Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

A Swiss attack

In Gaddafi's personal perception he defends his country against a Swiss expedition force. The Switzerland sent their troops in, to divide Libya, as an answer to Gaddafi's proposal to do so with their home-country. The Cyrenaica may be added to Egypt, Tripolitania to Tunisia and the Fezzan to Algeria. --2.201.173.236 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow.Praghmatic (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Look here: Libya–Switzerland relations--90.187.1.57 (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gadaffi and the Swiss are like a proud household owner and crabgrass on the lawn!--99.135.150.55 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Now Gaddafi openly accuses the "Zionists" to destabilise his country. In European press there are accusations, that the Austrian Airforce is supporting the Gaddafi-regime: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20110220_OTS0056/verteidigungsministerium-widerlegt-internet-geruechte-um-einsatz-der-c-130. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.107.144 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm.... I assume the Swiss invasion of Libya is purely a Gaddafi conspiracy theory to detract from the actual events taking place. If we have a reliable source mentioning it, then we can include it in the article. Probably it is better over at Libya–Switzerland relations though. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time the Swiss invaded anyone? No one is alive to remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But Swiss mercenaries fought all over the world.--90.186.236.247 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Swiss mercenaries have fought all over the world, despite the nation being neutral as a whole for about 300 years.Wipsenade (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But they were talking about Switzerland as a nation state. Sure we can say Madagascar or New Zealand invaded someone if a mercenary was from their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.255.217 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think countries are usually responsible for the actions of their private citizens. As an official representative of the Zionist conspiracy btw, I would like to say we had nothing to do with this one :p (about as serious a source as any other on this topic) TheArchaeologist 02:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Well, the U.S. has a Neutrality Act, and also there have been times when "unaffiliated" invaders have brought back trouble - e.g. the Bay of Pigs Invasion. When you take away any right from private citizens, whether it is the right to free speech or the right to be a mercenary, it makes the government formally responsible any time that it is allowed. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not? If you follow through that link you'll see the last Neutrality Act was repealed in 1941. All that is irrelevant of course without a credible source saying that this whole thing is any sort of attack on Gadhafi by any government, Swiss or not. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A preamble to war?

Over the last 3 days Italy sends in 2 patrol boats, a recognisance vessel and a special op's team. 2 American war ships are on the way and a spy plane is reportedly to be flying between Southern Italy and Tunisia. The UK's SAS troops and RAF troop aircraft rescue UK, German and Irish oil workers from the southern desert provinces, the UK sends 2 supply ships loaded medical supplies to Bengazi and readies fighter aircraft in its Cypriot bases. France sends a patrol boat to Tunisia.Wipsenade (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

See the No Fly Zone.[[1]]

The US Navy has an Amphib in the med, with a loaded Marine Expeditionary Unit onboard, I hear. This shouldn't really be a surprise. I wouldn't characterize it as a "preamble to war", though. If (when) NATO goes in, it will be a peace-keeping mission. Police action. Regardless, this is all rank speculation, and this isn't a forum, so...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:-)Wipsenade (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

...So, when/if the boots hit the ground is when we start writing about it. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Weren't Vietnam and Korea "not wars" and in fact "police actions"? Hasn't "police action" generally served as a euphemism for war? See our own article (even if it could use a few additional citations). Anyway, the leaders of the Libyan opposition have been effectively unanimous in explicitly clear statements opposing such a level of intervention. If such occurred, anyway, it would clearly be motivated by Western geopolitical interests rather than any humanitarian concerns -- let's note the stunning US silence regarding murders of protesters by the Iraqi regime several days ago, as well as US silence regarding Saudi movement of weaponry to crush the Bahraini uprising. This is not a forum, however, and this topic should be discussed in terms of its relevance to this article -- I think that it would be appropriate to mention both the NATO military movements near Libya, as well as the repeatedly stated opposition to any invasion by leaders of the Libyan opposition. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, leave it for reactions of notable people in a month or two maybe. Depending on how things turn out in the end. I think that mentioning the opposition is a good idea just so no one gets the wrong idea about what our govs might be up to (if they're not actually doing anything I mean). I left you a (silly) message btw on your talk. :p Sprechen Sie kein Deutsch? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it really an overseas plot?

Could this aspect be covered in more detail? Is there really a plot to take him out?

Col Gadhafi has traditionally blamed Islamists, tribal rivals and the USA, until the Lockerbie bombing alienated him with most of Europe (Italy, a few Swiss bankers, the UK's Labour party and Scotland's SNP party being the only exceptions). During both the Gulf Wars, he condemned Saddam Hussien, but then refused to help the Coalition forces. He has also slammed Hosni Mubarak's sons, Iran, Zionists and the Muslim Brotherhood as Egypt toppled its government last month. Now he blames the Swiss.

Has he so annoyed the world that he public enemy number 1 or is he finally cracking up? Either way it is an important issue. Wipsenade (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally cracking up? He has been a crack pot for many years. Gadhafi and his son blamed anyone they could think of in their speeches. They blamed:

• 1.Halucunagenic drugs distributed by foreign spies
• 2.Zionists
• 3.Americans
• 4.Europeans
• 5.Itallians
• 6.The Turks
• 7.Alcohol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

:-)Wipsenade (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have been pretty shocked if he didn't blame us Jews for this (we are ofc planning to steal their oil and make their children into matzah). We can't actually put that he's a crackpot without a documented psychological examination suggesting it though. :p TheArchaeologist 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Of course there is no evidence about foreign involvement. But e.g. Castro says so. Any foreign support for the protesters, either from Egypt, from Turkey or anywhere else, would give him the impression he is right. It would be very interesting, if there is any medical research about his mental state.--2.201.170.22 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

His accusations of foreign involvement cant be taken seriously. He has blamed so many sources and is now blaming Al-Qaeda. Several of the supposed foreign influences would never co-oporate just to bring him down(USA and Al-Qaeda...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.217.172 (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He said he was hated for having a beard and blamed El-Queada in the Hour Long Speach.Wipsenade (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In an interview he had with the BBC he blamed drug crazed youth and people on hallucinogenic drugs supplied by El-Queada for the protests and denied there were any outside Bengazi.

