the references WERE genuine as are these:[1][2] Remember, we're discussing what it's being called. Could anyone out there show that it's being called anything ELSE? It's like the war with ISIS articles, Does anyone actually call it "Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"Ericl (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see convincing evidence to consider "Second Libyan Civil War" a WP:COMMON name. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Most sources use "first" and "second" as descriptors (for a less-violent analogy, games in a doubleheader being dubbed "first" and "second") rather than as a name/proper noun. ansh666 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There is a significant RM backlog, but hopefully this page will be restored to its earlier title soon. This was a good-faith move, but the molasses speed of admin action here gives me worry about how move-warring can be dealt with, just in general. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.conflict-news.com/libyas-second-civil-war-how-did-it-come-to-this/
  2. ^ http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/24/national-post-view-stabilizing-libya-may-be-the-best-way-to-keep-europe-safe/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A second move

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

AS the current events page calls this article the "Second Libyan civil war", I moved it there. It makes more sense that way and the high muckymucks of Wikipedia have suggested it. It briefly had "The" in the title, but that was a mistake that was immediately corrected.Ericl (talk)

I strongly reject such undiscussed title moves without seeking consensus. Do you have sources referring to the conflict as a second civil war? If so, please initiate a formal move discussion for that purpose (I may support). Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Same as Fitz: we discussed this previously and came up with a consensus. The guy who added it in the current events page doesn't even have 100 edits. You don't get to unilaterally move a page like this. ansh666 06:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Fitz, Yes I do! http://www.conflict-news.com/libyas-second-civil-war-an-equilibrium-of-chaos/ https://thebackgroundnoise.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/libya-a-second-civil-war/ I have always found the "news page" to be protected in the past and it's almost always updated by employees. Ericl (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have always found the "news page" to be protected in the past and it's almost always updated by employees. Nope, anyone and everyone can edit the "news page" (you may be thinking of Portal:Current events as opposed to its daily subpages, which is where stuff is actually added, and besides, admins are volunteers too, not "employees"). Also, those two "sources" are blog posts by the same guy, nor do they refer to it as the "Second Libyan Civil War" - both talk about a "second civil war", not as a title for the conflict, but as a descriptor. No reliable sources refer to it as "Second Libyan Civil War", we looked. See the move discussion above. ansh666 21:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I would support a move revert, if only to discuss this further. The page should not have been moved unilaterally, especially without RS support. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, page was moved back but now all the links everywhere say "Second Libyan Civil War". This is how circular references start. ansh666 04:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ansar al-Sharia

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I can't find mainstream RS apart from the one cited saying that Ansar al-Sharia pledged allegiance to ISIS. It seems that only a certain Abu Abdullah al-Libi, which SITE describes as "general Shariah jurist for Ansar al-Shariah in Libya" (not even its leader), pledged allegiance. This doesn't mean that the group as a whole did. Nykterinos (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it has been almost a week since this pledge of allegiance and not a single newspaper or terrorism analyst that I am aware of has interpreted it as the entire Ansar al-Sharia organisation pledging allegiance. Gazkthul (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
According to this 5000 word report from the Hudson Institute [35] published in April 2015, "It is too early to tell, but if the current trajectory continues, ISL might swallow up ASL recruits outside of Benghazi and even make inroads within the city itself." and "In fact, there are rumors that ASL could pledge allegiance to ISL soon, especially in light of ASL’s Sharia official Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Libi pledging baya to Baghdadi", so the group Ansar al-Sharia continues to operate as an independent organisation as this time. Gazkthul (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Total casualties: 3,189 (as of April 10, 2015)-'Libya Body Count'. Mudos (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 10:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page should be edited, reverting the .svg image showing territorial control to Banak's March 31st update, or GameDiscussion's April 1st update, as several versions have been uploaded that do not reflect the current situation of the war, especially by SomeGirl777, who has uploaded inaccurate versions of the currect situation in Libya, as well as for the situation in Yemen. DaJesuZ (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuareg/Local Forces listed as belligerents

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Are any of the Tuareg/local forces marked on the map listed as combatants in the "Belligerents" box? The addition of those would help clarify things a little bit. Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, found them. My mistake. Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaddafi loyalists/Green Movement

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't those loyal to Gaddafi and the previous state as well as anti government and terrorist groups be mentioned as participants also? The Green Movement and other loyalists and loyalist tribes are still fighting you know...--2606:6000:60C1:1D00:A463:F193:C09:E7CC (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State and non-IS affiliated Isalmist groups

