Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to the Libyan civil war (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Topple the Tyrants)

U.S. Executive Order

[edit]

I can't find any info on this executive order which freezes Libyan assets and declares a national emergency: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/2011libya.eo_.rel_.pdf What are the ramifications? Historical Precedents? It isn't on any major news source that I can find yet... Spreggo (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

States that have cut diplomatic relations`

[edit]

Should we create a new sub-section for countries that have cut relations with Libya now that Peru has, or simply move those states to the top of the list? user:mnw2000 18:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we hjave a map for now. let see if it grows.(Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Why doesn't state that the US and Canada have cut or suspend diplomatic relations[1]

The USA has cut Canada suspended and Mexico neither86.26.79.254 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Chad

[edit]
Resolved

In the map, Chad is shown as taking sides with Gaddafi. Nothing is mentioned of this in the article, and someone really needs to provide a citation that this is true. After all, to put it mildly, Chad versus Gaddafi relations have historically been extremely problematic (see e.g., Chadian–Libyan conflict), and it was only in 2007 a few of the final major Chadian groups signed a peace treaty with Libya. Sure there have been recent attempts of increasing peaceful co-existence in the region, but that's a long way from them supporting Gaddafi during this mess. Keep in mind that just because some of Gaddafi's mercenaries (supposedly) are from Chad, that does not mean the country supports Gaddafi (otherwise we should add South Africa to the supporters of Gaddafi, as some of his mercenaries supposedly are from that country; based on the little info that has escaped, he has mercenaries from large parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, notably the Sahel and expats from the Congo wars). Unless someone can provide a citation that Chad–the country–supports Gaddafi in this conflict, Chad should be removed as a supporting nation on the map. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mdified it to show 'merceneries' not the goverment of ChadWipsenade (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add sources, but foget it, I found them, but it is best to ignor the accusations about merceneries, since the map is repearedly deleated fom this page becase it said there were merceneries.Wipsenade (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt reaction

[edit]

Prior to international reaction being moved to its own page here, the Egypt reaction was moved out of that section as it wasn't from a voice of someone who represents an official of the country authorized to speak on its behalf, which is what this section is for. That Egypt reaction has been reinstated here for some reason. Please remove it as the person making the statement is not an official spokesman for the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.203.19.1 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kevdav63 (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it can and will be double asterisks when finished. there has been an "official" reaction and per waiting on the source in the meantime, hence it looks official when its not.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pov states

[edit]

per this page and the MENA page where Western Sahara is part of Morocco (and more reocnigsed than kosovo) and Palestine is not termed as such (again more reognition and declaration of independece) then we cant go about labeling kosovo as its own entity because that is pov (where Palestine is not labeled on this page either).Lihaas (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am very biased in the matter (see my crowded user page), but yeah, maybe put it as Hamas and/or PA separately? Few people can argue with that and it is about as NPOV as you can get. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah, forgot to mvoe that part out (though the change of other palestine was controversyial). the point bein g that you cant it one way for palestube and western sahara and then not for kosovo. Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, and no way we could say that representatives of each said X and Y? You are right that we can't refer to one in one way while giving the others treatment in another. Still, Hamas and the PA are separate from each other and so the reaction from one is not necessarily the reaction of the government of the "State of Palestine"/the Territories as a whole as neither the PA or Hamas represents all the Palestinian people and having it appear to be State of Palestine effectively makes it the reaction of two different governments for the same state. If that makes sense. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: Oh here's an idea! How about put them (Palestine, Kosovo, Western Sahara, etc) under Non-UN Member Governments or something like that? That is completely NPOV and it is not a matter of opinion, it is fact that they are not in the UN and are governments of one form or another! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we have precedence for that. when there is an "official" reaction that would be main and hamas would be double asterisks. i believe we did in the intl reactions to egyopt for the palestine part. think your idea is perfect then. you want to be bold and make the change?Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err sure, lol, but I'm not sure what's so bold about making an edit. :p Is it okay if I change the states header to governments rather than making a separate thing altogether for the three/four entities? Then I can just plop them under there in their own subsection. Also, one last note on the Palestine thing, even though the PA is more agreeable and more widely recognised (afaik) than the Hamas swine (the gov, not the people, hey, I can express an opinion on talk pages =p) in Gaza, I am not sure that it is really fair to consider them the main government. Gaza ain't tiny and they were elected by the Gazans. Even more reason to give them equal footing. Maybe if Abkhazia and South Ossetia say anything (if Russia hasn't annexed them yet) then they can get their own section as Non-UN Member Governments. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hmmm, might someone take issue with the Governments title though? Just wondering. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to shoving non-UN member states down to the bottom and out of the categories of their respective continents. Usually these sorts of changes are made by editors trying to strike at the legitimacy of one of the listed governments. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to put it in alphabetical order with the continents, but I thought it might look odd (as it's not a continent). If you prefer it moved into alphabetical order before Ocenia, you are welcome to move the subsection. As for moving them in the first place, well you see up there why I did it, because the two problematic ones, Kosovo and Palestine are disputed as states (Either that or put a non-UN members sub-subsection in the relevant continents which looks kinda messy). So now NPOV is maintained as best as possible. =) Besides they are in the same company as the Holy See and Republic of China, rather illustrious company I would say. =) Their presence also helps it to not look like the throwaway bin or w/e else someone may think. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Reactions