All jokes aside, we can agree that Gadhafi is not a reliable source for information on this whole thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not a trustworthy (or even sane) source!Wipsenade (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

news - needs sources

currently al jazeera english tv.

collection of news

italy evacuation in libya + berlusconi initially support/silent on gadafi, then concern on violence + libya airtstrikes, 250 killed in tripoli + 9 libyan diplomats resign (incl. india) and deputy at un calls for gaddafi to go (al zaquratha + miszuratha struck) + venezuela denied gaddafi is there + tunisian military on high alert as tunisians working in libya flee + lost touch with tunisian ambassador in triploi + brits evacauted + embassy staff in ukjoin protesters but not ambassador, libyan flag raised replaced with "independence glag" + airspace closed + [2]+reports of 2 planes of mercenaries arriving + clinton: "end unacceptable bloodshed" + state tv showing pro-gaddafi rallies + witness tells al jaz mostly "young men" + turkey struggling to evacaute --> planes turn back as benghazi air traffic not being monitored (some out by road) + 200 people protests outside istanbul consulate + sent 2 catamarans to take 300 passengers back + erdogan cautioned party members against any criticism on concern...+ us ambassador not present as left a few weeks ago after wikileaks scandal broke + 2 senior usa-based diplomats of libya resign saying theyre joining the "popular revolution" + ambassador to us condemns events but not resign + UN staff of libya write to current head of the sec council (brazil) to hold an aemertgency discussion one vents + ban ki moon "outraged" after first statements that was mor emoderate + some army officers call for the removal of gadafi + qatar pm. spoke out against the libyan reaction + arab league meeting in egypt tomorrow + malta refused libyan ambassador request to speak to 2 pilots + staff at malta embassy joining protests + pilots said more likely to go to malta because of peace treaty with italy-libya that could repatriate them + eu evacuees landing in mata + austrian/portuguese flew out citizens + [3] + landline and wireless comm. disrupted + [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/arab-stock-markets-fall-as-commodities-leap-2011-02-21 + gaddafi says hes in tripli + same chants as egypt and tunisia reported + solidarity protets (uk and us) + closed door un meeting on tues + embassy in malaysia fully behind protesters + [4] + [5] + [6] + [7][8][9] + planes not given permission to land in tripoli to evacuate + tunisians in benghazzi have no access out + "i will die as a martyt" gaddafi + interior minister resigns and calls on army to turn -- just after gaddafi praises him + peru breaks diplomatic relations + chile "extreme concern" + brazil "take notice to preserve security and free circulation of foreigners" + nicaragua "waging a great battle for unity of nation" "at difficult times loyalty put to test" + venezuela chavez no comment yet --> state "hope people can..." + fidel castro: "wait and see to ensure + usa pushing nato to invade" + libyan pilot escaped to swiss saying he knowingly carried mercenaries to his home city of benghazi (possibly mauritanian, black africans) + holland also getting its people out + navi pillay human rights cheif calls for inquiry into attacks + dubai, baghdad, byc, dc, london solidarty protests + john kerry to reimpose sanctions + students concerns scholarship revoked if at anti-govt protests + russia warning of future instability and "fanatics" in power libyan naval vessel in malta waters -- reason unkwnon + malta refused leave for its forces + unhcr 300000 could flee + us cant evacuate by air so offered to pay for boat rieds to malta with priority to those on medical condition then first come first serve + 2 planes to be sent to libya at some point to get 1000s of tunisians out + [10]>> Berlusconi's `Slavish' Courtship of Qaddafi to Befriend Libya Haunts Italy + senior aide Youssef Sawani to saif resigns + oil price up as gaddafi may order sabotage of pipelines + libyan ties to juventus[11] + 1 pilot ejected from aircraft rather than bomb + [12]>> CANADA STOCKS-TSX ends flat as Libya crisis buffets markets[13] + ban ki moon -> peaceful transition, navi pillay --> no fly zone + au deplores + largest ever turkish evacaution and request more help, 25000 citizens there + western cityMisuratah won by protesters + india to evacuate 18000 to tunisia and egypt, waiting for air and sea clearance + eu interior ministers meet in rome to coordinate + >> VIX Posts Biggest Two-Day Increase Since May as S&P 500 Tumbles[14] + amnesty for waeapons sezied offered + [15] + [16] + red crescent wanrs pf "catastrophic exodus" of libyans. (press tv) + > \Oil Approaches $120 on Libya Crisis; Goldman Sees ‘Upside Risk’ + ]\[ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/oil-rises-0-4-to-97-66-a-barrel-in-new-york-reversing-earlier-losses.html >? Oil Drops a Second Day as Supply Assurances Ease Libya Concern] + [17] + [18] +[19] + [20] + greeks evacauted + china sends naval ship from piracy duties to protest evacuating ships + germany calls for ?? and ?? + >> 'Gaddafi mirrors US, EU imperialism'>> 'Gaddafi using mercs to attack people'> Gaddafi may seek asylum in Africa + [21] + >> Gaddafi mercenaries kill Palestinian + >> Countries and companies scramble to get citizens out of Libya>> Libya: What happens after we stop watching these revolutions against Col Gaddafi?[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

I’m sorry but…

… this was just too stupid (no offense meant). I had to edit the “umbrella” bit because it just read too silly. Analysts? Really? Reading that part I could just envision a Monty Pythonesque scene… the analysts in front of the TV… “HMMMM he’s carrying an umbrella” “IT MUST BE RAINING” “CALL THE NEWSPAPERS” Plus, that he is carrying an umbrella lends credibility to nothing. It’s merely consistent. And the source isn’t quite right either. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for this. I never really intended the edit, as it was, to stand for as long as it has. I've been rather busy with real life for the last week... but, the thing with "analysis" was just a rough draft, you know? Actually, the whole point was a rewrite of something that someone else wrote to begin with, regardless... so, maybe I shouldn't feel too bad. Hey, at least it wasn't full of typos, right?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, as i said, no offense meant, it's just that reading that analysts deduced that it might be raining for seeing an umbrella... you know... :D Also i didn't like the "lends credibility" because it's just incorrect, imo.But we're all doing our part here, so that's coolIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I agree. :) No offense was taken; Thanks for helping out!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Good God, polite friendly agreement on the internet! The world must be ending soon.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you know? It's supposed to edit this December, isn't it? *grin* (or is it next December?)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

Well maybe this will be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.125.207 (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is.Wipsenade (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

From the CIA WFB, ya? Why is Al Jawf not shown with anything? Do not discount Al Jawf good sirs. ._. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Misratah/Misrata (or however you want to spell it, just east of Tripoli) is controlled by anti-Gaddafi forces. "Fighting" is based on the pro-Gaddafi attack that happen on the 24th as reported in BBC's article from that day (see link among sources for the map on commons), but as the BBC and others reported on the 25th, it was repelled by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The same happened in Zawiya aka Zuwarah on the 24th, but it is correctly shown as being under anti-Gaddafi control. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've used it in the article to replace the Gaddafi pic in the infobox, as it seems to be well-sourced. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that this map has sourcing directly annotated to it. The one problem I see is that it doesn't have a date-specific title. Maps like this should be dated, and new versions (and old versions also!) should be uploaded with new dates. Hopefully this map will be all red pretty soon when it is updated - but there won't be any reason to include that version in the article at all! Wnt (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am the original author of the map, and what I'll do about the dating issue is I'll put a date in the corner and upload a new version. In such a rapidly changing situation, there's no need to upload several different files for what is essentially the same thing, except with minor changes. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Also, my map was originally added to the article, then taken down due to poor sourcing, and later re-added after I added direct sources. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In previous articles with maps of some breaking story, like the swine flu hoopla, it was an embarrassment when editors who had created maps lost interest and undated maps showed the "Present situation" but were sadly out of date, and no active editor had the savvy to update them. Please stick with this for the long run. Thanks. Edison (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I will keep updating it. My map has been replaced with an svg file on English Wikipedia, but there are still several pages on foreign-language WP that use it. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New'est Map from 02.03.2011 by Euronews

http://www.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/libya020320111mwzfaglk8.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.45.54 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Info on US & UK is trivial