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map should have distinctive coloring for Islamic State forces and non-IS affiliated Islamist militants such as those belonging to the Shura Councils of Benghazi and Derna (Ansar al-Shariah, Abu Salim Martyrs Brigade, Libya Shield 1 etc.) Obviously there should not be places for all these groups on the maps, but instead of having just 'Ansar al-Shariah' in the same color as Islamic State forces, why not have 'Mujaheddin Shura Councils' in a color separate from IS? For example, in the Syrian Civil War map, al-Nusra Front is portrayed in white. It is important for there not to be any confusion, becuase these groups have engaged in hostilities with each other, particular in the recent Battle of Derna. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is more than four paragraphs and should be rewritten or shortened. Also, it summarizes events that are too recent to intrigue readers. --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Basic People's Congress -> new General National Congress?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this vandalism? The "Basic People's Congress" is not cited and unsourced, and the Basic People's Congress refers to an old Jamahiriya section of government.

CentreLeftRight (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It was vandalism by a person that periodically creates new accounts with which to make mobile edits. Those edits have been reverted now. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue of the Government of National Accord and the Infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Infobox may require substantial modification in the near future as a consequence of ongoing developments related to the U.N.-backed negotiations.

There is a considerable chance that government advocated by the U.N. brokered agreement will emerge as a real entity. The recent conference in Rome further reiterated the fact that world powers (perhaps the world in general) intend to recognize this government. Resultantly, it would appear that the GNA, if it is established on Libyan soil, will need to be acknowledged in the Infobox. The U.N. is pressing for what it considers representatives of each government to consummate the agreement by December 16. It is a possibility that the Tripoli and Tobruk governments, or one of them individually, could end up voluntarily dissolving. This may necessitate rather drastic changes to the Infobox. Alternately, there could be serious fractures within the GNC and/or the HoR to divide between pro-GNA forces and anti-deal remnants, particularly if the leaders of these bodies refuse to allow internal votes on the deal to be held. At the very least, it seems that huge segments of the Misrata Brigades and some other entities will back the Government of National Accord, potentially rendering them as having joined a new "side."

The two main sides in this war barely exist as coherent entities now; that fact may be more than exacerbated by upcoming events. A significant turn in the direction of the conflict is brewing.

I am bringing this up for consultation/consensus, in case anyone has any particular ideas about how to handle this, or if there are any objections to make major changes to the Infobox in the wake of the GNA's probable debut.

On a separate topic, it appears that the criteria and standards for some of the listed supporting countries/entities may be getting a bit too low and dated. For example, it would be difficult to deem the attack on Kufra by Tebu and foreign militias as being in support of the Tobruk government. There is also the issue that no country has ever recognized the GNC. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Info box IS leader duplication

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Info Box on IS leaders lists both Abu mughira al qahtani and Abu nabil al anbari, these are two names for the same person He is dead now (recently acknowledged by IS)

If that is the case, we need a WP:RS before we can update them Gazkthul (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

here: http://jihadintel.meforum.org/194/eulogy-to-abu-nabil-al-anbari-islamic-state

>one of the dispatched persons was the senior figure Abu Nabil al-Anbari, who was declared to have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in November 2015. He was also known by other kunyas including Abu al-Mughira al-Qahtani.

Map Issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some Daesh-occupied cities are filled in grey on the map, rather than black. Can someone fix that? Utahwriter14 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect - Daesh-occupied cities are filled black. The grey cities are occupied by the Shura Revolutionary Councils (al-Qaeda).GreyShark (dibra) 10:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then. Sorry about that--I a)misread the map and b)was under the impression that Daesh still controlled Derna. Utahwriter14 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ajdabiya not recaptured

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We'll have to revert all our edits. The unconfirmed reports proved that the militants, IS and non-IS, are still in the city. [36] PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Green Resistance

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is loyalists of the last legit government or 'Gaddafi loyalists' aren't mentioned? Heck 2015 alone they made alot of moves against both terrorists and the terrorists false government.--2606:6000:60C1:1D00:585F:3813:3555:E0B5 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they're represented by at least some of the blue spots on the map. I know they control Bani Walid.James Bowes (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

