Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

The Western Mountain cities should be marked UNCLEAR (March 14)

New intelligence from the Wall Street Journal, among others, indicates that there is a struggle between pro and anti Gaddafi forces in Yafran and Zintan, known as Western mountain cities. I move to have these changed to YELLOW, or UNCLEAR, on the map.[1]

They are still politicaly unclerar.Wipsenade (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move 1 -- to "Libyan Civil War"

2011 Libyan uprising → Libyan Civil War — Now that Gaddafi's forces have started to retake cities, it's clear that this will be a drawn-out conflict as both sides take and re-take cities. 70.244.234.128 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment to closing admin - please also be aware of the discussion at at a second requested move which I procedurally speedy closed (for reasons I give in that request). Dpmuk (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if this request closes with no move, I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out.--Witan (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This request clearly has to close with a move. Not only do the 'support' votes outnumber the 'oppose' votes, but no sane person would still classify the Libyan events as uprising. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the guideline on 'consensus' declares that it isn't about a vote. What does a 'sane' person call a situation where 2,000 to 10,000 people are supposedly dead? What does a sane person call a situation where one side is fighting to maintain power and the other isn't sure what it is fighting for except to stay alive? What does a sane person call something where nations who don't have to intervene (and seem unwilling to really do so) go ahead and indiscriminately launch weapons into a nation that isn't their own? Nothing about this situation is 'sane', and the idea that after a couple of days, we know what to call it, is probably just about par for the course we're playing on. -- Avanu (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It would really be amazing if those who are so focused on the name would get focused on the content within. This article needs body and depth. It's a serious situation that requires more thought than a emotional plea for a succinct title. We're talking about a simple situation that is now complicated. Most of us editors have ZERO direct experience with the situation, and yet to listen to the arguments made, it sounds like we feel we are the experts somehow. It is wonderful that so many people want to contribute to this article, but if it means that we leave encyclopedic standards at the door in favor of the 24-hour news cycle, why bother? -- Avanu (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're right. The situation there is far from 'sane'. What I meant is that if Wikipedia would keep on calling it an uprising as of late March, that would be an ignorant understatement. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why some editors want to abandon a perfectly accurate title in haste. The situation, as far as I can tell, is continuing to rise up. I pointed out a news story below in another section that makes it clear that few people really KNOW what is going on in Libya right now. Yet despite all of this, we're willing to make claims, bomb things, and generally stir up shit. I could have sworn someone said patience was a virtue. But why should we wait to find out whether that's true? :) -- Avanu (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strongly Support The war has been going on since February 15, 2011 and the tyrant won't give up until he has to which we be a long time. Also, some wars have been less than a year-long(in response to that comment). So I strongly support calling it the 2011 Libyan Civil War(see here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk • contribs)
• Support In response to the last comment, the 6 days war was 6 days long. Samit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.205.230 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The conflict, while certainly a war to the person watching their blood seep into the ground, could be over in a week or two. Uprisings are generally not year-long. Wars are, or are between nation-states, or are somewhat more organized than the current very grassroots and diverse opposition to ONE SINGLE PERSON's rule. It's more an uprising AGAINST that one single person than it is a civil war between two sides of the country or two ethnic groups or two religious factions.Pär Larsson (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support The situation has evolved into a conflict between two parties that want control of the country. The uprising title was fine at the beginning, but this is no longer just protests, this has escalated into a full out war between two sides, which are both armed and organized, with limited international involvement. I believe the title of "civil war" would fit the situation better.
• Strongly Oppose It is too fast to define it with "civil war",because many people are angry at Gadhafi's action.I prefer to see "revolution"!--Huandy618 16:04, 21 March 2011
• Strongly Support This is a war, and to continue to call it a protest when there are clearly 2 sides with different agendas; it should be called as such. Definetly a war. Everybody on the planet should support the bravery of the Libyan people in fighing for democracy and freedom against this madman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.56.211 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Support 'Uprising' is misleading; two sides to the conflict and the rebel side has generally consolidated with a transitional government in place. It is a state of war in many respects.
• Strongly Support March 19 @ 9:15PM. Count: 54 Supporters, 16 Opponents, 9 Neither. A democratic Wikipedia would change the name. Otherwise I sense partiality towards the 16 opponents.

Well remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, lest the peasants start getting ideas about these 'rights' I've been hearing so much about lately.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible manipulation of this survey. As you can see here, a bunch of unsigned "supports" have been thrown in near the top of this survey. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Support: As UN,US,UK,France and many other countries have joined the war, military bases are destroyed by air strikes, this should be called a war.</n>

• Strongly Oppose Civil war necessitates organized national forces on both sides. Although "rebel" forces exist out of necessity to protect civilians from Gadhafi's violence, they were not organized prior to the democracy marches and uprising, and they continue to be disorganized. Also, if this was a civil war it would be between people with some kind of tangible difference other than one man (Gadhafi). The Libyan people are not in conflict ethnically, religiously, or tribally. This all comes down to one guy - Gadhafi and how much money he can buy support with. Ultimately, this will be a "revolution" - and that isn't the outcome of a "civil war". --Sarurah (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2011
• "Support" Meets the definition of a civil war. Do not like the "uprising" name because it doesn't really express what is happening at this point.
• Support "Civil war: a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic." By Wikipedia's own factuality we have stated (in the article) that there are organized two groups (the government, and the rebels) fighting in the same country; therefore, this must be a civil war, if only by what the collective community of Wikipedia has stated. 70.112.139.17 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Political scientists are starting to call this a war.

• Support There is confirmed intelligence that the rebel forces receive support from countries outside Libya in forms of both civilian and military aid. The rebel forces are known to use both light and heavy weapons like military aircraft and tanks. These facts render the situation more like a civil war than an uprising.

• Support I support for three reasons. 1. Meets the definition of civil war, as many pointed out already. 2. Uprising is misleading. Wikipedia's article refer to a limited conflict as rebellion or uprising. When the conflict is enlarged, it becomes a civil war. 3. Both sides have organized battalions armed with automatic weapons, tanks and military aircraft. Also, parts of Libya's military defected. If this type of in-fighting doesn't count as civil war pretty much nothing counts.

• Support This is an armed conflict (a.k.a. war) I think it would be best to move it to Civil War. Much of the media calls the conflict a civil war (examples).

Is SineBot on vacation? Who put this one here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Most media are calling it a civil war. Both the BBC, CNN, EuroNews and others. CNN's banner in the background during coverage of the conflict's events is Libyan civil war or Libya civil war, I forgot at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose If it were a civil war there would be fighting in Tripoli. It could be a simple power grab by a few people who want an international community to step in and put them in power. I also do not think that most Reliable Sources usually refer to it as a civil war, not even CNN, usually its "armed conflict". Here is today's google news search of articles and I do not see "civil war" being used at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I suppose you would argue that there would be fighting in Wyoming for the American Civil War to really be a Civil War then. CNN has refered to the situation as a civil war countless times already.XavierGreen (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What? Wyoming was a backwater area of no significance in those days (and today really), whereas Tripoli is the capital. That argument doesn't make sense. =/ Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is just because there is no fighting in a particular city or area doesnt mean that a civil war is not occuring. There was no fighting in London during the English Civil War, nor in the capital of Yemen during the 1994 civil war in Yemen, nor was their fighting in Lagos during the Nigerian Civil War. And there has been low level fighting in tripoli since the start of the conflict, though by now it has largely been supressed.XavierGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well in three of those cases (including the American Civil War) you had actual secession, and in the case of the English Civil War you do of course have the two well-defined sides, plus there is no other name that I know of. However, my point was that you shouldn't compare Tripoli with Wyoming as it just makes people confused regardless of the point you are trying to convey. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No fighting in Tripoli you say? Than what would you call this 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli)? I think there were 300 dead there. And also, your statement that CNN is not calling it a civil war is simply faulty, they have been using that term for the last five days since Zawiyah fell. EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I really do not see how fighting (or not) in Tripoli is relevant to calling this a civil war. The first sentence of this oppose casts a spurious light on the rest of it. There need not be fighting in a capital for a conflict to be called a civil war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose From a simple Google News search both Libyan Uprising (20.000+) and Libyan Conflict (14.000) are the most common names compared to Libyan Civil War's 10.000 or so (though this is articles overall), so to prevent myself from looking like an idiot for that, I'll also cite my opinion as per Mr.grantevans' argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Major media outlets call it a civil war, it fits the definition of a civil war, hence it is a civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Let's just play ahead, the french are ready to strike and Gaddafi wont back down like always. Let's call it a war!

• Weak Support I'm concerned about the intensity implied by "war" (especially if the rebellion just melts away relatively quietly from here on in) and prefer "conflict" but cannot oppose "war" given this quote from one of [now missing] NY Times reporter Anthony Shadid's stories: "... a protest that became an uprising and an uprising that has become a war."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support with conditions The suggested merge is poor IMO. The uprising has obviously graduated to a conflict pitting rebel forces against a conventional military. Perhaps this article should be split? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support The sidebar already betrays the term, separating things clearly into a battle between two opposing sides, giving troop numbers and casualty figures. The 2011 Egyptian revolution article does not do anything of the sort, if you'll notice. Esn (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

By "sidebar" I mean "infobox", of course... something like "2011 Libyan conflict" would also not be bad. However, the current term seems outdated and inaccurate. Whatever the inadequacies of the "Civil War" term, it fits the shoe better than "uprising" at this point. Esn (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is for conflicts in general really, it doesn't really say such and such = war. Do a bit of snooping around and you'll find some similarly formatted ones. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose civil war on the simple basis that it's not even close to being (receiving between 1/3 and 1/2 the hits for uprising, see [2] vs. [3]) the WP:COMMONNAME. I am Neutral on a move to conflict. The search results between conflict and uprising are rather close and are almost equal (see [4] vs. [5]). I'd personally rather see the article stay where it is currently but would not have any grand opposition of a move to 2011 Libyan conflict. --Labattblueboy (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Whether or not Google has caught up, this meets the criteria for a civil war. Opposing military forces, both of which are based in Libya and both of which answer to governments who claim control of the country, are engaging in open warfare both urban and rural. Casualty figures have surged over 10,000 according to some estimates. Battles are being waged, towns have fallen to one side, then the other, then back, then back again. The country is geopolitically divided. There's little question this meets the definition of a war - yet the primary factions are both Libyan in origin and have no allegiance to a foreign power. That makes it a civil war. This change, in my opinion, is long overdue. -Kudzu1 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Now are you basing this all on one source stating all that and coming to that conclusion or are you doing that yourself, 'cause... WP:SYNTH if you happen to be. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This confict has all the characteristics of a civil war.