There are several mentions of the United States in the article that are highly trivial to the event. The world is not centered around the US, nor does the US really have that much dictatorial power. Perhaps this is because the people, like myself, who live in the US digest media that is geared towards an American perspective. Mentions such as travel warnings to US citizens and Libyan diplomats to the US are irrelevant to a summary of a week's events. I'm sure several nations have had diplomats changing shifting sides and travel warnings, many of which are on the same level of significance. I will be deleting superfluous information like this. NittyG (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mostly true, with one exception: Wikileaks released a lot of relevant information, such as Khamis Gaddafi trying to buy helicopters for the Khamis Brigade, which since apparently used them to kill protesters. Like it or not, the U.S. has become the world's foremost exporter of leaked diplomatic correspondence! Wnt (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Travel warnings? How many Americans actually vacation in Libya? Who would actually care about seeing that information? I agree though that this should definitely not be Amerocentric, especially because the English Wiki is read by many English-speaking Commonwealthers. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And now, on top of that, info is being added about the UK picking up its citizens. This is really not as important as what is happening in Libya, for Libyans, and anything outside of Libya should only pertain to how it affects the the Libyan uprising (at most, sanctions or no-fly zones). Clearly, the English wikipedia is dominated by Americans and British people, and it is being shown from their perspective, which is irrelevant. Unless anyone objects, I am going to start deleting any irrelavent references like these that I see. NittyG (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

How about moving them to International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising‎ if they are not already there, and if they are, you can take out the ones that you feel are irrelevant? =p Anyone object to that? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• All of this is a reflection of the fact that, in terms of current English language sources, this type of material is all that is available. Remember, until Friday foreign media wasn't allowed in the country. Libyan media is largely in Arabic, and is/was state run regardless, so...
  I definitely support the idea of moving stuff to the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article, however.
  I would like to say that it's troubling to me, how this sort of subject comes up so often. There always seems to be someone who comes along, at some point, with an anti-establishment axe to grind. It's tiring. Look, the English language world is dominated by the US and England. I don't have a problem with people who go tilting at windmills over that, I just wish that such views didn't have as much sway as they occasionally seem to have.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Nah, few people from those countries, myself included, wactuallyould really actually want to visit Libya (Gadafi ofc doesn't take kindly to Juice), so the info is not exactly useful and the only people who would visit probably know the dangers already. Besides, what country doesn't have a US Travel Advisory? Idk about the other guy, but I do acknowledge, and indeed not care about the US-UK hegemony etc etc. Try using an internal link to Don Quixote with that reference as the display text. I forget the formatting, but it's automatic. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  I don't follow your point about visiting Libya. However, when the US State Department issues an official travel advisory, that's a Big Fucking Deal®. That action has (pretty severe) diplomatic consequences, if nothing else. There are travel notices and whatnot, issued to many places, but a full Travel Advisory is a fairly rare thing.
  Anyway, my only real point is that, given the fact that most English language current event information comes from the NYT, the Guardian, BBC News, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc..., is it really any wonder that there's a bit of a bias? What are we supposed to do? I can't help but to think of the point that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

  Whoa, didn't see the edit. Meh, idk, I mean isn't there something about trivial info? It seems like it's not really something people really need to know about unlike a travel advisory to Egypt or something. Maybe a brief mention or something. Hmmm, I think that a service mark would be better than a registered mark tbh. :p Looking at the advisory. Who the hell is this protecting power? God? Mercs? Well you can try explaining that to them and maybe include stuff from Aussie, NZ and Indian publications. It's kind of like when someone approaches an archaeologist and poses the theory that the Great Pyramid was a pump (this was actually someone's theory), and then you explain that the presence of paintings and that fact that it's an unnecessarily massive structure for such a task mean it's highly unlikey. If that doesn't work, tell them the truth about how humanity works. If that doesn't work, best to call in Piccard (warning, may cause lethal harm to the unprepared) and move on. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

SVG map

I have made a more detailed svg map but someone has been replacing it with a png constantly. Please discuss here why do you think the png is better before reverting it.

Hello! I am the author of the PNG map, and I am glad that someone was willing to make an svg version of it, as I do not have such capabilities. It seems that the same user, Zenithfel, has been replacing the svg map with the png. We may have to talk to him directly if he keeps replacing the map. Also, would it be possible for you to be so kind as to put some kind of attribution to me for finding all the sources and preliminary data? Thanks - Interchange88 ☢ 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

imho the map should focus on the cities and do without the bucket-fill of the provinces, as this creates a false impression of scale. 90% of the territory of Libya is very sparsely populated, and this entire conflict is decided by whoever holds the cities along the coast. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The svg image also grossly exaggerates the significance of minor places such as Al Qatrun. I don't know if Gaddafi still has control of Al Qatrun, but it is irrelevant, because it is just a village in the desert. Yet in the map it is given equal importance with Benghazi or Sirt.

I would suggest that the svg image is cropped to show the country only as far south as Sabha. I would further suggest that the bucket-fill of the background is removed, and that the cities are marked with a dot size roughly expressing their population.

A nice extra would be symbols for major military installations and air bases (see Military of Libya), but this will probably be difficult to fit in the thumbnail

Finally, I would recommend that updated versions of the map should not overwrite older versions: once this is over, we will be glad to have a number of maps illustrating the chronology of events, while if we keep overwriting the same map, well, I think we all expect that the map will turn solid red over the next few days or weeks. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Now the map is as misleading as before, since the background color is bright green indicating support for Gaddafi. Gray would be better, following your reasoning. Otherwise I'm neutral in this topic. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; green is a poor choice of color for the background, as it implies Gaddafi control of those areas. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it should be beige or light brown or sandy yellow or grey or anything but green. —Nightstallion 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Ghadamis seems to have been liberated, at least that's the twitterverse's current wisdom. —Nightstallion 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

And since when do we use the Twitterverse as a source? =p (other than on official twitter pages) I agree, sandy yellow would be best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - grey is the best choice for province fill in my opinion - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.-Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The current map is excellent. Red1530 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag of the Kingdom of Libya

Flag of the People's Jamahiriya of Libya

Red is not a good choice for represent the rebels, because it is difficult for colourblind people to distinguish between red and green. Whereas black is a better choice as it is on the older flag of Libya, used by rebels against Gaddhafi's regime. ★ Nacho ★ (Contact me) ★ 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I came here to state just that. My boyfriend asked me "Uhh... so the rebels control every city then?" since he's colourblind. Black would be perfect for the red instead. If anyone could change that, it'd make a slight minority able to actually use the map. Teafico (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, a map suitable for the colour-blind. ValenShephard (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

the map looks very nice and useful now, kudos to all involved. --dab (𒁳) 10:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that using larger dots for the large cities and smaller dots for the small ones gave a better sense of scale, showing the importance of Tripoli and Benghazi and the other coastal cites, and the minor strategic importance of most of the small interior cities. I wouldn't object to changing the colors for the benefit of color-blind readers. Is yellow easily distinguished from green? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked the map with the scaled dots. Yes, some of the dots seemed a mite too small, but it was much better at, as you said, showing the population density on the coast. If we use this current map, at least make Benghazi bigger. Teafico (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have updated the SVG map and made two others. I'm not sure if they would fit in this article.-- Rafy talk 03:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Per iyad_elbaghdadi's map at yfrog.com/h056z9j

• Zlitan and Al-Khums are switched around on our map; and
• Bani Walid is under anti-Gaddafi control.