National Unity government

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Should there be a new colour on the map to delineate the territories controlled by the national unity government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Some local, political, and military forces have declared support for the GNA, having essentially broken with the neo-GNC and the HOR. Although we can wait to change the map until the GNA enters the country, there technically is a plausible argument that the GNA has supporters and loyalists on the ground that can now be represented. A huge portion of the formerly pro-GNC forces have withdrawn support for the Khalifa Ghwell government and shifted to backing Serraj's GNA. The city of Misrata and the Petroleum Facilities Guard are two clear cases of support for the Government of National Accord. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If the latest news is true, it would seem that the neo-GNC has disbanded and is no longer a side. Tripoli and almost all of the former GNC territory appears to be associated with the GNA now, as does Jathran's zone of influence. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the Presidential Council on the same side as the Libyan parliament and the Libyan National Army? Славянский патриот (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking the Tobruk based parliament then it looks like they aren't. The House of Representatives haven't been able to get enough members together to vote on acceptance or rejection of GNA. I can't mind out whether the Amazighs have accepted the GNA. James Bowes (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, depending on how the next changes are we may have to abandon the Tuareg as an own faction and give this colour to the GNA.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sabratha, Zultan, Rigdaleen, Al-Jmail, Zuwarah, Ajilat, Sorman, Zawia and West and South Zawia have all pledged for the GNA. We can probably reuse the green from the GNC for the GNA now that the former are largely gone from the war. Ubari have also sent a delegation to Tripoli. James Bowes (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but what's with the Amazighs and the cities of Hun, Waddan, Sukna, Mizda, Zliten and more? In my view there are still too many inside GNC against it. Maybe we could use the colour blue. Does anyone know something about statements from Bani Walid, Tawergha and Tarhuna? Oh, didn't see it when I first read it... Ubari too? Does it speak for all the Tuareg?--Ermanarich (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any recent statements, but I know that last year Zliten was expressing support for the U.N. negotiations and the plan for the GNA. It is extremely likely that Tarhuna also supports the GNA. Zintan appears also to accept it. I am going to comb some sites for statements/sources to see what I can find. Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a source for Zintan backing the GNA. The H of R seems split between those accepting the GNA (who are considering relocating south) and those supporting Cyrenaica independence/autonomy. 82.34.93.70 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Libyan Exrpess's report about Bani Walid:

http://www.libyanexpress.com/bani-waleed-municipality-announces-support-for-gna-presidential-council/ Lacertilia the Magnificent (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Kufra and the Awlad Suleiman tribes have pledged allegiance now. 82.34.93.70 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/rival-administration-tripoli-cedes-power-un-backed-unity-government-867508349James Bowes (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it still a 'civil war'?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not sure if this can still be considered a civil war. The most serious war-like violence was basically in the space of a few months from mid to late 2014. A ceasefire was declared in Jan 2015, and whilst the country is ruled by two different governments since, it is not really a 'war' anymore. I mean yes it's certainly a conflict but it's not so serious to call it a 'war' anymore. The two sides are basically battling each other for control but it's not a straight on battlefront war like it was in 2014. And particularly in the last few months with the political developments, there just isn't a sense that there's a war, but rather just insecurity. --Hyperwq+639 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is still a civil war whilst Islamic State have a presence. I agree that it isn't a live conflict between the other participants, but fighting against Islamic State alone is enough to make it a civil war as it does with Iraq. James Bowes (talk) 08:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Split Proposed

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article is very difficult to read through and the wikilink to the "main article" for timeline brings it right back here. This would be split into Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Please vote using Support and Oppose. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Sounds reasonable. Not sure why it was created in the first place if it was just gonna redirect back here. ansh666 01:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have done this. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank You @Cordyceps-Zombie: but next time it would be better to leave the conversation up longer for a better Concencus.
@RES2773: WP:BOLD is perfectly applicable as well. Cheers, ansh666 02:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Government of National Accord (GNA) has been assigned a separate table. Separate tables make it serm like it is a separate/hostile party to House of Representatives and General National Congress. Lolitician (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Libyan Civil War (2011) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please update the map and create an article about the Sirte offensive

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The map is outdated. The pro-government forces have reached Sirte. Also the pro-government militias have reached the town of Harawa. The map should be updated to show the GNA control up to Sirte and Harawa. Here's a reference [37] to use for their control. In addition, please also create the Sirte offensive article as it is a major battle. Thank you. 117.199.90.184 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Next news

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi A coup d'état occured in Tripoli. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits on the article are quite poor in grammar, please correct them. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Fightennings are ongoing. We should made add a fifth belligerant. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Tripoli coup and GNC-GNA conflict