^^^^ Needs a signature! Also WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The fact that the conflict hinges around support for or opposition to one man is irrelevant. For example, Caesar's Civil War hinged on support for or opposition to Caesar. Hspstudent (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Uprisings lead to revolutions. When this is over, it will be a revolution. The rebels are a volunteer army hoping to take power from the existing regime. This makes it an uprising. They tried to protest at first but have had to resort to arming themselves. This does not make it a civil war. These are not geopolitical factions battling it out. If it was an existing faction, they would have been more organized. It is a coalition of citizens trying to overthrow their government by whatever means necessary. Renaming the uprising will allow the US media to write Libya off as another civil war in Africa and stop reporting on it. This uprising is taking longer than their news cycle can handle and hence the rebranding. We should not allow the short attention spans of Western media outlets to change the course of history. This uprising has only been going on for a month. It's important that Libya stay in the same context as the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen.174.97.175.239 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Like said earlier, not every conflict involving people of the same country = civil war. It's way too early to give a name to this conflict. Eventually, it'll probably be remembered as Libyan Uprising or Libyan Revolution. For example, look at the Xinhai Revolution in China. It was a civil war as well between the loyalist and the republicans. I say give it some time before making a bold claim such as Civil War. Coolmaster5k (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Approve Now its not a general uprising like Egypt, its turing into a true civil war with battles troop movements and also two governments fighting for the same governing power = civil war. Hooah82 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, by definition of a civil war, the events in Libya clearly correspond: A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic. 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. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support As per my archived comments above: I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war (this is not original research, go read a dictionary). Furthermore, France has recognized the anti-gaddafi forces as the sole legitimate gov't, and the Arab League has said they wish to conduct talks with them (tacit recognition). Additionally, multiple major news outlets have called the situation in libya a civil war and google hits for "libyan civil war" now outnumber "libyan uprising" (please note these are the only google hits that pertain to this issue as they are the potential article titles). Lastly, the common name issue as discussed on the wikipedia policy page (WP:COMMONNAME) does not pertain to this issue as much as some have argued in the past. This policy is to ensure that people do not pull something like a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "that's his name" (see the relevant examples given on WP:COMMONNAME). No one is trying to do anything like that here so lets get on with the issue, the current name is not adequete as no news sources call it the "2011 libyan uprising". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Can you post how you came about concluding that "Libyan civil war" hits outnumber those for "Lybian uprising"? I have not been able recreate that result.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue by stating news sources fail to use “2011 Libyan uprising”. It’s a current event, why on earth would news sources to include the year when refering to the event? The year qualifier is used because that’s the wikipedia naming format for events, not because it’s the common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be odd for them to use the year. Put in the words Libya and then civil war, uprising, or conflict without any quotes and you'll get it. Google News also acts silly sometimes if you use it on your phone and it won't display anything so make sure you do it on a computer.

Hmmm, and is there maybe a wikiadmin or a few to actually clarify if the Conservapedia statement is correct or if WP:COMMONNAME refers to all titles all the time? Because it seems you based that example off what someone said up top. =p I didn't see anything on the page or in the talk that indicated that, not really. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TITLE, of which COMMONNAME is part. There are other considerations, which apply to many articles, but few of them have effect here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

However it is still relevant here, yes? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get that idea from above, I was the one who re-posted it from above because the old discussion got archived (too much **** getting moved around lol). My assessment of WP:COMMONNAME is my own, but as has been pointed out here the examples given on that page are largely irrelvant to this debate (my only intent was to get people to stop citing WP:COMMONNAME and to actually have a substanative discussion instead of slinging WP:COMMONNAME back and forth at eachother). As for the google hits, compare:

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=426&q=libyan+civil+war&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=2f6b3bb843eff3dd to http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&biw=1024&bih=426&q=libyan+uprising&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&fp=2f6b3bb843eff3dd

I personally don't think google hits matter worth a ****, I was just again throwing that out there to end the slinging of google hits back and forth. My point about the current name is exactly what I said it was, no one is calling it the "2011 libyan uprising" and hence the name is inadequate (if people are allowed to say "no one is calling it a civil war" then its equally relevent to point out that no one is identifying it as the "2011 libyan uprising"). My point is the current name is inadequate either way. Its not as if this event happened yesterday and no one knows what it is. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This may be an Anglo-American difference, in that Americans are used to thinking of a Civil War which never quite got to Washington; but Charles I did not get to London either (and the intent of both sides in that Civil War was to drive the other side from power). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Who cares how many hits either one has on Google? It's now obvious that the uprising is soon to be crushed as Gaddafi forces are winning back most towns. I don't care what the technical definition for a civil war is, surely two weeks doesn't constitute one, right? I think perhaps if the Rebels had international support or could sustain a genuine fighting force for weeks and months to come then it would inevitably become a civil war, however I think that if the uprising is crushed then it would be more appropriate to rename it the 2011 Libyan Revolution, similar to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.109.179 (talk • contribs)
• Support move as this has been called a civil war by every major media source to the point where it is casually referred to as a civil war, meaning there is no big stink in the media about whether it qualifies, and it fits all the aspects of one. We have clearly defined alternative governments with alternative military forces fighting for control of a country. The effectiveness of one group or another is irrelevant as is the possible duration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is definitely a civil war. Rebels are trying to oust Gaddaffi, and government forces are attempting to regain lost ground. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support for the renaming to Libyan civil war. A country with two governments striving for power, engaging in heavily-armed combat against each other and conquering towns - this is an all-out civil war. "Uprising" does not fit the situation at all. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Would calling it a civil war myself but is wikipedia in the position to decide? Several media outlets are now referring to it as a war, and with the UN resolution imposing a no-fly zone and the establishment of a front-line in the conflict (which involves opposing forces using weapons of war on each other) it looks as though it can now be defined as a civil war. Although does wikipedia actually have the right to decide whether the conflict has escalated into a civil war? KP-TheSpectre (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide, we do, by concensus, and we decide by what most of the sources are calling it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose to the renaming Libyan Civil War. Oppose to the renaming Libyan Revolution. Oppose to the renaming Libyan Insurgency, or the Libyan Fight, or the Libyan Bad Time, the Libyan ****-You-Gadaffi, the Libyan Mosh Pit, the Libyan Like-a-Football-match-but-with-Killing, or the Libyan Line Dance. If the rebels get put down in the next few days, calling this a Civil war will look silly. Better to err on the side of caution than trying to force a label on something just because most of us are rooting for the rebels. If this fighting continues and shows that this conflict is going to be protracted, then the name 'civil war' might be appropriate, but right now it looks like this might be settled in the next few days, and if that turns out to be the case, civil war is not the appropriate label. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, "because most of us are rooting for the rebels"? I am not 'rooting for' the rebels, nor am I 'rooting for' Gaddafi. I fail to see how changing the title to Libyan Civil War would be expressing support for one side or the other. I'm just trying to describe a situation as it is, and as others (Red Cross, CNN) describe it as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, you're only one of few who has specifically said that they are not for one side or the other (which is not implying anything, just saying you're neutral on the issue) whereas most of the editors that have expressed an opinion have specifically been anti-Gadaffi and pro-Rebel. You are right though that civil war doesn't express support for one or the other side. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak abstain - I think that we need to wait and see what happens after the UN resolution. --WileyOWill (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly jaded - I think it should be renamed but I'm just sick of the whole debate, the arguing over protocol, the hairsplitting, and the sarcasm.--Witan (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- I support a rename. The name "Libyan Uprising" may have been more appropriate for when it was just some teenagers running around setting things on fire, but you have an organized opposition, defections, and many people dying. And, on a minor note, it fits the simple criteria layed out on Wikipedia's civil war article. MNrykein (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And what do we say about that in WP:SYNTH regarding coming to our conclusions from multiple sources? Also an uprising isn't typically what you just described, that is a soccer riot. An uprising is usually much much more serious. See: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising amd Easter Rising.

• Absolute support - The Daily Mail, The Telegraph, Time magazine, CNN and NPR already call it a "civil war", as do many other media outlets mentioned above. The conflict seems unlikely to wind down in the foreseeable future, there are parallel governments vying for control of the country and there's heavy fighting throughout most of the country. If this does not fit the description of a civil war I don't know what does. Australian ABC News published an article 10 days ago in which they talked to an expert who said on the record that "at this stage it's very hard to see how it couldn't be described as a civil war" - and judging by the news reports things have only gotten worse since then. There's really nothing to discuss here. Timbouctou 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have the feeling this is going to come down to no consensus again as you are putting reliable sources againt reliable sources on what calls this what, and you can not rely on all google hits to back up a claim here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion may soon prove to be moot. With the no fly zone resolution passed, and Al Yazeera mentioning Egypt arming the Anti-Gaddafi forces, and with France saying that enforcing the no fly zone, I begin to wonder if the 'civil' part should be dropped or not. This may end up in a war. Phoib (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Currently support I support a rename to Libyan Civil War, at this time, but as mentioned above it may soon turn into a war with foreign forces involved. But at this time, civil war is most appropriate. Michael5046 (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well funny you should mention that, at that point it becomes something more like Korean War or Vietnam War in more serious cases and in cases where it is just us bombing the offending party back to the stone age: Yugoslav Wars.