—Nightstallion 08:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the position of those cities. As for Bani Walid It is clearly under Gaddafi's control as they are still arresting activists there. If you know of any developements you can post them on the talk page and I will revise the map accordingly. -- Rafy talk 12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That report is from 18 February, not current... The lead even speaks of crackdowns in Benghazi. AFAIK, Bani Walid is liberated. —Nightstallion 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That was actually the last reliable source mentioning the town since there are no mention of it in the media. Furthermore I read on some forumtoday a poem dedicated to the people of Bani Walid urging them to revolt. Rafy talk 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Al Qatrun (a.k.a."Gatrone")-- it (and the 300+ km of empty road south of it to the Niger border) are now reportedly becoming a destination for sub-Saharan Africans fleeing both Libyan government repression and angry opposition mobs attacking black Africans associating them with Gaddafi's alleged use of African mercenaries. From the BBC:

The International Office for Migration tells the BBC that 1,154 citizens from Niger have returned from Libya in the last week. Another 2,000 people from various sub-Saharan African countries have recently managed to cross the Libyan border at Gatrone.

I think it would help to have both Al Qatrun and the even smaller border checkpoint at Tumu on the map, perhaps designated with tiny dots.

Alternately, you could overlay population density on the map in some faint colour shade to demonstrate the emptiness of the country away from the coast. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the map would be too crowded if every detail was emphasised. The purpose of the infobox map is to show the main events in the uprising and who is in control of what. I would suggest making another map with escape routes, major battles, and population density etc... --Rafy talk 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Gharyan is apparently back in Gaddafi's control. [39] —Nightstallion 06:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated along with other cities to yellow... I would suggest not to colour them immediately to green.-- Rafy talk 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

International Journalist are banned?

BBC News have been filming openly for the last few days. They say they have been invited by the Libyan government to go to the Capital. So I don't think they are banned anymore. Likelife (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Damn, I told that Libyan fellow otherwise. =/ TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

According to [40] Seif al-Islam Gaddafi announced a reversal of the ban on Thursday. There was then an effort to show foreign journalists Gaddafi's "control" over the city, which turned into an amusing debacle. Wnt (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He also had an interview with Christiane Amanpour apparently, though I've not had a chance to watch it. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Map coloring

I have difficulties distinguishing the colors of cities held by Gaddafi and and cities held by anti-Gaddafi forces. I have a weakness distinguishing certain green, brown and red tones, which is an inherited condition that is actually quite common. More distinguishable colors would be appreciated. Or some way to read the map without the colors, maybe by using different symbols. CuriousOliver (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are the second person who has stated that they have had trouble with it, so I am guessing quite a few probably are having issues with this and as it was said above, there should be a colour change. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I complained before, maybe green and yellow on the map together is not that good as I am so confussed, can I suggest, black, white and a middle colour like red, with a well defined border around all circles. Tata. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are different types of colour blindness. I suspect regardless of which colour scheme we use (short of gray scale), it will be a problem to at least some minority of people. Bobthefish2 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone having problems reading the map now? Please report comments on the map's talk page or at Commons as it is very hard to keep track of them here. Rafy talk 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename Article from "uprising" to "Civil War" or "Revolution?"

Collected here are several recent threads on renaming the article from "2011 Libyan Uprising" to something stronger like "2011 Libyan Revolution" or "2011 Libyan Civil War".

"Uprising" vs "Civil War" vs "Revolution"

At the time of start of the discussions above about the words "Uprising" to describe the conflict, that word ("Uprising") was appropriate. After another few days, it certainly looks to me like it is now very much a civil war or revolution, and the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Sanpitch (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we're sure. Also I think it only counts as a revolution if the old goverment (i.e. Gaddafi) is overthrown. THat's the description I got from a high school history book so I may be wrong 95.146.61.170 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As always we should wait for most of the holy sources to start doing so first as that is where we get our info from. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on! The Libyan opposition controls all of the country except Tripoli, according to Al Jazeera and the NY Times[41]. That sounds like a revolution to me! I added an appeal for a name change to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sanpitch (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of motivation for the move to "2011 Libyan Revolution" see this google trends link[42] showing that "Libyan Revolution" is searched for more often than "Libyan uprising". Sanpitch (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well when the news sources start calling it such, then we can start thinking about doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few news sources calling it revolution or revolt: Al Jazeera[43], MSNBC[44], CBC[45], the Telegraph[46], Tehran Times[47], NPR[48], Toronto Star[49]. How many examples would you like? "Revolution" seems to be the word that is used most commonly in the mainstream media. We should do the same. Sanpitch (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about BBC, CNN, New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (alright the last one isn't necessary), but once they have picked that up then we can start doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Voila: here is the BBC[50], CNN[51], and New York Times[52][53]. Also the threads below suggesting "Civil War" or "Revolution" are evidence that the time to make the change is *now*. Sanpitch (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, very good, now all we need is consistency and one use being favoured over another by the majority of the sources. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "2011 Libyan Revolution"

As of 27 February, the uprising has turned into a fully-fledged revolution. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

citation needed TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rename to 2011 Libyan civil war now?