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know why the information regarding the pro-GNC coup and GNC-GNA conflict hasn't been paid attention to. Pro-GNA and pro-GNC militias have started fighting each other, and GNC loyalists have taken over the parliament and Rixos hotel from where GNA cabinet functions. Even some from the Presidential Guard have defected and former GNC Prime Minister has stated his forces control the entire Tripoli. I think it should have its own article, besides removal of GNC as a non-active participant in the war. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We should create an article. But the best tittle is Battle of Tripoli (2016) or 2016 Libyan coup d'état attempt ? Now, the events are related here. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It cannot be called a battle as it is not a wide-scale military clash. It didn't even last a few days. Regardless the events do not exclusively concern Tripoli. I think a "GNC-GNA conflict" article will be better suited as it will allow room for any future conflicts. 61.0.201.161 (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This article is a complete cluster fuck, especially worthy of note is the false map it has and the fact it say the presidential council got dissolved by the rixos coup which didn't happen as the coup didn't gain much support. 41.254.6.97 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which support your statements, please feel free to make an edit request so that we can correct it, or register and make the changes yourself. ansh666 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't really have much time myself but if an editor cares enough they should check out this site, libyaherald.com. 41.254.6.193 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC
ansh666 The source (http://www.libyanexpress.com/us-concerned-about-gnc-coup-on-legitimate-government-in-libya/) being used never said GNA is ousted or the Presidential Council dissolved. A coup did take place, but GNA was never taken out as a government. The source only says GNC has captured some state buildings. In the status, GNC should be stated to have seized several state buildings instead of ousting Farraj and GNA. 45.122.145.58 (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've changed it to state only that a coup was attempted, with the link to the coup article. Does that seem reasonable? ansh666 17:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. 61.1.59.5 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ISIS vs BRSC

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, what exactly is rationale behind adding ISIS and BRSC as opposing sides? BSRC top commander, for instance, here admits to alliance [38], not that it wasnt obvious as they have been fighting side-by-side in Benghazi for years. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

where is the casualties in infobox?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

where is the casualties in infobox? no one interested in Libya,Yemen? all focus on Syria? 45.116.233.11 (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Article body

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We should probably copy and paste the month-by-month information onto the Timeline of the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) article and instead create year-by-year summaries for what happened. Romanov loyalist (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

LNA have Retaken Oil Crescent from Benghazi Defense\Misratan Brigades

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After Sevral days of Air Bombarding, LNA ground forces sweep into Ras Lanuf and Sidra, they reportedly reached Harawa

Sources:

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/east-libyan-forces-say-they-have-retaken-oil-ports-20170314-00909 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/khalifa-haftar-forces-capture-key-libya-oil-terminals-170314155659506.html http://timesofoman.com/article/104976/Opinion/Columnist/Haftar-wins-back-oil-crescent-in-east-Libya-as-tribes-set-to-support-the-general 

AngryCyrenaican (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: updating supporting countries

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sources on the countries supporting each of the factions in this war seem quite weak. Sometimes just opinion pieces in newspapers. The information on pages about the warring factions sometimes even contradicts what the sources on this page say.

Could we add "(alleged)" here and there behind the flag of each supporting country in the infobox or just delete them altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 88 external links on Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Name of article + others

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I understand that below question goes against the common sense a bit, but what source do we have that actually call current conflict in Libya as civil war. I do understand that by vast majority of definitions this, indeed, is a civil war however due to fact that we have to keep sticking to 3rd party sources and WP:COMMONNAME I wonder if we actually are entitled here to use this name, or think about changing it. Second, the leght of the article is too great. We should probably start thinking about branching parts of this articles into their own and scaling down the text line. For instance sections 4, 5 and 6 give a detailed description of many events that may have seen very relevant at time of writing, but not as much now. Also, we already have multiple subarticles about various battles and conflicts that already do cover this period of time and there is little need for duplicity. We should try to scale down main article to certainly less than 500 sources, especially given that its very likely that conflict will continue throughout whole 2017 and even to future. We dont want to end up with article with 1000+ sources. Any ideas? EllsworthSK (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

War map

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If it's possible, could someone please update the map of the war at the top of the page? Alex of Canada (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). feminist (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Libyan Civil War (2014–present) → Libyan conflict – This conflict isn't really a 'civil war'. After a few months of violence in 2014, the country is no longer struck by a conflict that we could call 'civil war' anymore. The country is split between different governments (and a few militias) but unlike for example the Iraqi Civil War, the Libyan one has had little amount of serious violence, nor has it had so many deadly battles. It resembles a frozen conflict a lot more than a proper civil war. The amount of people killed and injured or displaced is also not as high as, for example the Yemeni Civil War which has had a lot more violence and injuries in less time. This conflict has not experienced the daily and deadly bombings like Syria, Iraq and Yemen have. Nor do the media really mention Libya as being in a state of 'civil war' to be specific. Therefore I think it should be called something like 'Libyan conflict'. --Wq639 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion talking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahmed Al-Mismari on Iran