• Oppose, I think uprising most accurately describes it. I don't doubt that in time "civil war" may be a more accurate description, but I think it's still too soon Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Still Oppose Still too early to know. If Gaddafi regains control (as remains very possible still), it will have been an "uprising". If the opposition somehow gets it together and prevails, it will be a "revolution". If the international community goes in militarily, it will be a "war". It's not a civil war right now, it's an uprising. We are not news, and we should wait for things to become clear before renaming. WikiDao ☯ 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - By definition is an uprising. Popular names should not be considered, but real and absolute definitions. Douken (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect I'm afraid, the popular name is what you use. WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Signs seem to point to 'uprising' being a more common term, and that's certainly the case in the local media where I am. It's also an appropriate term. Other arguments about the definition of a civil war aren't really relevant, as we should be focusing on what terms the majority of reliable sources use. As an aside, there seems to be a rising trend across recent 'current event' articles of constant name change nominations based on the addition of one or two extra sources here or there. We're really not in a hurry here, we can always change the name later once a name has been settled on by more stable (eg. non-news) or academic sources, and the current title isn't inaccurate. I don't see compelling reasons to push for this kind of change this at this volatile stage in the article's life. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I like this guy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note The Guardian is also calling it the Libyan civil war now, see here [6]. EkoGraf (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its an uprising, too soon and too one-sided to call a civil war. In a few days we can revisit the issue, of course, and at that point it may be time to call it a civil war. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support simply based on Civil_war#Definition ("quotes" from article below)

"a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". --CHECK

"Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties" -- CHECK

"while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side" -- CHECK

"The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory." -- CHECK

"The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory." -- CHECK

"The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent." --CHECK

"The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military." --CHECK

130.228.251.10 (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes it meets other definitions, but it started as an uprising and that is what I believe the people of Libya would prefer this be called. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support ^^This IP knows, IPs usually do. 190.51.134.68 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That IP doesn't know: WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support It is clear that this is a civil war. All media outlets have called it a civil war. This is much different than the egypt protest. The opposistion already has formed a transitional government, flag, and military. It is clear that this is a civil war. It should be called the 2011 Libyan Civil War.

• Comment The two are close enough synonyms, so I'm going to Abstain because this is fast tuning into a bloody stupid debate over semantics VJ (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose The only thing that is still preventing me from supporting the move is that the BBC are still referring it to an uprising. Many media sources provided are more sensationalist than the BBC, whereas the BBC has to remain neutral on the issue. If the BBC change it to a civil war, then my opinion shall also change. Calvin (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. What is going now is actually a civil war. To name some well-known sources: CNN, Time, Telegraph, Daily Mail, NY Post, Huffington Post. Brandmeister t 14:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Pro-Gaddafi Libya has declared a ceasefire. Keyword: Ceasefire. ~AH1^(TCU) 15:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support: This conflict had most (if not all) the characteristics of a civil war. Even the language is of war (offensive, bombings, ceasefire, etc...). As the days are passing, this conflict have less similarities with other current Arab world conflicts (Tunisia, Egypt), and more similarities with other wars of precedent decades. What I think it is no logic or NPOV is to wait until a foreign intervention to rename it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Okay, first, I ALREADY put my support here, so someone must've deleted it to support their views. Second, I support it. Don't be metaphorical and say "Oh, it's the people of Libya vs an Evil Dictator Foreigner" like some people have been saying, very passionately. But you have to get real, this is an actual civil war. This is no longer an uprising, or an unrest. If it was, there wouldn't be an actual military that is still part of Libya, fighting another military that controls military. I don't think an uprising would have rebels with tanks, you think? --24.192.70.167 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. This is a civil war. There are two opposing forces, one controlling large part of Libya, one not. They're fighting for control. Can it be any simpler? It's simple fact.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This falls more into the Civil War category then any other in my opinion. There are 2 clearly defined political and sides organized in a militant manner, occupying the same geographical place, both vying for total control and removal of the other. 13:03, 18 march 2011 (PST)

• Comment. If the rebels succeed, it should be renamed a "revolution." If they fail, it should be renamed a "civil war." "Conflict" or "uprising" are sufficient in the interim. -- 75.87.178.197 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This has become a total war. Some weeks ago, it could be called an uprising but now there are two sides and a frontline where these sides are fighting. sicaspi (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment As it stands now: 29 support, 13 oppose, I think we need to establish some criteria here or else theres never gonna be any consensus and this is going to turn into an endurance match. The rebels losing streak and the no-fly zone are potential game changers, so I say we archive this talk and leave it for 4 weeks and see what happens. If the rebels have a come back then I think its safe to say that this is going to be a back and forth conflict and not some short burst of fighting that dies out (that would end part of the debate for both sides). Similarly, if the no fly-zone does or does not end the fighting then I think that would give us another strong indication of where things are going. I think we should all recognize that definitions of civil war, google hits, and WP:COMMONNAME are not gonna solve this issue. Media sources can go either way on this, so I also think that we should all recognize that no consensus will come from there either. So, as I say, lets leave it for 4 weeks and let these unknowns be answered before we proceed. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Yeah sure. whatever. rename it cvil war. Im cool Sticknuke007 (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)sticknuke007

• Support Well, CNN think it's a 'civil war'[[7]][[8]].

--Wipsenade (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support This has clearly become a civil war. AlaskaMike (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support Same as AlaskaMike. Wikien2009 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly now, the designation of the conflict as an uprising is misleading and ultimately does not describe the situation as it now occurs. With international military intervention now underway in support of the rebels against the forces loyal to Gaddafi, it would seem more apt to describe the conflict as a civil war. However the media consensus is by no means united, BBC for example as of writing this still refer to it as an uprising. Because of this and the idea that Wikipedia is intended to group together information already available and not creating original information i feel that the name should not be changed until some larger media consensus. Richardhunter37 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support As of 19 March, this bears all the marks of a civil war of the highest significance. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 16:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support. We are now seeing international involvement and a relatively clear distinction between two opposing forces, both of whom claim to be the legitimate representatives of Libya. This goes beyond the actions in other countries, suck as Egypt and Tunisia. This has reached the point where it can be called a true civil war, where the winner will be in control of the country. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 17:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. International involvement can quickly make it more than a just a Civil War (which is currently more or less the title), but rather a 2011 Libyan War.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support It has now turned into a civil war, it isn't just a conflict any more. It is a war, an internal war within Libya; therefore it is fair to call it a Civil War. IJA (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's just too soon. Now that other nations are involved, it goes further than a civil war. The current title should suffice for now. Dmarquard (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support All the news sources call it a civil war and it is one... Plumber (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Use Both This event is an uprising which has turned into a civil war, so the title should reflect that. It should therefor be 2011 Libyan Uprising and Civil War

• Strong Support I'm not sure I've seen anything that is so clearly a civil war than this. Anti-government forces take over part of the country; large-scale combat ensues. This is a no-brainer. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support The current title is inappropriate as the situation in Libya is clearly more than just an "uprising". There are two obvious sides, each with significant support, and now a third party has entered the picture. If they call this event something else in a year's time, then so be it, we can change the title again. But now, clearly Libya is in a civil war. --Tocino 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think it's civil war anymore. It became an international war. I think Libya War would be better.--1j1z2 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A civil war basically means that two different sides of a nation are fighting, this can include other nations fighting with the two (or more) sides of the nation. e.g. Lebanese Civil War included Israel and Syria; Sri Lankan Civil War included India. --Gimelthedog (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

+Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War had foreign interventions too, see the infoboxes--78.3.217.86 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support The supporters took the words out of my mouth, but 1j1z2 makes a good point. B-Machine (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support If this isn't a civil war, then neither was the U.S. civil war. Jeffrey7777

• Strong Support This was a civil war as soon as two sides started armed conflict against each other with both sides controlling territory. Valadius (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's also a good description of a gang war (just a fun observation). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support Until recently, I was happy to leave this page as it was named, but to be honest it's no longer uprising, it's civil war. What else describes the conflict, not to mention the air forces and 110 missiles launched Gaddafi's way? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support At least one country has recognized the rebel force as the legitimate government. How can it be called an "uprising" if the popular uprising has been recognized by the international community as a legitimate governmental force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.195.212 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is in every sense of the word a Civil War, this has gone from protest to armed rebellion, this is the Libyan Civil War.

• Support This is clearly a civil war. Full stop.

• Support Simply said - clearly civil war now. Not simply an uprising (which by its name is too 'light' to describe the events in Libya. --|★|BignBad|★| 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BignBad (talk • contribs)

• Support It sure looks like a civil war. It's not simply a bunch of riots anymore. Frotz (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support Its definitely a civil war. Even the UN is now involved! —Terrence and Phillip 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support based on recent events, in any case this article can not just be called an uprising anymore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It seems clear most people agree this can be described as a civil war. The common name arguments are logical, but beside the point. Even if Libyan civil war is not the established name it is certainly the most descriptive name at this point. Libyan uprising doesn't fairly reflect what's going on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Uprising is usually used in case of a failure, e.g. the Warsaw Uprising. If the rebels win it will no doubt be called a Civil War. Remember history is written by the victors. So let's see which side wins first. Wikipedia isn't a news medium anyways. SpeakFree (talk) SpeakFree (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." Danmarce (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You know I put WP:DUCK up there before for a reason. Now it's gone and it seems like it's needed again. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Okay, the UN has already launched airstrikes on Libya.. many call it a Civil War, and Wikipedia still calls it an Uprising? What next? Shorten it to Unrest? --65.60.128.62 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A civil war is a war within a country between two groups from that country. France and U.S. have launched airstrikes, so that means it is not just Libyans fighting. Just change name to Libya War.