With four articles made for battles and the country divided does the title civil war fit more so now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Only when the lion's share of the major sources start calling it a civil war. Can we maybe put a redirect on 2011 Libyan Civil War in the meantime? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I made the 2011 Libyan Civil War redirect. Sanpitch (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, "uprising" is vague. It would have been better if at the closure of the move discussion, when "revolt" and "uprising" had both received support, the former had been chosen. Perhaps that should be revisited. It's particularly embarrassing that readers are supposed to understand, via the legend accompanying the region-wide map in {{2010–2011 MENA protests HTK}}, the label "uprising." That is a very weak term (in English it need mean no more than "major protests," which is how Oman is labeled) to compare what is different in Libya, where the government has lost control over much of the country. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I hate to disagree with a fellow waffle-lover and right-coaster, but I don't think that uprising is a weak term given the most famous uses such as Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Easter Rising, I would say that most people think of something very bloody. It might usually make people think of something that failed badly, but there they are. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As you'll see from the threads above, the only person (in the recent threads) who is in favor of keeping the terminology "uprising" is TheARchaeologist, while several have stated the obvious, that the name of the article should be changed by replacing "uprising" with "Revolt" or "Revolution" or "Civil War". I gave links above showing that the media consistently uses the words "revolution" and "revolt". Here is a link[54] to a Google Insights page showing that the term "Libyan Revolution" is used dramatically more than the terms "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan revolt", so I suggest that the name be changed to "Libyan Revolution". The discussion above about moving from "protest" to "uprising" suggests waiting until it is clear what has happened; It's clear to me, it's revolution. Sanpitch (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going by the sources, and I didn't say I was in favour of keeping it, I was and still am in favour of using whatever term most of the sources use as we are supposed to and which is in fact the "obvious." =) If most of the sources are calling it a revolution then by all means I agree it should be changed. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I must admit that my only reason for the first post in this section was in reply to his apparent characterisation of an uprising (at least from the way I saw it) as something light was that I felt it did not do justice to either the Irish in the Easter Rising or the Warsaw Uprising, not that that was in any way his intention. I just wanted to point out historical usage. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If sources now call it a revolution, then we should call it a revolution. bobrayner (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I brought up the map because I think the classificatory implications of these labels have to be taken into account. I support "revolt" because it clearly means a revolution in progress (and partially successful), thus showing that Libya has not completely experienced a revolution as a state on the one hand, and on the other hand that it is not simply experiencing protests or cabinet reshuffles. By the way, I don't dispute that uprising can have the right meaning; I just think by using it we're being more poetic but less clear. P.S. I see the discussion below over "civil war" as wasted (oppose "Civil War"); it is a spreading revolt and progress towards revolution, and only if and when things get badly bogged down with indecisive battles, etc., do I think we will be ready to label it "civil war." Wareh (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think revolts and revolutions don't have much to do with each other (i keep challenging you on definitions; it's annoying I know, sorry) except when a revolt gets big enough that the revolting peasants/slaves/city (in the historical context) overwhelm the authority they are revolting against and throw off the offending authority. I don't think many think that revolt = revolution in progress, even though the beginning of the words are the same. Again though, most of the sources must also be using the term revolt for it to be the best choice. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to accept that I simply personally find it more opaque, and in any case we're in agreement that the usage of WP:RS is the real arbiter. I only framed it this way because it seemed above that "uprising" and "revolt" were the two usage-supported alternatives being taken seriously as replacements for "protests" (even if that was true, things are moving swiftly, and we'd need to recanvass intelligently). I still feel that an uprising sounds more likely to get crushed than a revolt, which in turn better accords with something like your legions proclaiming their independence from you and claiming to represent the authentic government of the nation. But I could be wrong about that too. Wareh (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Uprising does indeed have the conotation of a rebellion of some sort being crushed (though many historical revolts didn't fair too well either). Revolt actually does kind of work here as I would consider a revolt to typically be a city or what have you rising up against a central gov, or in this case, a good portion of the cities. Ofc as we bot agree, that's irrelevant because what matters is what the sources think it is. If they could just overthrow the swine (I know it's not gonna be easy) then we could all agree on Revolution! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If most do, then yes, by all means we should. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily - what if the most popular term used "by a majority of sources" fluctuates from day-to-day? We don't move the article every day to keep up. As long as the name is not inappropriate (as "protests" would be now), and people can find the article easily, that's what matters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point however we should remember that most modern mass media typically operates using herd mentality and they usually copy each other for many things. So if more people are using one thing, more are going to go with it until someone with influence in this area decides X sounds better and then they run with it. It's not going to be often though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

support It should be renamed civil war because there is two sides that are fighting for control of the country. That is a civil war. How can it not be? Seriously. Matthurricane

Not all violent uprisings and revolutions are civil wars.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support. It's a civil war now. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It really is fairly simple per WP:V and WP:AT. Provide multiple high quality sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and alike) that show it now is widely referred to as a civil war, and we should move it. What wiki editors "think" is should be called is entirely irrelevent. Wiki follows external sources, not POV by wiki editors. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, see? That's what I've been saying this whole time. =p Too lazy to look up the actual link in wiki's rules for it though. Thanks! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I did come across articles from major media that talked about a civil-war in Libya. I don't feel like digging them up though :/. I'll let others do it :p. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, but just Libyan Civil War, no need for the year--78.3.220.211 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think Libyan Civil War would be the best name now. —Nightstallion 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose Not yet, what's the hurry? We lose nothing by retaining the current title until the majority of sources refer to it as a civil war. Sources are currently saying things like "...could push Libya into civil war", "As the propensity for civil war heightens in Libya...", "A near civil war in Libya", "The ...country is spiraling into civil war", "Libya, now on the brink of civil war", "close to the outbreak of a civil war". It's not our role to make history by contradicting these sources and renaming the article too soon. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - 2011 libyan uprising/s is better --fwiw. the journalist John Simpson travelling in the middle of Libya, just said on BBC that he would not describe what he has seen/is seeing as a civil war.Sayerslle (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per 62.107.209.191 and Pontificalibus. The current title is by far the most appropriate of the discussed options at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons outlined above.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wait two weeks. These naming discussions tend to overshadow more important business, and you can't have a proper civil war in under two weeks. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose At the moment, the WP:COMMONNAME is not civil war. Most are saying civil war is possible but I am not seeing many stating that the events currently constitute civil war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Its been 14 days, at the moment, its just an uprising - an effective one, but just an uprising nonetheless. IF if drags out for a considerable time, where we actually see cities start to be retaken by Ghaddafi-loyal forces, we can call it a civil war. However, at the moment, Uprising is more appropriate, and I expect the next step will actually be to re-name it to "revolution". Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.229.199 (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Support with reservations Clearly, this uprising fits the criteria of a civil war, as it has escalated beyond just a mere uprising, and an opposition government has been formed while Qadaffi is still in power (thus meaning two governments fighting for control over the same country). However, it is probably a good idea to wait until sources start referring to it as a 'civil war' rather than a revolt, uprising, or revolution. ANd the only reason they probably arent calling it a civil war now, is because oil prices would probably go even more nuts if they called it that, instead of a 'revolt' or an 'uprising' which sound less serious and more contained.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support What is going on in Libya right now fits every description of a civil war I've heard of. Sixer Fixer (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I support a change from 'uprising' to 'revolt' or 'revolution'. Sanpitch (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Media dont call it civil war? They're just waiting for naming it in Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.69.206 (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - just check out the Wikipedia definitions themselves on the terms Revolution and Civil War. In a nutshell -

Revolution - "(1) Complete change from one constitution to another, or (2) Modification of an existing constitution." Neither of those has happened, so it's not necessarily a revolution, at least to stay consistent within the definitions of the term currently expressed here at this site.

Civil War - "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly-united nation-state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. It is high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale. Civil wars may result in large numbers of casualties and the consumption of significant resources." - Now that's a very close description of what's happening. If one of the two were to be used, Civil War would be closer as far accuracy, insofar as remaining consistent with the defintions of the two terms currently expressed here at Wikipedia.

