Talk:Libya

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Civil War Section

The write up on the Libyan civil war is in desperate need of improvement. As it stands, one could make a very solid argument that the Conservapedia article on the Libyan civil war is more accurate than rationalwiki's. This should never be the case. ^{— Unsigned, by: Ho Chi Mihn Holiday Inn / talk / contribs}

Gaddafi, Ghadafi, Ghaddafi, Kaddafi, Khadaffi, Khaddafi, Qadafi, Qaddafi

Can we spell his name one way consistently in the article, or is it supposed to be a running joke that we spell it differently each time? If so, there's a few duplicates that need modifying. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

a running joke that we spell it differently each time. --B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting

I had just added more information, which has been reverted by the viewers around here, each of them have contained reliable sources as well.

Someone review it, and edit it back, if there are any objection or doubts regarding my edits, tell here.122.169.2.220 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources like Alex Jones' Infowars. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, i added it because i thought that this site would consider it as one, nevertheless i had provided 2 sources, and providing one more source in the same regard:-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28980.htm

In this source you can see the same opposition are admitting that the fall of Tripoli was fake.122.169.2.220 (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your Eagles of Pakistan source tells us that "Al-Jazeera is once again fabricating a big stink pile of lies for the sheer purpose of facilitating Zionist propaganda against Libyan regime, a threat to New World Order". I don't think I can trust this source, & RW should not endorse it. Informationclearinghouse looks like another conspiracy theorist site. To know how reliable that video interview is, I would have to know a lot more about the background than I can find on informationclearinghouse or YouTube. While it's possible that there are things the international media has not revealed, you can't just assert that "the fall of Tripoli was proved to be fake" as a statement of fact, when the sources you cite for this are so obscure & dubious. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I got what you mean, i will consider and make a new edit soon, thanks for telling your suggestions. 122.169.37.247 (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Which changes/edits you are talking about? I think each of them are well sourced and clear to the actual point.122.169.36.253 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think they're rather one-sided, & paint an inaccurate picture of Gaddafi loyalists as freedom fighter & the rebels/transitional council as terrorists. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree because such reports have only told about the things which have happened, though i am just making the article more likeable.

One more edit i want and it's about the line 'exile to venezuela or zimbabwe' because fact is, he was just forced to give up his colonel position and give up plans for the country. He could remain anywhere in world also Libya. I can backup this.122.169.36.253 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) This multi-page PoV inversion attempt seems to consist of tossing random news articles and hoping some aren't biased/unrelated. Unless there's a serious, documented consensus on all this (which is inherently sketchy, because it's basically "all the rebels were terrorists and Gaddafi was a great guy"), I doubt much will come of it. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, just because they don't agree with the rumors that came on starting days, these points are all over so, maybe it's the only way to put, take another example. Iraq war was based on WMDs, but they found none, so here no other view can be included.122.169.36.253 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are disagreed with. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proof that Gaddafi attacked protesters?

The government responded to peaceful demonstrations and funeral processions for those killed with systematic shootings, snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, and warships. A citation would be real great.^{— Unsigned, by: AIDS Skrillex / talk / contribs}

Here you go, pick one and use it as a citation. You can pick any one you like. You can even pick more if you want. Nudescendant (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is shit

Gaddafi curbed the slave trade in Libya. Funny how this article doesn't mention that. It reads like a pro-NATO puff piece written by a high schooler. — Oxyaena ^Harass 10:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

its not that funny when you consider the articles focus is 2011 onwards, with only a very brief bit of history before hand. libya pre 2011 could be greatly added to if you are so inclined. you might want to elaborate on any criticism of the bulk of the existing article, libya of 2011 and beyond though because a cursory glance suggests its not obviously terribly written. so is it factually incorrect? if it is dreadfully partisan, where and how so? or is it more about your own politics rather than objectivity? AMassiveGay (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)