• Neither I think it should just be named Libya War as there are a good few nations involved (too many for it to be named a civil war) . This conflict however, is not an uprising as that implies that it was an unsuccessful rebellion which it most certainly is not. So I think Libya War is a suitable title as it reflects both elements of peoples arguments and views. User: WikiUniverse (talk)
  • as i said above: Support A civil war basically means that two different sides of a nation are fighting, this can include other nations fighting with the two (or more) sides of the nation. e.g. Lebanese Civil War included Israel and Syria; Sri Lankan Civil War included India.--Gimelthedog (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess so, you make a fair point i'll change my opinion to ""Support""

• Strongly Support This has become an all out engagement. Not only is it the Libyans fighting, there are also foreign militaries involved too. Civil wars in the past have included foreign militaries. If is is not renamed the Libyan Civil War, then it should at least be named the Libyan War. Although I strongly urge it to be called the civil war. Jar789 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Gadhafi has considered it a war according to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Gadhafi even admitted it to be a "Long War" according to this article. Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Air-strikes and a massive amount of casualties make me think this is a civil war. Gadhafi said himself that it was a war here. Doh5678 (Talk) 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• War but not Civil War ? Most everyone agrees it can be called a war instead of an uprising. The bone of contention surround s the term "civil" war. What about just 2011 Libyan War? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support By definition, a civil war is a war between the citizens of the same nation. I think this fits that bill. Bnosnhoj (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have noticed more support comments ever since international action was taken here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The degree of public trust in the correctness of any government's decisions is directly proportional to the sheepishness of its citizenry." Benjamin Franklin. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is definately a war by definition. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support This is definitely a civil war. Alex (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Support It started off as an uprising, but now it's definitely a war. As said above, it's gone beyond the scope of, for example, Egypt. As for dispute over 'civil', I would say it is definitely a civil war. Whilst obviously the rebels are receiving external help, the interests of the war are really purely domestic to Libya. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Why not? Two side who both claim that it's their country and are fighting. I think it meets the requirements of a civil war. --Beanygirl80 (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - C'mon people, as events unfold the title is getting more an more ridiculous. This is a war, numerous sources have referred to it as a civil war, it has all the characteristics of a civil war, and despite foreign intervention (which happened in the Spanish Civil War), it would best be described, for now, as a civil war. It's time to rename.--Witan (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reluctant oppose - As I look more and more at the Wikipedia policy, I have to conclude (reluctantly!) that it would not be appropriate to rename it to "Libyan Civil War". However, I do feel that the current name is inaccurate in view of the international participation taking place at this point, and believe it should be renamed to the 2011 Libyan conflict. I have made a new "requested move" section below.--Witan (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support By Wikipedia's own admission on the article for Libya, two governments claim legitimate sovereignty over the country, resulting in the "Disputed" description under the "Government" row in the infobox. —Ferrariguy90 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Uprising is misleading. Now it is war. The article should be renamed to 2011 Libya Civil War. 92.247.220.195 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral This should be called a revolution but not a conflict or civil war. Revolution request changes in politics and sometimes other things.58.187.26.178 (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Do we want wikipedia to just repeat the mainstream media's narative? The conflict has gone on too long to be "Just one tyrant." Obviously there are a large group of Lybians who support the government.

• Support This has really has gone beyond a uprising, two groups of people, fighting in the same country. This has gone beyond a bunch of protests. --

• Support This is no ordinary protest. Also, revolution implies that the change in politics has already happened, where it clearly hasn't in this case (yet), IMO. 74.240.191.39 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Water14 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Out of the two options, it is much more closer to a civil war than an uprising.Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not choose what the conflict is called. We base the name on what it's called in reliable sources. If people here want to change this name to contain Civil War they have to prove that is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources (i.e., the latest news reports). --JaGa^talk 01:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree and will repeat that simple fact; "We do not choose what the conflict is called."

Right now the latest news reports call it "unrest" and "conflict"; not a "civil war" in sight. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak support, rename to 2011 Libya civil war, 2011 civil war in Libya, Civil war in Libya, or (most preferred) Libyan Civil War. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support from ext. sources. Andrew Sullivan says, "It seems to me obviously correct to characterise the military conflict between Libyan factions as a "civil war", and thus to characterise the actions of the Americans, French, and British, which target the Libyan state's air defences, as "taking sides in a civil war"." [9] "...the civil war could be prolonged, even halting to a stalemate." [10] ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mr.grantevans2's comment. Renaming something which has no firm form nor name does no good. Ihosama (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the fact that the current conflict may be the dictionary definition of a civil war is irrelevant. What matters is the name most commonly being used by reputable sources, even if the name may be technically inappropriate. Lots of conflicts could be classified as civil wars but were never called as such. Due to the lack of consensus of a name in the media the current name should stand DigitalRevolution (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Note If I counted right, 85 support votes and 24 oppose votes have been cast up until now, with the majority of the oppose votes being cast before the Coalition intervention, they have dropped off since than. That would mean three quarters of editors have expressed the need to rename the article to Libyan civil war. There is one more day until the full week passes since the voting started but by all acounts the majority concenssus is that this is a civil war and thus the article should be renamed. EkoGraf (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Are we really doing this again given the hugs mess and closure that occured just a day ago? Give it time to settle already - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, the guy/gal is being WP:BOLD if I understand it right, so nothing wrong with that, he/she is igniting a discussion. Some people are annoyed that the other one was closed, but now there is a chance that we could go about reching a concensus properly. I like the setup he/she picked. The only problem is when people respond to supports and oppositions it starts mini discussions. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I just joined Wikipedia today (finally!), so I may be totally off-base, but is it really that a big deal? "Civil War" versus "Uprising"? They are basically synonymous terms, is it really worth the effort it would take to change the article's title over what amounts to a rather nuanced difference in connotation? I've been looking at the policies about the community goals in writing articles, and one of them says to try to give articles historical perspective. I think the only difference between 'civil war' and 'uprising' is how history looks back. Am I off-base here, or am I right? B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct insofar as whatever label we or others slap on something doesn't change its nature, only how we (and countless others due to Wikipedia's traffic) perceive it. It's important to be mindful that there can be a huge difference -- to use the most commonly cited example, see naming the American Civil War. The problem here is, how can you possibly have a historical perspective on an event that's still in progress? Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's entirely true, and I found the archived discussion, so now I obviously see that this is something that there is a large amount of disagreement over.B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• using "civil war" isn't my favorite option, but I'm not opposed, per-se. I'd rather see the page moved to 2011 Libyan conflict, I think.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, stupid edit conflict deleted my thing. I welcomed BIG to wiki and then said that it depends more on common name etc. and then put the part about you bringing up conflict and it being slightly more popular than civil war in the news section. Also put a joke about the old one becoming a small wikiwar and many lives being lost in the process. Had a link to the archive too.

Hmm, maybe there should be a redirect on that page? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Among many other sources, Gen. Wesley Clark also now calls it a "civil war".[11] Esn (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a general really qualified to determine what is and is not a civil war? I mean being Supreme Nato Commander makes you many things, but does it really mean that if you say something is a civil war, it's an expert opinion? Actually, who is qualified to label it as such? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a lecturer in the School of Global Studies at RMIT University in Melbourne qualified to call it a civil war? Timbouctou 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we find out more about him? Lecturers can cover a whole range of topics. Like my professor on humanity between first farmers and first cities (actually an interesting topic) had the specialty of being a Celtic Archaeologist, but she herself said she was really only an expert in the area of Celtic Archaeology. (She's only a lecturer because she refuses to work in time slots that prevent her from spending time with her kids) So what's this guy's specialty? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a waste of time but sure, we can find out more about him. Apparently he "teaches core legal courses within the Legal and Dispute Studies program for the Bachelor of Social Science at RMIT University. He has research interests in the institution of war, diplomacy, international relations, 20th Century History and law. He has written extensively on these topics in both refereed journals and more popular media.". But hey, experts are scum so who cares, right? Timbouctou 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why you would consider it a waste of time to look up the man's credentials and no idea why you linked the experts are scum thing either. Looking at this info, the guy definitely passes muster with me then as an RS and expert. One thing you learn about in Biblical archaeology is the great need to differentiate between people claiming to be, and called experts by some, and actual experts.