[edit]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-let-300-palestinians-return-to-west-bank-from-libya-1.345272 -- Israel allowed 300 Palestinians to go from Libya to the West Bank. It's very small compared to the total there, but it's something and it's a reaction to the situation there. Ha'aretz is a liberal paper btw (some more conservative Israelis (and Ultra-Zionist Jews such as moi) would say the voice of the PA or at least not a good paper for Israel). TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its fair to add. i rpesume under the israel section. no question of po.v.Lihaas (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only added that last bit because at the time the ad for the petition to the King of Jordan to make Jordan the new Palestinian homeland was up top. Even though I did sign it I would think some people would have had issues with the source if they didn't have any background info stating the paper's usual biases. Also, eck, Livni, at least she is talking some sense there though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz is one of the most reliable sources on current events in Israel (you may note my bias runs somewhat differently from yours) My concern about the Livni quote is its length, alongside the two other quotes - this seems to me to be undue weight to the Israeli position in general. Given that Colonel Qadafi has in the past focused on opposition to his regime as being "Zionist" (though now he says it Al Qaeeda) I think the Israeli position should only be given its due (IMO minimal) weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talkcontribs) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more a Jerusalem Post guy myself (which they would get rid of all the ****ing ads on their site though), but I didn't say Ha'aretz wasn't an RS (Arutz Sheva is unreliable even though I agree with them 30% of the time), I just don't like them much of the time. (though I do like their colour scheme) :p Indeed, in fact it's been noted that Israel has mostly kept quiet on this (for fear of having the new war blamed on them), so their reactions are few and the weight given them should be minimal until they say more. I am socially liberal (to the point of socialism) btw, but I've adopted a more realist view of foreign policy as I have grown up. I also agree that the Livni quote is too long, but that might also be influenced by my extraordinary dislike of her. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Post and Haaretz about evenly which shows my inclination. Haaretz is really pretty realistic - its easy to ignore the 3 or 4 extremist columnists (just as one must with certain Post columnists) and they often pick things up the Post doesn't, and of course their web site is more readable/usable. Anyway thats all rather off topic. I will check to see what happened with the Livni quote (I happen to like her very, very, much, but I really don't want her views to have undue weight here)Ricardianman (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests

[edit]

Why does this article inhabit Category:2010–2011 Arab world protests ? It is the only non-main article which has its own category to exist in that does this. Every other international reactions article only inhabits the subcategory (in this case it would be Category:2011 Libyan protests ). This clearly should be diffused into the subcategory, and not be in the main category. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it has something to do with Libya being a majority Arab and Arabised-Berber nation. Please see Demographics of Libya. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt's "international reactions" article is not categorized into that category. Only Egyptian revolution of 2011 is categorized there. None of the other protest/uprising internationl reaction articles are categorized into the upper level category, only into their own categories. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now that doesn't make sense. You should add them then. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro —Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
WP:CATEGORY suggest that is excessive categorization. Only the head article of a category should be categorized into the parent category. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see, well then maybe this should be removed from there? In all likelyhood it was just someone putting it into every category they thought it fit. Btw, I definitely noticed a funny but possibly POV picture in the Arab World Protests box. How did that get there and where do I whine about it? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried that twice. Doing it a third time would violate the spirit of WP:3RR for myself. Someone else would need to do it. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

[edit]

getting a little long. i propose removing the mesia part, adding more to clean it and then adding it to some other page.Lihaas (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSCR 1970

[edit]

I have found the relevant UN Security Council resolution online at http://www.dipublico.com.ar/english/news/full-text-of-resolution-1970-2011-libya/ which is fortunate because it doesn't seem to have appeared on the (apparently underfunded) UN website yet. I've added a reference in the text of this article, but it would be good if someone with time and knowledge could begin work on an article for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970, summing up its provisions and saying something about its political context (tricky business of getting states which oppose the ICC to agree to Libya's referral to it, etc.) Hope this helps 82.46.43.33 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

livni quote

[edit]

a good edit shortened the quopte (we needed a 2nd eye), but i added back a little more and NOT the whole agenda/quotefarm for just a little context, the fact of an oncoming clash is pertinent to reaction here as you can see the reactions change by region.Lihaas (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardianman (talkcontribs) 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara, Taiwan, Russian mini-satellites (not very NPOV I know)

[edit]

Can anyone see what reactions these governments have had if any? It's not very important I know, but still (fill in the blank). I found this little one on a Morroccan site claiming hundreds of Western Sahara soldiers are fighting as mercs in Libya, but the bias is pretty obvious. This is the only source I can find on them though. Too sleepy to look for the others though. By Russian Satellites I mean South Ossetia, Abkhazia, that little breakaway area in Moldova etc. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus supplying Gadaffi with arms?