And just to throw uprising in there - "Rebellion, or uprising, is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors from civil disobedience and mass nonviolent resistance, to violent and organized attempts to destroy an established authority such as a government. Those who participate in rebellions are known as 'rebels'." - That, currently, is the closest consistent definition. Allstargeneral (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Evacuations"-section mostly contained trivial information, I removed them

As you can read here not only the UK and India are evacuation it's people. I do not see the need to put in this section that the HMS Cumberland (F85) and INS Jalashwa went to Libya (the line "some nations send ships" should be enough). No need to go into precise details in this wikipedia article. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted all details from section; create Evacuations from Libya during the 2011 Libyan uprising if you feel the world needs to know these useless details... Parts of it looked like promoting of the Royal and Indian Navy and Greece government anyhow...
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing about this conflict for a school project. :) 74.90.233.175 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Be sure to check the links at the bottom of the page to find the different interconnected articles so you find the most material. =) Be sure to cite the news sources though. Most teachers aren't very fond of Wiki. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya on the map

Al Jazeera is reporting fighting has ended in Zawiya with an anti-Gaddafi victory. The map continues to show the city as being disputed. Requesting this be corrected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

6,500 dead

According to the Emirati newspaper Gulf News, an official for the new Libyan interim (opposition) government, has stated that their official death toll currently stands at 6,500 see [55] for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Al-Jazeera is reporting an estimate between 600 - 2,000 people in Tripoli alone which would make the opposition estimate possible. See: [56]. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Go by what most are reporting. With no offence intended toward the Interim gov, the numbers might be inflated and counting the missing. Let's go with what most of the sources give. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thumbs up to freedom of the press!!! asdfjkl1234 talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Military equipment from Belarus flown in from Belarus

According to SIPRI Gaddafi's son Mutasim has been flying out valuables from Libya to Belarus and returned with military equipment during the recent weeks [57]. Närking (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And here is a source in English. [58]. Närking (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask for an English one before my comp turned off. While the Beyllorussian gov supplying Gadaffi with old Soviet hardware isn't a very shocking story (very interesting, but their gov doesn't have the best reputation I wanna make sure it's a good source. Are these guys are a reliable source? What do other people think? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another article on this [59]. It's even suggested that the European mercenaries in Libya might come from Belarus. Närking (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah good, might be best to put them in the talk page for the International Reactions directly though. That way people can snatch up the most important details more quickly. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have seen the article, and it doesn't seem to give the pro-Guddafi side of the story, only the Anti-Guddafi side. I wish Wikipedia could be like that, but it can't. Please give the pro-Guddafi side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk • contribs)

Can you find a reoutable source for that?--U5K0 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We are just going by what the sources say as we are supposed to. It is not our fault or our problem really that none of the reputable sources give a pro or even not unfriendly view of Gadaffi. If you can find a source that does and that is not a propoganda piece then by all means please put it in and some of what it says. Thanks. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it says it isn't a propaganda piece doesn't mean it isn't. They could be lying.--SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a propaganda piece or not. Gaddafi's side should be covered. Actually, I am quite mystified why Chavez, Ortega and Castro would be favoring this doomed and unappealing cause, it it would be most interesting to hear more. Perhaps their local presses offer a defense. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, based on the sources involved, it does matter if it's a propaganda piece. If the source is not one recognized as a reputable/credible source, then it should be added as a backup for factual content. One could, however, write something concerning "pro-Gaddafi factions argue that (x/y/z)", but it would have to be given due weight. And this is not a balanced weight issue..the "Pro-gaddafi" side of things are seemingly much in the minority. However, I would take issue with the idea that reporting the facts of the matter are somehow "anti-gaddafi". Not agreeing with propaganda is not necessarily pro or anti. Stating somehting different than state propaganda is not inherently anti-gaddafi, if it is based on facts from credible sources. Anti-gaddafi would be unreferenced propaganda that swings as far against him as the pro stuff swings for him. This article aims for the middle ground of reality. Jbower47 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Typically the propoganda pieces will differ greatly from our other sources and we will know where it came from. Sometimes they also seem kind of obvious to the educated person. Usually they're written for the more, well, gullible people in the population who are not very well-educated. I know that most Libyans are literate, but I don't know how good the education is there. Well, Wnt, let's take a look at why they might. What do Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega all have in common? They were/are all at one point or another socialist revolutionaries (that probably should be mentioned somewhere as it's only apparent when you look them all up). That is just my thought though. As far as Gaddafi's side of the story, I think that has been reported by various sources. Here is Christiane Amanpour's Interview with him. We also covered Gadaffi's side a bit in the first talk box where he blames everyone from the US and Zionists (like moi) to al-Qaeda. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If "Gaddafi's side should be covered", chances are that some reputable independent third-party source has done exactly that. If not, chances are that Wikipedia doesn't need to, either. Just cite your source if you have one, or else accept that there is a universal "anti-Gaddafi consensus". --dab (𒁳) 09:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here you got an article, that reflects "Gaddafi's side". You find it below the headline Gaddafi regime calls on UN Security Council to suspend sanctions. --85.178.231.52 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A request concerning this & all related articles

Can editors please add the dates when a given town comes under anti-Qaddafi control? (Or, when it is recovered by Qaddafi's supporters?) Too many articles about the uprising & towns in Libya simply state that a given town is under control of one side or the other, as if it always has been. (Or simply replace the statement one town might be controlled by one group with one that it might be controlled by another; this is a fluid situation, & it might be that control of a given town shifts back & forth -- or neither side actually knows.) That makes it hard for people like me who are interested in watching the progress of this uprising understand what is actually happening. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Support 140.247.244.17 (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything in edits of the timeline to help with that maybe? It seems like a very good idea to do this, but I think *knock on wood* that most of the towns are falling under Anti-Gadaffi control so we don't have to worry about back and forth yet. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There was the instance a few days ago where, in the accompanying map, Tripoli was shown in rebel control after several days of being disputed, then the next day it shown back under Qaddafi's control. I'm not that sharp on the geography of Libya, & all I know about the situation is what I see on the news & what I read on Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the story was with that. (Dates when towns fall to the anti-Qaddafi groups, or are taken back, would help someone like me determine if control of the city was traded, someone got too enthusiastic over the reports we've been getting, or if that was just a mistake.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega, Ajdabiya

Credible reports coming in, according to The Guardian and other sources, that the opposition again controls Brega and Ajdabiya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also been some talk that the re-taking of Sebrata and Gharyan by Gaddafi was just propaganda, but we'll have to wait and see. —Nightstallion 13:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't heard that. Sebrata falling while surrounding towns remain with the opposition seemed fishy to me, but who knows. What is your source? -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And Abdel Fattah Younes is saying anti-Gaddafi forces have reclaimed Brega's airport, which government troops were clinging to after being dislodged from the town proper at last report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing we can use here – a twitter conversation, this got this reply from iyad_elbaghdadi, who so far has been a really good source. —Nightstallion 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo is reporting that both cities are now held by the opposition. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya Infernoapple (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source saying Brega is in opposition hands again found here 140.247.244.17 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: Are we sure Zlitan is liberated? According to iyad_elbaghdadi, who seems to be well-informed, it's in Gaddafi's hands... —Nightstallion 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The news reports I'm seeing have Zliten remaining in the hands of the regime. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ghadames