Example: The Naked Archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici (who is neither naked in the course of his work or an archaeologist of any sort), who claims to that his silly theories are the truth (when only Hershel Shanks believes him, as well a good deal of the gullible public) and Erich von Daniken who is a major propenent of peddling ancient aliens to the unwitting public, many of whom really do buy his nonsense hook, line and sinker. On the opposite side you have Eric H. Cline who is a widely-recognised expert in the field (though his main focus is on the Bronze Age) or Israel Finkelstein, who, though he has many enemies as a result of his very controversial theories, is also regarded as one of the foremost archaeologists in Israel. So you understand my reasons now for wanting a credential check? Of course, people claiming to be experts happens a lot more in archaeology (especially biblical, where everyone and his dog thinks he can do archaeology) than in something like say political science. Also it's wikirules that we need to make sure our sources are reliable (not just the site presenting them, but they themselves as well). Thought you might like an explanation. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the intention of the Libyans is to overthrow the current government, this makes the situation an uprising or a rebellion. Civil war generally applies to situations where existing geopolitical factions are trying to secede. This fight has all the characteristics of an uprising: untrained volunteer forces, new councils that are inclusive, and a well-armed government that is not willing to relinquish power. In case of a victory by the rebels, the events would be considered a revolution and not the end of a civil war. The difference is huge. The Western media is less comfortable with armed uprisings. They want to show people waving flowers as they're beaten down by government forces. The Libyan situation is no different than Egypt or Tunisia, it's just taking a longer time and they have had to resort to armed rebellion because Gadaffi is committed to staying in power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.175.239 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the frontier between an uprising and a civil war is rather fluid, and depends on circumstances. I believe the most important for Wikipedia (as no original research is allowed) should be the prevailing designation of the conflict in reliable sources (and in the case of 2011 Libyan uprising/civil war it's perhaps still a bit to early to settle on a finite designation). I have to disagree with the notion of civil wars as exclusively wars for independence/secession - e.g. English Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War and many others, especially in the South America were internal struggles over the control of the nation. In my personal opinion, I believe that current situation in Libya could be referred to as the civil war, as there are large scale combats between two sides which are roughly equally organized and equipped (as defection of some units/officers of the Libyan Armed Forces must had led to certain level of disorganization of the Gaddafi forces), both are aspiring to gain/regain control over the whole nation, claiming to be the only legitimate national governments of Libya and the 'rebels' National Transitional Council is recognized as such, though only by France. Regardless of this, I'm not personally going to participate in the survey.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The English Civil War was a religiouse and politiko war, not a splitist/sepratist affair!82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Which was my point, when replying to 174.97.175.239's comment.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:-)82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Uprisings or rebellion are limited and/or localized by definition. This conflict is neither. And regardless of outcome it is unlikely that it would ever be referred to as revolution because they are by definiton rapid changes in government. Granted, what is "rapid" is subject to opinion, but this has been going on for a month now and doesn't look like it might be over soon. Timbouctou 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were successful, people would most likely refer to it as a revolution regardless. Most lay people consider tossing off one's government and creating a new one as being the only qualifier for a revolution even if like you said, the denotation is a rapid change. Look at American Revolution for instance where we just tossed off the Brits and adopted a somewhat representative democracy ruled by the wealthy landowning whites. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's still too early to call it a war. It's been going on for a few weeks, and if crushed quickly nobody will look back in history and call it a war. Also I have issue with the fact that it isn't being fought between two organised armies in the way that characterised the American or English civil wars. I know that experts have been quoted as saying it's a war, as have newspapers, and surely there will also be many which haven't, and disagree. I really don't think that quoting one general or one lecturer implies that mainstream expert opinion is calling it a war. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Organized armies? The American Civil War armies - both of them - were, perhaps rather haughtily, characterized as "two armed mobs chasing each other around the country" by Prussian field marshal Helmuth von Moltke - and indeed both Union and Confederate armies were largely dependent on state-created regiments, which were being established after the war broke out - as the regular United States Army was numerically negligible in the peacetime and many southern-born officers rezigned their commissions to join the Confederate Army, which was being organized from a scratch. Yet no one is going to dispute that the American Civil War was a war. Not to mention the Spanish republican army of the Spanish Civil War, where many officers (and some units - Spanish Foreign Legion and the colonial troops from Morroco) defected to the rebels, thus leaving the government partially dependent on left-wing militias in the initial stages of war (while the Nationalists had in the beginning only aforementioned few defecting regular army units and improvised militias). I just don't think that neither the current organization of combattants - both of the Libyan Army and of theLibyan People's Army - nor current length of the conflict can rule out the designation of the conflict as the civil war, as it ultimately does not depend on such factors. On the contrary - it is quite difficult to not call a nation-scaled armed conflict, employing heavy weapons a war. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a fair amount of opposition to the terminology "civil war" is that it hasn't been going on for that long. Who said a civil war had to drag on for months or years? An ordinary, interstate war doesn't have to last very long to be considered such (a very notable one lasted only six days); why does a civil war have to be any different? After all, "civil war" merely means that the conflict is restricted to people from one country. Since at least a few notable and reliable sources are calling it a civil war, it is not synthesis, let alone OR, to term it as such. Get a move on. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTH is for when people don't cite sources specifically calling it a civil war, but instead take bits of info from several sources and come to their own conclusion that it is a civil war. An interstate war is different with regard to time, and can even last a few minutes. It involves government authorised hostilities between two sovereign countries and isn't hard to identify (thought people do tend to muck about with semantics afterward). How long people think it should be before something is called a civil war is irrelevant though ofc, as it not our job to decide that, but the sources. In terms of short civil wars: 1994 Civil War in Yemen Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil war? let history decide its been about a month, its all about time, people are simple if its short is an uprising if takes a while its a civil war, lets leave well enough alone for now...--168.105.124.132 (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Note WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAMEWipsenade (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is now neither an uprising nor a civil war. With so many countries involved it is now the Libya War. noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This fellow does have a very good point. Given that other nations are now going to become involved in making sure Gadaffi's shitty MiGs (or w/e he uses) stay on the ground, this could become something along the lines of the Bosnian War and especially Kosovo War when we had to teach Srbija (specifically Slobadon Milosevic) civility (our finest hour in years, in this editor's personal opinion). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War had foreign interventions, too, see the infoboxes--78.3.217.86 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would support just 'war', there has already been 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and British ships, and an airstrike that involved 20 French aircraft [12]. --Natural R_X 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How is this still being called an uprising? Wikipedia has fallen way behind here! Need to get this renamed to War or Civil War ASAP. 90.218.96.77 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard an 'official type sources' call it a civil war, just concerns about it descending into a civil war. iow, we're not there yet - and with any luck, we won't get there, either. Flatterworld (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC) It was and still is a civil war between two seperate groups in a country. But now that the UN is involved it is neither a civil war or uprising. I think "Libyan War" would fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.194.126 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support

It is a civil war, however, some civil wars don't need to be called that esp. separatist ones. The debate is about if there is another title that deserves the be labeled for this war. Just remember that. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan Civil War or Libyan Civil War

Libya is not America. It probably had more then one civil war -- and there is a debate about if the Civil War was even a civil war(but leaving that aside). Thus, it would be much better to call it the "2011 Libyan Civil War" instead of the Libyan Civil War.

However, please change it from the 2011 Libyan uprising to the 2011 Libyan Civil War.

Is this the first time Wikipedia has named a war? Also, I will be in favour(I don't like my Britsh-biased spell-checker) of calling it the 2011 Libyan Revolutionary War once they win if they win.--SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Abstain. Wikipedia does not name wars (addressing above remark), we're simply deciding whether it is a civil war or an uprising. This is purely scientific but there can in real terms be elements of both (ie. the government in combat with opposing faction whose loyalists revolt) which could usher a separate article into being. Remember, "civil war" plays into the hands of the government and "uprising" the rebels. A civil war not only means active belligerents but it implies clash of ideologies which in turn benefit a state's people, suffice it to say that here, each belligerent represents a population. So far, no accurate information has emerged concerning what percentage of the citizens are pro- or anti-government and to be honest, it hasn't been truly visited either. The apostles of the No-Fly Zone speak of "the Libyan people" knowing that they refer exclusively to opposition loyalists and this ignores the pro-government supporters. Does anyone know what percentage of Libya they constitute? Regardless of how much, just how much of the remainder is pro-opposition? May there not be opposition to both from persons presently remaining silent and continuing with life in Libya? Is everyone honestly involved to one extent? This is the information required before we know how to refer to the crisis. "Uprising" most certainly suits the opposition as it entails widespread rejection of a regime, something that a government (not only Libyan) will go to lengths to deny. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

CommentYes, I know that many people support the rebels, but uprising still has a POV issue. When you hear the word "uprising" you often think the rebels are the good guys. Uprising also implies the rebels will win, it is most likely but no one knows for sure. Calling it a civil war would take away those problems. Thus, it is a civil war. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Per above Baseball Watcher 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Why this conflict in Lybia must be called as "Civil war"? Well, according to the definitions of Geneva Conventions and military specialits that are in the article respective article, a conflict is called civil war if:

The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory': Lybian National Transitional Council control part of the country.

The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory: Lybian National Transitional Council has overthown loyalists authorities (mayors for example)in their cities and have replaced them with rebel-elected authorities.

The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent: Lybian National Transitional Council not only enjoy recognition as belligerent but official recognition as Government by France, Arab League, Portugal, United Kingdom and Italy.

The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military: Gadaffi, since the beginning of the conflict, has used Lybian Army to crush the rebels and to fight against National Transitional Council.

The number of casualties in the conflict must be over 1,000.: Since the beginning of the conflict, the death toll has reached more than 8,000 dead.

These were my arguments on behalf to call this conflict as Lybian Civil War.

Thanks. S.V.B.E.E.V. (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is how it should be

An uprising, to me anyway, seems to be more so a coup d'etat in which there is no real conflict other than a quick regime change (like the French did in the opening phase of the French Revolution). In this case both sides have vowed to fight a long and bloody war so I think Libyan Civil War (2011) is how it should read (2011 does not need to be in front of the Libyan whatever you want to call it). Out of all the news reports I have read about this conflict, none of them call it an uprising and all of them call it a war, because it is not a foreign conflict (at least initially) it is a civil war so calling it a civil war is not misleading, it's simply calling it what it is. Yes wiki does not name conflicts but the name of an article should reflect what the article is about. The war in Libya was an uprising initially but it has clearly expanded to a full scale military conflict.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Even Libyan Revolution (2011) would be better than uprising, afterall the uprising is over, now it's a war between two powers, both with governments and organization. The rebels also hold territory and clearly have support among the civilian population, its not like the Iraq war in which the terrorists/insurgents were living and fighting within an occupied zone.

I suggested that, however, it for when they win if they win. However, there is a difference from a revolution and a revolutionary war. A revolution the event itself, and the revolutionary war fighting to keep the often good guys winning or (may I dare speak of it) losing. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do it already

The article already calls it a civil war so could some admin move it, Wikipedians are being patient but are losing it. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That SuperblySpiffingPerson fellow is doing it I believe. You know you can move pages as well. The dropdown next to the searchbar. Hmm, you know I never noticed this, and in my citing of WP:COMMON, no one ever pointed out WP:IAR Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: except it is move-protected, derp! Nevermind, lol. In other pages though, you can do that. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2 -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"

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

The result of the move request was: speedy procedural close. RM bot can only list one move request per bot at a time so this won't be listed at WP:RM. That makes perfect sense as what would happen if the two discussion reached different conlusions on what the article title should be. Please comment in the above requested move instead. I will leave a note there pointing at this. Dpmuk (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

---

2011 Libyan uprising → 2011 Libyan conflict — The current name is dated considering the developments of the past few days (to say nothing of the past couple weeks). Witan (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Strongly Oppose This event will most likely end up with Civil War or War moniker. The same reasoning used in Civil War name change proposal applies here: Wikipedia shall not define the name. Let's wait a few weeks to avoid 1) confusing renames 2) being the one who creates the name. Redirects are enough for now. Ihosama (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. 'Conflict' is an even more meaningless and less suitable term than 'uprising'. Why would we want to use that? Plus, the new article title will most likely end up being Libyan Civil War, per the discussion above. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'd support this when it becomes the most common term. Last I checked it was being used more frequently than civil war. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we still have a week to see how things turn out before this request gets closed (if I've read the policy correctly). The term "Libyan Civil War" may take months or years to become common, but I think "Libyan conflict" will become the most common name very soon here, now that there is foreign involvement.--Witan (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it appears that it is becoming an increasingly proper way of referring to this (well over civil war) in the media. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• +"Civil war in Libya" -"Libyan uprising" (853)
• -"Civil war in Libya" +"Libyan uprising" (1,187)
• yep, "uprising" still more common. No need to move. Although we should admit "civil war" is getting common enough to deserve mention in boldface as an alternative term. --dab (𒁳) 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The word 'conflict' can mean a gazillion things. Armed conflict, unarmed conflict, political conflict, financial conflict, ... Very unspecific. Not useful as an article title. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

The French air force goes in!