[edit]

User:Närking found this story from a source called SIPRI about Gadaffi's son taking various items to Belarus and trading them for arms: http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2011/3/1/36417/ Look like a good source? Anyone want to add info, if so, under Belarus? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

charter97 doesn't look like a good source, it's the other side of the same propaganda coin as the state TV.--Avala (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Charter97 that is behind the news but the wellknown institute SIPRI and here is the same story in another source [1]. Närking (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Palestinian Authority reactions put

[edit]

All we have are Hamas reactions, not the PA (the lesser of two evils to me =p). Here is a report in the Centrist Jerusalem Post citing the PA's Security Chief about 43 PA Policemen training in Libya trying to get home. [2] There is also an article from the Palestinian News Agency about the PA trying to get 104 Palestinian students from Gaza and the West Bank out of Libya. [3] Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the students are safely home now, evacuated by the PA etc. [4] I still only see Humus reactions btw, come on peeps, I am far too lazy to put them in myself, plus I have bias. :3 Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Commando team captured by rebels

[edit]

Eight members of the SAS were captured by the rebels while escorting a secret diplomatic mission and the delegation is returning home now. The rebels were concerned they might give Gadaffi an excuse for more evil. [5] [6] [7] [8] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany were abstainers. Germany and Russia are Pro-Libya. All others voted to make a NFZ and protect civilians[[9]] Military strikes against Libya will take place "swiftly" and France will definitely participate, according to the French government spokesman Francois Baroin said in an interview on the 18th with RTL radio.[[10]]

Nation United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 Vote Political Side
France France[BBC News] [[11]] Yes Rebels
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia-Hercegovina[BBC News] [[12]] Yes Rebels
Colombia Colombia[BBC News] [[13]] Yes Rebels
Gabon Gabon[BBC News] [[14]] Yes Rebels
Nigeria Nigeria[BBC News] [[15]] Yes Rebels
Lebanon Lebanon[BBC News] [[16]] Yes Rebels
Portugal Portugal[BBC News] [[17]] Yes Rebels
South Africa South Africa[BBC News] [[18]] Yes Rebels
United Kingdom United Kingdom[BBC News] [[19]] Yes Rebels
United States United States[BBC News] [[20]] A reluctant yes Undecided
Brazil Brazil[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
Germany Germany[[The Guardian Live Blog] A reluctant abstain Pro-Gadhafi
India India[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
China China[[The Guardian Live Blog] Abstain Neutral
Russia Russia[[The Guardian Live Blog] A reluctant abstain Pro-Gadhafi

Wipsenade (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this table something more suitable for a users sandbox? The key information is already in another article, using a well established formet: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of diplomatic missions

[edit]

We should specifically note if countries have closed their embassies in Tripoli or not. It has been done for some countries, but many more have taken this step and it's not mentioned in the respective reactions. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

[edit]
  •  Transnistria – The government dismissed rumours that Gaddafi's soldiers were equipped with guns supplied from Transnistria, describing the scenario as "impossible" because Transnistria is unrecognized by the World Trade Organization and as such cannot legally sell weapons to the Libyan government.[1]

Illegal arms exports?Wipsenade (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just quoting the source. But obviously the Transnistrian government would never stoop to something as below-board as illegal arms sales, right? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have they done this sort of thing in the past? From what I've seen they're a Russian satellite. Any RSs talking about past illicit activities of a similar nature? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Komsomolskaya Pravda, Moldova: Libyans are fighting with Moldovan weapons?". Focus Information Agency. 16 March 2011. Retrieved 21 March 2011.

Move request

[edit]

I think this page should be moved to "International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war" now that the main article has moved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi has broken diplomatic relations

[edit]

Someone please update the page to reflect this [21] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Recognition

[edit]

Would it be possible for someone with better graphical skills than me to build a global map identifying which counties recognize the Gaddafi government and which recognize the National Transnational Council (presumably in green and red respectively based on the colors of the respective flags)? Or failing that perhaps a table identifying who has recognized the Council and when they recognized them?--Ndunruh (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag African Union.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Flag African Union.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_stop_the_crackdown_eu/?rc=fb
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_stop_the_crackdown_eu/?rc=fb
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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 to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 18:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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 to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 20:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 08:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 39 external links on International reactions to the 2011 Libyan Civil War. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article?

[edit]

Why is this not a section of the article on the 2011 Libyan Civil War? I don't think it should be its own article. Edinyuma (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]