The town of Ghadames appears to have gone over to the opposition, according to Afrol News, although some reports have fighting still ongoing in the town. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.afrol.com/articles/37489 —Nightstallion 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article moved without any concensus or asking anyone

The article suddenly got moved to 2011 Libyan Revolt without asking anybody when only one person supported the name change. =/ It's not a democracy, but I thought we were supposed to usually get a concensus first. The guy didn't even cite any sources for the name change. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it got reverted. Thanks! =D I was wrong btw, he did put a source, but it was an opinion piece, which is just about as bad for this sort of thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I reverted the move, as it was done without consensus, and have placed a request that the article be once again move protected.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya, that's why I thanked you. =p Thanks again. I'll put a note for him to come here about the name change. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, I'm kind of new to editing wikipedia, and I saw someone else proposed it be changed to 2011 Libyan Revolt a few days ago, and most people supported it. Now that its a few days later I thought there wouldn't be a problem with changing it.. Gabe896 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Meh, everyone makes mistakes here (and I do mean everyone), though they get a bit better with time. If you look through the endless WOT (wall of text) that is the Uprising bit though, you'll see it had more supports than Revolt though, even though a good bit of it is separated by comments. There will probably be another name change thing soon. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there were no mistakes made here! Gabe was bold, he did exactly the right thing! kudos!
  Shame on the rest of you for trying to take him to task. He did something, was reverted, and came here to discuss it. The only real issue here is the idea that some sort of process wonkery is required. If we all had that attitude, then nothing would be accomplished!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I was wondering what all that bold talk was about. Well good on him then. :p Are you asserting that getting bogged down in details for every little thing (like the convo about how many languages to put the UN's name in in the United Nations article or Ofra Haza's name in Hebrew, English and Arabic) is somehow not productive? That is proposterous good sir! {Hmm, maybe I should go and put her name in Arabic as well then, be e-Bold :p} TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Domestic responses

I saw someone put all the domestic responses sub sections and made one big domestic responses section. Maybe we should make a separete article for domestic responses? Also do we have any responses from Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai? Spongie555 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure it really warrants that? It doesn't look very long to me; unless someone changed it of course. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Alright, maybe it's a little on the long side.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It was longer before someone condensed it alittle. Spongie555 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

About the heated debate tag

Hmmm, is that tag up younder really necessary? I mean I think we're pretty much divided up between people who are disgusted by Gadaffi and can maintain NPOV in edits and people who are disgusted by Gadaffi and possibly not able to maintain NPOV in edits. Am I incorrect? Is that tag just put there for w/e reason? Does anyone (no trolling) here actually support the pig? Just curious. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you look at the events from the outside rationally it would look like a bad vs. evil conflict. But I have lived in Libya for some time and I know for sure that a minority of Libyans still idolise him as he is the only leader they and their parents knew. It wasn't quite a shock for me to see some of my Libyan friends in facebook posting pictures of Gaddafi in army uniform just when the uprising started.

Also Gaddafi is considered by many nationalist Arabs as the rightful follower of Nasser. He was also seen as a hero by many African since he advocated a unified African political entity (with him as a leader of course).-- Rafy talk 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

How come it seems like we haven't seen much in the way of people supporting him even through vandalism or legitimate discussion though? Is it because the internet is down or other things? I mean all the people aren't fighting. Oh yeah, I remember him pushing for a US of Africa a while back when I was reading about the different ideas for continental countries. I knew he was an old time dictator like Castro, but he seemed no longer relevant to the world (I'm 21, so you get what I mean). Hopefully he goes out with a bang or a short drop and quick stop. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

probally because hes not as propaganda savy as other dictoral nations. North Korea, china for example hire people for cyber attacks so its almost assured they hire people to post internet stuff. theres been more then a few accounts on various sites ive seen that are obviosly like that(eg, a procommunist who would not leave me alone on youtube, it got creepy) 24.228.24.97 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties

I was wondering, in the event that this article is to talk about Civilian Casualties *People who neither protest, nor support the Goverment* what side of the infobox should they be put on? Yes the government is fighting against the people, but they are also put under its rule as it is still their government. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.161.71 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil War?

2011 Libyan uprising → Libyan Civil War — Libya is currently divided between government and opposition-run areas. Thousands of civilians equipped with firearms and defecting military and police forces are engaged in open battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi, including mercenaries. There are real battles taking place across the country, as seen in the infobox. These have been hundreds of deaths on both sides. I think that this is no longer simply an uprising, but a real war. The time has come to at least discuss whether it should be named "Libyan Civil War".--RM (Be my friend) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Support:

• —L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)<br
• —Grashoofd (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• —Kudzu1 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• —Mkaksone (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• —Sixer Fixer (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• —Joe routt (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral:

Comment: I believe the previous polls suggested that we should wait a bit longer until more WP:RS calls it a civil war. Maybe we can wait a few more days and see. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: From a Google search it looks like most of the (non-Indian) sources are chomping at the bit to call it a civil war. They are saying it's on the brink of a civil war or is descending into civil war etc. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Yes, which is why we should wait a bit. It'd make out lives much easier if just give the media some time. Although

ultimately, the term "civil-war" may not necessarily be that widely used depending on how quickly the conflict is resolved. In this case, I think the situation can still drag on for a few more weeks at least, given the relative strength of Gadaffi's forces (at least according to Western media). Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This is excactly what they were doing 4 days ago, there has been no change, so let's wait another 4 days and see what they are doing then. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment We don't have enough information to call it a civil war. The only time I recall the term being used was by the Gaddafis themselves who threatened Libya could enter into one and by Hilary Clinton who said she feared the situation could turn into a civil war if Gaddafi didn't leave. Therefore civil war is only a possibility. The people of Tripoli are not going to war against the people of Benghazi. According to the reports of many reliable news sources, the people of Tripoli actually support the rebellion and I think we might be jumping the gun to go ahead and rename the article. I echo the above comments: the best solution is to wait and see how the sources dub it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Support It is not an uprising. That uprising happened and failed, and now it is settled into civil war. Uprising = protests tending to get out of hand [ie. what we had]. Civil war = two teams with guns attempting to solely rule the terrain of the same named country [ie. what we HAVE]. There's more google hits for 'Libyan civil war' (19.3 million) than for '2011 Libyan uprising' (18 million). It's very much an insult to Libyan people suffering from this war to belittle their suffering as the result of only an 'uprising' and not a war. Would you look the bereaved in the eye, and belittle the circumstances in such a way?114.31.207.18 (talk)