French aircraft are over Libya (BBC) [[13]][[14]]!!!Wipsenade (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada, Qatar, Spanish, German, Dutch, UK, Italian (spy), Belgian aircraft are coming. The USA is talking of using some spy airfaft (BBC)[[15]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada, Holland, France and the UK are leading the way[[16]][[17]]. The USA and Quatar are to join later. [[18]] .Wipsenade (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi sympathising Germany decided to take no role and went neutral, while Italy is only offering base access and a spy plane. [[19]]. France shot a Libyan pro- Gaddafi fighter down at about 16.45. They have shot at a Libyan pro- Gaddafi vehcihel literally seconds ago.Wipsenade (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

first air strike

first air strike against a ground vehicle according to live feed. (source France Info).

Yep, it's destroyed acording to the BBC! Wipsenade (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we add in those countries (or perhaps the UN) under the Rebel "combatants" side? Its very clear their no-fly zone is one-sided, and that there is a very good chance it will escalate to strikes against Pro-Ghaddafi ground forces, even those not directly in combat at the moment. 170.232.128.10 (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a precedent for this in Bosnian War. We can also take the Kosovo War approach if the involvement becomes larger. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

French Losses

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[20]][[21]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't confirmed. In fact, most sources say that all French planes returned safely. Sovetus (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

New forces coming

Quatar, Spain, Denmark and Italy are esnding planes. Algeria and Kuwaite might join in to (BBC).82.14.51.216 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Situation report

The US lead coalition has nine other announced partners: Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar and Spain. [[22]].Wipsenade (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to Bury the Rebel Plane Shoot down

I'm noticing continual efforts(in the article text and the photo text) to challenge,minimize,bury and remove any referrences to identifying the plane that was shot down over Bengazi as being a rebel plane, that it was shot down(accidently perhaps) by rebels or that it was reported to have been bombing rebel territory.This is very important because the plane has been accused by the pro-Gaddafi forces as having been kn "blatant" breach of the no-fly zone. For npov purposes this event should not be censored out of the article.[23] [24] [25] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It was reportedly a rebel MiG, but was shot down by rebels[[26]].82.14.48.234 (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A Rebel Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi. It was a rebel acording to the UK's Sunday times and CNN.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Fog of war!Wipsenade (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Images of the shoot down. [[27]][[28]][[29]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

French Fighter Shoot down

A French fighter was shot down by a pro-Gadhafi Libyan fighter aircraft rather than 2K12 Kub air defence missile unit (these seem to be deactivated as of date) over Tripolitania[[30]][[31]]. this is also being covered up.14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's being wiki censored!Wipsenade (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor event that should't be magnified out of proportions. Rafy talk 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting a lot of this because it's not sourced, and very reliable sources were saying the complete opposite of what our article is claiming. This is not WP:TRUTH, this is WP:V. SDY (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki just are hiding that, Libya is close to win.

If you dislike the way Wikipedia does things, User:Frajjsen, take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an error in the fog of war, A French fighter hit a Libyan, not the other way round.[[32]] Wipsenade (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Point of view.

The whole article need to be updated.. it is not NEUTRAL. Template with the casualties should be edited, as France got one Mirage shot down and Italian ship was detained at Tripoli.[[33]]

I'm intregued, let's look up this Italian ship.Wipsenade (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a neutrality problem, it's a problem with good old fashioned facts. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and trying to stay up-to-the-minute on details will inevitably introduce errors. If it's not clear what's going on (which is very common in a war zone), we shouldn't be reporting blow by blow action from primary sources. Looks like the big boys in the news media can't even get it right, and there's a lot of propaganda that's going to start flying. Stick to what we're sure of. SDY (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Google?15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Author: It was confirmed by Italy officials!! Edit the template.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Augusta firm's offshore supply ship "Asso 22" has 8 Italians, 2 Indians, and 1 Ukrainian crew member aboard, all of whome were aressted on the 19th in Tripoli.They were arrested by Gadaffites on the 19th.[[34]][[35]][[36]][[37]][[38]][[39]] [[40]]Wipsenade (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... they are CPOW (Civilian Prisoners of War). As I said - the template need update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That ship isn't a casualty, it's a random ship from a shipping company that has nothing to do with the war. Sovetus (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe collateral damage then? Not sure if it applies here though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Casualties

The infobox currently lists Government forces taking 48 civilian casualties and 150 civilians injured from recent Western airstrikes. These numbers come from Libyan State Television which has been spitting out the most outrageous of claims in the past week. Also the fact that State TV said the casualties were "primarily women, children and religious clerics" and also reportedly said that Western forces specifically "targeted schools and hospitals" makes the claim only more outrageous. No news source has been able to verify any of the claims, and this is beginning to look more like propaganda than legitimate news. Its inclusion into the infobox for casualties makes it seem very biased, anyone agree? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-and-allies-launch-libya-force-as-gadhafi-strikes-rebel-heartland-regime-claims-48-dead/2011/03/19/ABhkEdx_story.html

Infernoapple (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

State TV claims are dubious at best. The women, children and clerics, schools and hospitals bit is LDA-approved grade A bullshit obvious to any skeptic or westerner, but which his supporters might believe. So yeah, it's not good to include unless you put that as their claim and maybe a note about their credibility. Expressed in the most NPOV manner of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also the fact that today there are reports that pro-Gaddafi forces are moving the bodies of those killed in combat to designated places where they are fabricating their own "bombing of civilian areas". Infernoapple (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't suppose that's been confirmed by an independent source and publish in an RS? Would be a nice addition to the artice imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to object to the phrase used in the casualty box: "Total number of people killed on both sides, includes protesters, rebel fighters, captives executed, government forces killed and civilians killed by NATO bombing". It implies that the only civilians killed (not including protestors) have been through NATO bombings. Though there will (and probably have been) some civilians killed by NATO-aligned countries in their bombing campaigns, I am assuming that the vast majority of the civilian casualties have been caused through the Libyan air/artillery bombardment of populated areas. I recommend removing part of the phrase "by NATO bombing" in its entirety, and if anything should be there it should read "by countries acting on the UN resolution".

And like we said, the only source for those casualties was Gadaffi's state TV. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people here are just biased... if Pentagon said they have shot down 100 planes from Libya - they will add it on the second... if Gadhafi said his forces have shot down 3 planes - it will be deleted or hidden. Strange people right here. Frajjsen (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pentagon is less prone to hyperbole. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

UN Infobox and "civil war" vs. "uprising"

Two concerns have cropped up in this article that I would like to address. Firstly, there seems to be an eagerness among editors to include many countries in the infobox who have not even started any military operations. Should they be included, or only the current batch of UK, France, Italy, and US, and include a link at the bottom per other war articles (ie WWII).

Secondly, User:Xtremerandomness insists on changing the lead to Libyan Civil War, instead of keeping it as uprising. This is a valid article move request that I will submit on behalf of him. Personally, I oppose, but what do others thing? I believe there was a discussion on this previously, but... --haha169 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the nations that have actually used weapons against Libya should be included, not chestbeaters and saber-rattlers.

If you do it once, it's WP:BOLD, if you do it twice, it's a bit rude imo. We do have a discussion going right now. Look up top for the link, I put a nice little notice there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

The countries that I included are the ones that have been confirmed to have taken part in military operations. I did not include the ones that have not yet done so. I apologise for the renaming of the article. I came at this page from a redirect of "Libyan Civil War" and it seems to have been inadvertently included in my edits as the title. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was accidental, then no worries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Revaloution?Wipsenade (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that Qatar has sent fighter jets to Italy, but they have not actively engaged in any military operations as of yet. My reason to remove so many countries is to keep the infobx less cluttered and avoid unnecessary inclusion. I mean, I'm pretty sure Norway has done nothing, and if they do, it would be incredibly minimal. If the article name change was accidental, then I withdrawl the article-change suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they put the lesser combatants (like Argentina and Chile) for WWII in some sort of special thing on the infobox. Not sure, might just lead to a separate article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right that I was WP:BOLD, although these are countries that have confirmed they will be enforcing the no-fly zone. I didn't include any that have yet to pledge forces. Would it be fair to include them once actual planes have patrolled? I do, in fact, support the name change, although not without a broad consensus to do so. Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fair to put them when they actually have pilots risking their asses in this conflict and actually making a contribution. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks like the ones undoubtedly taking part are Canada (Operation Mobile and the deployment of HMCS Halifax) and Spain (various forces including the submarine Tramotana). I'm not sure if Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Norway, Qatar and the UAE have actually taken part yet, but they definitely will. Can I include those first two? Xtremerandomness (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada has deployed aircraft to Italy but I haven't seen a source that indicates they are a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this good enough? Xtremerandomness (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. There was a report out earlier today saying they might begin flying missions in the next 48 hours. Until there is a source that says they have actually done so they are not a belligerent.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerous sources say that both Canada and Spain have deployed (a) ship(s) off the coast of Libya that are taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. I feel this is taking part enough to be included. Xtremerandomness (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Harper effectively declared war against the government of Libya while in Paris. Therefore, Canada is belligerent.[[41]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soutsc (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada and Qatar are in the exact same position, forces deploying in Italy but have not yet flown any mission. Until they fly a mission they aren't belligerents, plain and simple. the most recent status I have is this [42]--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that because they have not taken part in air patrols over Libya they are somehow not taking part yet. You've repeatedly ignored my comments about having deployed a ship off the coast that is currently taking part in enforcing the no-fly zone. Spain is also doing so. Qatar, as well as various other countries, are not in this position. I even cited their navy's involvement, but you think it is alright to continue to cite sources about promises of future air action as though that refutes what I am saying. Currently I feel you are being dishonest. Xtremerandomness (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point, its clear on the CEFCOM webpage that the navy (HMCS Charlottetown) is part of "standing NATO maritime group 1" which is conducting operations off the coast of Libya in enforcing the no-fly zone. It is also clear that by deploying CF-188 into Italy for the purpose of enforcing a no-fly zone, Canada has acted in a belligerent way. A state must act aggressively to be belligerent, and Canada has done so by deploying its naval and air forces in support of the mission. Not to mention describing this as an act of war. This is now a moot point.[[43]]. soutsc (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that. However, Qatar is in the same place as Canada[44] so if Canada is on the list, Qatar should be there as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just a generic case of infobox bloat. It's endemic to Wikipedia. We should just remove excess bloat from the infobox as people add it. People will keep adding bloat, and we will have to keep trimming it down. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly means "bloat". Maybe US-negative information :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frajjsen (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Think of the box as being too fat, that's what he means by bloat. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloatware?!Wipsenade (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Uprising."