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unsubstantiated and unlikely assertions do not belong in an article lead. Just because a warlord's spokesperson alleges that something is so is not evidence that that something is so. Supporting insurgents is a serious charge and to include it in the infobox as though it is a reflection of reality is irresponsible. Basis for such a risible claim isn't even contained in the article body (or elsewhere) because Mismari concocted it for political effect, as is his wont, and an activist outlet then committed the lie to print. Is this Wikipedia's new standard of evidence in determining foreign sponsorship in conflicts?

I've tried to remove the allegation from its elevated position in the articles infobox but have been obstructed twice. -- 185.128.26.21 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War (2014–present) → Second Libyan Civil War – . Wq639 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Term is used by at least one source: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/royal-navy-rescued-manchester-suicide-bomber-war-torn-libya-2014/ - Also consistent with Second Sudanese Civil War and Second Ivorian Civil War. Koopinator (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – As per this and this. While I find there could be some rationale for the move, this is just but one of a set of related articles on the Libyan Crisis (2011–present), and its move would undoubtely affect a large number of those (indeed, it would make little sense to move this to Second Libyan Civil War without also moving Libyan Civil War (2011) to First Libyan Civil War, with the subsequent moving of all pages using these names as well). While the use of "first Libyan Civil War" and "second Libyan Civil War" is used in some sources, there is also the view that these are really two interrelated military conflicts within the scope of a single crisis, rather than two separate civil wars. Because of that, I'm opposing the move because I think that 1) it would require a concurrent discussion about the moves (or merging) of other related pages, with strong reasonings and consensus to back it up; and 2) the nom has not even tried to provide a minimum reasoning for the move, much less to address the multiple issues that could derive from it if successful. Impru20talk 12:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I feel like the naming of the various bits of the Libyan conflict come up again and again, and it seems in most cases like there simply aren't well-defined names for them. As such, the present title which acknowledges it as part of the long-term wider conflict, but with a specific date range, seems by far the best in terms of recognizability and precision. The proposed title may be found in "at least one source", but I don't think it's an agreed-upon general title for the thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could we get something on the France–Italy row? (France still supports LNA/Haftar)

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'm referring of course to this: How France and Italy’s Rivalry Is Hurting Libya Libya rivals, key players to discuss election plan in Italy talks

There is more information if one simply plugs 'France Italy' into Google. But, basically:

their dispute over Libya is a product of France and Italy’s divergent interests in the country.

Italy’s economic interests lie in Tripoli and the country’s west, controlled by the GNA, while France is concerned with bringing a semblance of order to Libya’s lawless south; a combination of smugglers, criminal networks, and terrorists threaten Paris’ traditional sphere of influence in the Sahel region, where it has 4,500 troops currently deployed.

This has supposedly led France to favor Haftar out of the belief that he is better positioned to restore security and root out Libya’s jihadists.

So France still supports the Libyan National Army, and continues to do so (although there may have been a lull between then and now, they're back to supporting the LNA in opposition to Italy's support of the Government of National Accord). Ergo, Italy's current place in the info-box (along with everyone else except France which is erroneously stated to no longer be on this side of the conflict as of 2016) is correct. However, France should be moved into the column to the left of Italy (remove the 2016 moratorium which as it stands is incorrect) that currently includes Egypt, the UAE, Russia, Algeria, Chad, Saudi Arabia and Belarus (among whatever other issues happenstance are involved with the article's need for an update) along with a mention of this in the actual text of the article whenever the moderator or attendee to the article in question get around to doing so to make it clear that France and Italy are no longer backing the same side in this war.