• oppose. We should follow suit with whatever term the mainstream media uses. This can change over the following days, but during the past week, this has clearly been "Libyan uprising". Check google news. "Libyan uprising": 1,600 hits, "Libyan civil war": 53 hits (and some of these include "fears over Libyan civil war" and similar). That's as clear as it gets. --dab (𒁳) 12:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose At the moment, the WP:COMMONNAME is not civil war. Most are saying civil war is possible, on the brink or near but I am not seeing many stating that the events currently constitute a civil war. To jump the gun would make this a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Is this a formal move request, or just feeling opinions? If it's formal request than the mover should list it at WP:RM.Labattblueboy (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the majority of sources are not calling it a civil war at this time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note Those above who have voted without leaving any comments might like to read WP:VOTE. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We can't help it if the mainstream media are reluctant to call it a civil war, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we should call it a duck, per the IP user above... —Nightstallion 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  sorry, that's not how it works. We didn't move Gaddafi to mad dog, or George W. Bush to miserable failure now, did we? WP:UCN is very clear on this. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• Edging towards support but not quite there yet. The IP user's argument (114.31) and Nightstallion's are close to compelling, but I'd need to see a little more evidence this doesn't just fade out in a roll of tanks and loyalist forces within the week. "Civil war" implies more than a brief firecracker. If the opposing forces continue to hold their own and the war continues, then yes. But so far it has only become capable of description as "civil war" in the last few days. Waiting to see if that continues or ends quickly. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per Nightstallion.EkoGraf (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- just watching BBC News 24 - and the main title behind all the news from Libya is still, Libya Uprising - just because you agree with nightstallion, ekograf, don't mean you have to spell suppport the same too, Sayerslle (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Very funny. ;p (Corrected my typo.) —Nightstallion 23:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Ooops well pardon for such an error. I just copypasted his word because it felt easier that way. Hehe. :P But please show some civility.EkoGraf (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support See also WP:DUCK, you have battles, you have two sides, you have cities and towns not under government control but under a newly formed government, what else do you need here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • sheesh, why do people keep invoking WP:DUCK, which is about on-wiki user conduct, in a debate on content? We do have actual guidelines on content, you know. In this case, at WP:Article title. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Once again all, let's reiterate that it is not our job to reach such conclusions like what this thing in Libya is ourselves but that of the sources. I think everyone should look at WP:synth, if the sources ain't saying it, then we should not be saying it in the article. We only go by what the sources are saying, we do not reach our own conclusions etc. See WP:Source. Can everyone please read these and then see if they still want to support the idea when most of the sources (except one or two in India last I checked) are not saying it? These are two of the three core principles of this Wiki and should be respected as such. Re: Nightstallion, we can indeed help it if the MSM is "reluctant to call it a civil war", we do the same because without sources it is just us reaching our own conclusions about what is going on rather than the sources and presenting it to the world as fact. WP:Common, we use the name it is commonly being called. Even if everyone is thinking oh it's a civil war (which I am), it's what they're saying that matters. Regardless of what WP:Duck says, we should respect the common name being used and wp:source and wp:synth. When the sources finally start calling it a civil war then we should do this. Until then, what we think and want to call it does not matter. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support...A civil war is when two sides fight for control of a country, right. Appears to be what is occurring.--Matthurricane (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya is on the brink of a civil war. So far, it is mostly skirmishes and people running around aimlessly with Kalashnikovs. How about we let other people decide when to call it a civil war, seeing that we are an encyclopedia project, supposedly all based on secondary references. So far the "civil war" to "uprising" ratio according to google news is about 6:1,660 or 0.4%. Please come back once this ratio can be argued to approach 50%. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state". Although the rebels have (especially in Benghazi) been organising themselves, I don't think they are really organised enough to call this a civil war. There doesn't seem to be any structural connection or even communication between the rebels at Benghazi and Zawiya. Right now I think it's still mostly relatively minor skirmishes between spontaneously formed groups of gunmen (perhaps formed on the spot during an attack) and organised government forces. Therefore calling this a civil war is still premature. A strong argument is also that most news organisations also keep calling just an uprising. Nanobear (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Jumping the gun a bit here. Most news sources are talking about Libya being "on the brink of a civil war". However, such terminology tends to be determined after the event, rather than before it. If everything gets sorted in the next two or three weeks, history will undoubtedly refer to the Libyan uprising or Libyan revolution; if it drags on for months (or even years), it will probably be referred to as the Libyan civil war. I'm finding it hard to think of examples anywhere else referred to as a civil war that lasted less than a few weeks! Let's wait and see what happens. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2011

(UTC)

Weak Support The death toll is at least 1000 on each side, the rebels have taken control of most of the country and have gathered many weapons and explosives. I really don't think that Gaddafi is going to step down any time soon, so the fighting will probably continue. Still though, it does seem a bit early to call it a civil war, lets wait a week or two and see what happens. Gabe896 (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm inclined to support a change in article title to civil war on the grounds that the pro-Ghadafi forces have been successful enough to withstand the initial wave of revolution. Look to historical examples to find the October Revolution took less than a week to complete, as did the July Revolution and the February Revolutions in France. The fact there there are two organized camps, pro and anti governmen who are in armed conflict against each other should be basis enough to change the article title. Sixer Fixer (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead says the situation is on the brink of a civil war. It may indeed get there but let's not try to predict the future. –CWenger (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: "civil war looms," "moving towards civil war,' etc means NOT YET a civil war.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Support The military's split, militias formed, an opposition government is being created, there have been several battles. If this isn't a civil war, I don't know what is. Joe routt (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sirt color

Shouldn't the color of Sirt on the map be yellow? The article says that there protests in the city, and rebels are converging on the city. I would do it myself but I don't know how to. Gabe896 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it should be red, see [60]. --antiXt (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Press TV is considered Iranian propaganda that sometimes lies. If you look at their headlines, you'll see: "Iran Navy overcomes Israel at sea"; "US behind 95% of environmental disasters"... see what I mean?--Henohenomoheji (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From this guardian article it seems like Sirt is in the control of loyalists.

“ But the 1,000km road running flat from Benghazi to Tripoli reveals stark realities. Pro-regime figures have used the coastal city of Sirte, roughly halfway between the two cities, to regroup and plot how they can square their ledger with the rebels.

Sirte is to Gaddafi what Tikrit was to Saddam Hussein, an almost impenetrable power base, whose well-to-do residents owe their comfortable lives to their patron.

Gaddafi's family tribe is stronger in Sirte than perhaps anywhere else in Libya. As such, Sirte's inhabitants stand to lose almost as much as their most famous son if the west of Libya goes the way of the east.[61]

”

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Provide a map scale please

I think all or most of the maps in Wikipedia, including this one, do not provide a scale. A scale would be very informative and useful. Here it would give an indication of just how big Libya is. 92.29.117.180 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to 2011 Libyan Civil War Following Announcement By National Transitional Council

Today the National Transitional Council has declared their selves to be "sole representative all over Libya", for all purposes this now qualifies as a Civil War according to the definition of the Wikipedia article, that is A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state, [...]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, further more, The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict., this has been exceeded six fold

Therefore it should be accepted that this is now definitively a civil war, and the title of the article changed to Libyan Civil War to accurately reflect this, ignoring the use of the year in parentheses as to my knowledge, this is Libya's first and currently only civil war, with the year in the title being redundant --98.194.17.255 (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)