If we are including France, UK, US et. al. among the "belligerents" in this situation, then we can no longer accurately describe it as an "uprising." Macarion (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See the note I put. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Because foreign countries can't "rise up" against the government of another state. They can intervene, they can invade, they can wage war. Macarion (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They can intervene in an uprising like during the French Revolution. Though what the undoubtedly scared "better" classes called it at the time as it was happening is beyond me. In this case, you just have the West assisting the Libyan people who have risen up. They're still the main combatants remember. They just have our missiles and planes on their side. Also, I'm pretty sure that in the 1600s the Duchy of Prussia rose up against the government of Poland-Lithuania and I think also the Koreans against one Chinese dynasty or another, maybe the Han. So it's possible, just doesn't happen in this day and age as you don't have setups like that anymore. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The original point was that they cannot be listed as belligerents in either an uprising or a civil war, and your reply did not address that point. Sometimes, trying to squeeze the entire article into an infobox no matter what isn't the best idea. They are belligerents in the coalition intervention in Libya, which has its own conflict infobox. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I was just answering it with historical examples, not sure I didn't address it at least a little though. Ofc now you know I'm gonna watch your replies and point out when you don't address the point as revenge! muahaha (nah, I'll probably just forget it). This will address the central point about it being called an uprising. We call it what the majority of sources call it. /discussion. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's about wikipedia's policy: Neutrality

Support: According to wikipedia's policy we must remain neutral when selecting article names, and the most common name.

Well, the point is that by calling it "uprising" we are only supporting one side of the conflict, the rebel's POV. For the regime it was not an "uprising", we all know they denied it, but that was their position. The international community has called it a civil war, internal conflict, libya at war, etc. The most common neutral name would be "Libyan Civil War". It also has been mentioned in UN Resolutions no fly zone mention of possibility of "Civil War" (no wording on "uprising") ultimately "armed conflict" was mentioned 1973 resolution actually called "parties to armed conflicts" I would call it "2011 Libyan armed conflict". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The link there says 'possibility' of Civil War - this uprising began in Benghazi as I understand, when unarmed civilians commemorating the execution of political prisoners there in 1996 were fired upon by pro-Gaddafi police and military. They then rose up against the violence and repression - so 'armed versus unarmed conflict' would fit that better. Since then it has been, in Zawiya, Misurata, etc an 'armed versus a poorly armed/unarmed conflict' - hence the intervention of the United Nations to prevent another massacre in Benghazi. 92.4.110.84 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "neutrality" point is irrelevant. The press calls it an uprising, and therefore so do we. Over the past week I get about 1,300 google news hits for "Libyan uprising"[45], compared to about 600 hits for "civil war in Libya", and another 200 for "Libyan civil war".[46]. This means that "uprising" and "civil war" are both commonly used by now, but "uprising" is still slightly more common. --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: the google news hits count is inexact. For future reference, compare these two searches:

• +"Civil war in Libya" -"Libyan uprising" (801)
• -"Civil war in Libya" +"Libyan uprising" (1,904)

We can say that the ratio of "uprising" vs. "civil war" is presently at roughly 2:1. --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fail. Popularity is not accuracy.

Popularity is policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then the policy is inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.128.218.206 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Blame the sources, mate, not the policy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox size

The size of the infobox is getting a bit out of hand, taking up half the right justified space in the prose element of the article. I'd suggest removing the total casualties estimates (or summarizing it as a range) and only placing the military commanders of the no-fly zone.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Any opposition to employing a summary range of the casualties rather than a table list, for the purpose of keeping the infobox size down?--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland involved in No-Fly Zone

How is this accurate when Poland is not getting involved... http://thenews.pl/international/artykul151703_poland-sits-out-odyssey-dawn.html King Semsem (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep.86.24.31.144 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They are on qadaffi duck's side.14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

this is a MESS

There is a separate article about the UNSC coalition response, yet here there are THREE separate sections, each going off on their own. There should be one short summary, preface with a link to the main article. This looks ridiculous. Flatterworld (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

well, did you note the tag warning you that "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses"? If you don't like it, you can either help work on it, or try using Britannica's coverage of the events instead. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

SPQR?Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"

The UN refers to Gaddafi's state simply as the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. We should do the same. Saying "Great Socialist People's" once should be enough. After that, use the shorter name. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, once is enough. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dubious: CIA/SAS role in uprising - needs to be RSed, NPOVed, chronologically correct, put in appropriate place

i just added a "dubious" tag for the first paragraph of the /* Organization */ section with the edit comment: dubious tag on first paragraph, but really needs cleaning up: mix of original research, info not in references, wrong chronology, unreliable refs. This does not mean that all claims of CIA/SAS having been involved in some way in Feb or early March are dubious. But the present paragraph which has four references needs to be seriously reworked based on the more serious references, and it's not obvious that a reworked paragraph should stay in the same place. Don't believe a paragraph or sentence just because it has lots of references; you need to actually follow at least some of the refs and check their contents... Boud (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it...the journalistic sources cited state that the US was "exploring" giving funding to the rebels, that the British botched an attempt to make contact with the rebels, and that the British had special forces in Libya scoping out Libyan air defenses. The claim that the rebellion is "engineered and funded" by western intelligence services is not supported by these sources. (in fact, if the west is having to establish contact/consider funding the rebels that would seem to prove the exact opposite) Equilibrium007 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that an editor who inserted such claims was engaged in similar form of inserting of information not strictly supported by references on larger scale - i.e. his claim of 'provocative violence against the government' [unlike the Egyptian protests] backed by a ref dealing with the Egyptian protests only.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland in infobox

Reporting mistake: " NATO members Germany and Poland refused to cooperate[273] " but Poland is listed in infobox for very unknown reason Elektryk4 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Gaddafi supporters/Rebels

Do we have any actual numbers or even very rough estimations of the percentages? --JokerXtreme (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Egypt/Libya differences

Unlike the grassroots protests which removed pro-Western leaders in Tunisia and Egypt, the Libyan protests gained sponsorhip in February, engineered and funded by foreign intelligence services, including the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as the British SAS who were arrested in early March.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And your point is? --Hon-3s-T (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

History? From the television crowd and in denial? Hurry up and censor the internet.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's check it: your first source does not state that Libyan prostests were any different from the Egyptian (actually Libya is not mentioned in the article at all), your next source claims that America is [as of March 15] looking to ways for funding opposition from Gaddaffi's assets, not funding them, and the Grauniad's article says the SAS soldiers were arrested by rebels, not engineering their uprising. This leaves us with a conspiracionist blog without any credentials whatsover and an article from the "Mass Voice of the American Party of Labor", reprinted from a British tabloid. If you are attempting to make some original research, you certainly should check sources more carefully.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Egyptian protests, after Tunisia, were inspired by peaceful martyers and the grassroots which followed. In Libya the 2011 root inspiration in this article cites individuals who broke into buildings and caused vandalism. Difference. Concerning the SAS, it was a reference to an event highlighting special operations in the country well before the intervention. Pro-Sarkozy intelligence wings might also be noted for their involvement pre-intervention. Everyone knows the Neo Con establishment was unprepared and caught flat footed by the Middle East revolt, and opportuned it to go after Libya. The sources support such. This is an engineered uprising.

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This alleged "difference" is not supported by sources you gave. Concerning the SAS, the reference mentions not a special operation but a failed diplomatic mission to the rebels, where SAS soldiers - eight, not hundreds - were escorting a British diplomat. The only source supporting that the Libyan uprising was engineered is a very dubious blog, by a conspiracy theorist of undetermined reliability. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. If intelligence agencies don't dispatch their covert operations, they didn't happen. :/

Petey Parrot (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

*If reliable sources didn't report it, it might as well not have happened. That is what you mean, yes? =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What he means is what place does this have in this article? You need a reliable source comparing the two events. By the way sources four and five do not count as reliable sources and the the second is an iReporter sort of site so it's dubious. Christian Science Moniter, on the other hand, I have found to be an exceptionally good source of news. The Guardian is cool too. We don't censor stuff here. Please check WP:NOTCENSORED (except for things like goatse). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Much respect for all those large-cap sources. But even they don't report everything, and get it wrong sometimes. The Daily Mail and Sky News, for example, among others, reported a Libyan government plane was shot down over Benghazi when it fact the rebels shot down their own plane. Groundhog day at the old media, Sir?

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Well they can make mistakes, but if you want to wiki, you gotta use our "old media", this new fangled media of yours is just too dern unreliable most of the time I'm afraid. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WMDs.

Petey Parrot (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but irrelevant here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fog of war?--Hon-3s-T (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That too, many people really don't realise just how common friendly fire is. Sad reality of war. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here again that one source which states that "We [the United States] are looking the possibility of release for a portion of the assets of the Libyan regime of more than $ 32 billion" is actually contradictory with the assertion that we are already funding the rebels, and if the British SAS is getting detained trying to make contact with them...seems a little funny to say that western intelligence "engineered" the rebellion that detained their representatives?

I'm tempted to put these citations back into the article specifically to indicate how uninvolved and incompetent western intelligence is. But that would be what they want you to think! Equilibrium007 (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Political reactions

International condemnation

China and Russia, which had abstained from the UNSC vote, expressed "regret" over the strikes. India and Venezuela also expressed reservations. Amr Moussa, the head of The Arab League, expressed great concern over civilians, clearly defining his position as supporting the UN resolution but not a bombing campaign.