Regards,
--Abbazorkzog (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the source alleging France switched sides sometime in 2016 is not accessible, and I get this message every time I try to access the 'source,' -
To continue reading this article, you must be a Bloomberg News subscriber.
Subscribe now to get unlimited access.
Therefore, I must categorically reject the allegation that France has switched sides to support the Libyan GNA at all.
Regards,
--Abbazorkzog (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The infobox is a real mess anyway and is probably the worst one I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The 2016 brackets next to France are now gone, per your suggestion, but it doesn't really matter at this point IMO unless we go for a Syrian Civil War-style purge of the infobox (compare this to that). Insignificant militias and countries that are not involved militarily should be removed.
I didn't, however, remove France from the GNA's column, because none of the sources covering the current France-Italy row are saying that France is against the GNA. They're just saying that France favors the LNA over the Tripoli government. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. But yeah, that infobox is an utter mess and I'd fully support removing all irrelevant factions.
--Abbazorkzog (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
How would you define an irrelevant faction? Koopinator (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd just like to say, If we plan on revising the infobox we should also create a navigation box like Template:Syrian Civil War, as the infobox is currently one of the only ways to find many rebel like the Petroleum Facilities Guard, Popular Front for the Liberation of Libya and the Ajdabiya Revolutionaries Shura Council. Then again, militias play a much larger role in Libya than Syria, so maybe we should keep them in the infobox. Koopinator (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Moved your comment here. I don't mind navboxes, but readers don't often notice them. Another solution would be creating List of armed groups in the Libyan Civil War (2014–present), like this one, and link to it in the infobox in a way that is more accessible to our readers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"new" civil war/new article - sub-article of this article, merging unrealistic

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since we already have a WP:SPLIT into 2019 Western Libya Offensive, I took the liberty of pointing the reader to this immediately in a hatnote. Some media are already calling the new events "a civil war". For Wikipedia purposes, calling it a phase of the 2014-present civil war, as other editors have effectively chosen to do, seems reasonable to me; merging would be (at least right now) totally unrealistic. 2019 Western Libya Offensive is already 18 kb long, barely 24 hours after it was first created. So it's not going to shorten any time soon, no matter how the military conflict is resolved: there is no way to expect that Wikipedians would accept to merge it into this article, Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Boud (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

USA support GNA

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.state.gov/countries-areas/libya/109.126.220.148 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like they're particularly involved. Overtly anyhow. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two of the three colors on the map are the same: "Under the control of the Tobruk-led Government (HOR) and Libyan National Army (LNA)" is a sort of beige. "Under the control of the Tripoli-led Government (GNA) and the Libya Shield Force" is the same color. I am sightly color-blind but not this badly. This sort of map should use primary colors, anyway. Wastrel Way (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Eric

No WP:RS currently for Israeli support of House of Representatives

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Timbits12 Currently Israel is sourced to: [1][2][3][4]

None of these are first-tier WP:RS, the strongest source of the four is Al Jazeera which identifies Russian-made aircraft registered to a joint Emirati-Kazakh company, that "circulates almost regularly between Jordan, Israel and Egypt prior to its appearance in Libya". IMHO this can be included in the text, but interpreting that as Israeli support seems WP:OR. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Silverstein, Richard. "Haftar: Israeli secret aid to Libya's strongman reveals a new friend in Africa". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  2. ^ "Libya's Haftar 'provided with Israeli military aid following UAE-mediated meetings with Mossad agents'". The New Arab. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  3. ^ "Libya's Haftar had lengthy meeting with Israeli intelligence officer". Middle East Monitor. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
  4. ^ "Libya: Flight data places mysterious planes in Haftar territory". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 February 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please provide evidence that Israel is involved in this conflict or supports any of the sides 46.19.86.51 (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Already done – You can find this information in the infobox at the top of the page. Beneath “House of Representatives” in the “Main belligerents” section, expand the “Support” list. You’ll see that Israel is included there with four sources cited. — Tartan357  (Talk) 15:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

UAE request to Dagalo

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm reverting this addition pending the building of WP:CONSENSUS for the change. It seems to me that the Libya Observer is not WP:RS for an anonymous source, and that a Guardian article from 2019 can't support a claim of what happened in 2020. I didn't look at the Foreign Policy article, but it's in the "Argument" column which I assume means it's an op-ed rather than a fact-checked WP:RS. If we don't yet have WP:RS on an alleged 2020 request from the UAE to Dagalo, then we can't include it yet. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 

On April 24, 2020, The Libya Observer citing a source, reported that the United Arab Emirates has asked Sudanese RSF commander, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo to send in mercenaries to Libya in support of general Khalifa Haftar’s army. However, Sudan has denied the involvement of its forces in Libya.[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ "Source: Sudan's Hemetti to send more troops to Libya to save Haftar from collapse in Tripoli". The Libya Observer. Retrieved 24 April 2020.
  2. ^ "Russia Isn't the Only One Getting Its Hands Dirty in Libya". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 21 April 2020.
  3. ^ "Mercenaries flock to Libya raising fears of prolonged war". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 December 2019.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2014–2020)/Archive_1&oldid=1171499008"