Russia, China, India, Venezeula, the Arab League and others would condemn the bombings, including Turkey, whose defense hierachy would single out French leadership for ignoring NATO alliances, which was left divided and split over the operation. Russian Prime Minster Vladimir Putin described the intervention as similar to "mediaeval calls for crusades", and the UN resolution itself as "defective and flawed".

Former Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Koštunica's Democratic Party of Serbia, along with the Serbian Radical Party, urged condemnation.

NATO members Germany and Poland refused to cooperate, while Malta and Cyprus denied access to their airports for coalition forces.

Protests

The have been protests against the bombing campaign in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., Boston, London, Athens, Belgrade, Moscow, Spain, and Minnesota. The ANSWER Coalition is organizing demonstrations across the US in opposition to the intervention.

In Moscow, the Nashi youth set up pickets outside the U.S., French, and British embassies, as well as the NATO mission.

Political reactions and fallout

Polling in the run-up in France showed a majority opposition to intervention, as well as in the United States, where it was as high as 74% according to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation. After the initial bombing, a British poll concluded only 35% supported the military action.

France

It was believed the operation would result in an electoral boost for French President Nicholas Sarkozy and the UMP, but in the first test his party collapsed in local elections held over the weekend the operation began.

United States

In the United States, critics, along with federal politicians, called for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

Congressional leadership, including House Majority Leader John Boehner and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, called on President Obama to come to Congress, expressing dissatisfaction, along with Chairman of the Democratic House Caucus John Larson.

Both Democratic and Republican congressional representatives voiced opposition, dissent, Congressional emergency session advocation, and constitutional concerns over the operation and bombings, including Justin Amash, Barbara Lee, Geoff Davis, Stephen Lynch, Ron Paul, Candice Miller, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jason Chaffetz, Mike Honda, Chris Gibson, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Walter Jones, Mike Capuano, Donna Edwards, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Rob Andrews, Jerrold Nadler, Diana DeGette. and Scott Rigell.

In the Senate, Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Richard Lugar warned Obama of getting in over his head, urging Congressional debate and approval. Mark Begich John Barrasso, Richard Shelby, Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Joe Manchin, Jim Webb, and Ron Johnson expressed opposition and concerns, questioning the U.S. interests and involvement in the operation and bombings while believing it was not the country's role.

Petey Parrot (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All this stuff is really more for the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So incorporate it there, don't delete it. That seems to be your pro-intervention page, leaving out many details of condemnation and dissent.

Zdravstvuj, Willkommen, Bonjour, Hello, Hola, 你好, Hej, السلام عليكم, Ciao...

Petey Parrot (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about deleting it. My pro-intervention page? O_O Actually it would go better in Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya. We'll probably have an international reaction article to that as well soon. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Oh yeah, and the reason you see no condemnation of the intervention there is because it is reaction to Swinedaffi's actions, not the intervention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Yet another edit: Why all tthe ways of saying Hello? Because of the thing after my name? That's my talk page link, silly. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Swinedaffi? Oh, ok...Kaganocidevich...Seriously lacking credibility.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My own personal name for him. ^^ It's very insulting to call someone from a Muslim culture (or Jewish for that matter) a pig. :3 Go on then, let's place this in that talk page. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Hmmm, surprised I've never heard of this Kaganovich before. Awful fellow. How does he relate to the article though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaganovich was mentioned for the same reason that Jew Watch comes up second (after only WP) in a Google search of his name and you have the word shalom in your sig. Although he is right that you shouldn't have used the "Swinedaffi" term. He just chose a pretty racist way to say it. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I don't think our good Petey here would make such an obvious violation of WP:NPA. Hmmm, well it might go against WP:BLPTALK, to call Gadaffi Swinedaffi, but I don't think Gadaffi will care what we call him on this page (many people are saying impolite things of him as well), as he has bigger problems at the moment and will hopefully have more coming soon. I, of course, don't let my opinion of him get into my editing. I consider it necessary when editing to not have any emotion in what you are doing and just repeat what the reliable sources say, as we all should. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1 million armed Civilians

Shouldn't that be mentioned in the belligerents list for pro Gaddafi forces.109.154.3.9 (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Has Gaddafi given arms to the civilians so they can show how hard they are wanting to fight for him? 92.4.111.220 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.166.132.197, 22 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please allow me to make me some additions to the article titled "2011 Libyan Uprising."

122.166.132.197 (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell me and I will add them for you.Wipsenade (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can register an account and then it generally takes four days and 10 edits to the wiki to become autoconfirmed and be able to edit semi-protected pages. — Bility (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

another side of the story

From the Radio Television of Serbia show Q&A session[47] with Miroslav Lazanski. (translation is mine)

Libya and Gaddafi - overturn of dictator or war for oil?

Answers (A:) given by Miroslav Lazanski most prominent Serbia political-military analyst.

Q: ...Libya claims this is war for oil.

A: Easter part that rebelled was never supportive of Gaddafi, and they say he never loved them or invested in that party of a country. There are those tribes and they say tribes from the east don't like them, he didn't invest enough into development in the area, while central and west part like them more, but its all relative because there are both sentiments within all tribes.

Q: Is it with a reason? Are there elements of dictatorship in that system?

A: It certainly is not democratic from the point of view of Europe. But you find me in that part of the world from Maroco to Saudi Arabia a single Arab country which is completely democratic. Maybe Lebanon which has elections. Every country has military government, or monarchy, or presidential dictatorship. Every country there has one of those, and now only Libya is a problem. Let's look at economics of that social revolt, do you know Libya students who live and study in Serbia what they get: they have paid stay, flat, food, car, books, and get a stipend of 2300 euros a month. Every student from Libya that goes to England, USA, anywhere, gets everything paid by the state. Sure it's a dictatorship, but dictatorship where no citizen of Libya pais for electricity, water, gas, where 1 Euro buys 17 litters of best gasoline, where everyone who turns 18 years gets keys of apartment, that is unbeliavable, where one million is working, 6.4 million exist, there are over 1.5 million of citizens of other countries working hard labor jobs. Unbelievable. I haven't seen in Tripoli a single beggar.

89.216.196.129 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the worst analysis I have ever read. First of all there ARE beggars in libya, just not in 5 stars hotels where Gaddafi's visitors usually reside. Secondly not all Libyans are pampered student like those in Serbia. It is true that Libya relies largely on sweat labourers from Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa and that water is free (a way to show the "fruits" of the Great Manmade River). The rest of his claims are simply not true.

By the way, he forgot to mention a tiny thing about how Gaddafi killed thousands of peaceful demonstrators, which never happened in Egypt or Tunisia. Rafy talk 14:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[48] does that put above in the perspective? 89.216.196.129 (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"some guy commented on some general points of Libyan economy on Serbian TV". I don't think we need to significantly rewrite our article here because of that. Or was there any suggestion on how to improve the article here? --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to ridicule, False attribution, Red herring. Your opinion dab is certainly way less relevant than opinion of leading politico-military analyst from Serbia, a country which lost only 13 tanks [49] during 1999 NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Mr. Miroslav Lazanski spoke on TV that west is in Libya because of oil and other economic interests, that mission is not a 'no-fly' zone, but a destruction of Libya military so that rebels would be able to fight Gaddafi forces. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So the west cleverly tricked Gaddafis men to fire on the protesters in Benghazi that sparked this whole uprising knowing it would eventually lead to .. etc - what a pile of mind numbing garbage , like Orwell said about Stalinist disinformation in the thirties - its just a 'line' given out by party hacks - reality is elsewhere. Sayerslle (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

His thoughts are probably influenced by our intervention in Serbia during their genocides (I do have bias against them, yes). He is a prominent expert still, so his opinion should be put in the relevant place. Do we have another source translating it though? No offence, but I'm not sure how it works on translations of things, whether you need an RS translating or not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

1st USA losses

A US Air Force F-15 Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed due to mechanical failure in rebel held Libya. The crew ejected. Wipsenade (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the crash is not clear. The US military claims there is no evidence it was brought down by hostile fire. Nanobear (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC News says it is reported as because of equipment malfunction, the plane based at RAF Lakenheath - both crew are o.k. - it crashed near Benghazi, in Free Libya Sayerslle (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is a neutrality tag added to this article. I understand some editions might be biased, but to declare the entire article as not neutral is ridiculous as for the most part the article is nothing but a collection of information from media outlets, newspapers and other sources. I believe that tag should either be removed or moved to the specific section that appears as POV. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a 'this article is partly biased' tag? Besides, my review of the article shows bias throughout. I don't believe it is intentional, and most likely unavoidable based on the type of event being covered. In this editor's opinion, we should alert people to potential bias. It isn't a giant sign saying "DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE", but it does gently remind people that the material from the article is potentially biased. One more thing. The tag is supposed to be left until the 'dispute is resolved'. Most of the editors on this page have seemed uninterested in discussing whether the page is biased, and more intent on adding new material as fast as possible. -- Avanu (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The speed this article is moving is really fast with bias here and there.--Razionale (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I notice that the infobox lists the two sides as Libya and Libyan Republic(interm council)*. Now I may be wrong but I don't see anywheres where the council states they are a republic. Shouldn't it be Libya and Interm council.? --Wilson (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

withdrawn, shoulda read a bit closer --Wilson (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's at the top of their website: [50] regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war?

A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war? Fledgling rebel government's behavior so far offers few clues to movement's true nature By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

TRIPOLI — The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?

The answer could determine the course of both the Libyan uprising and the results of the Western intervention. In the West’s preferred chain of events, airstrikes enable the rebels to unite with the currently passive residents of the western region around Tripoli, under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution that topples Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

He, however, has predicted the opposite: that the revolt is a tribal war of eastern Libya against the west that ends in either his triumph or a prolonged period of chaos.

“It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist at Georgetown University who has studied Libya. “It could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with.”

Continued at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42207112/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/?gt1=43001

---

Interesting in light of discussions on this page. -- Avanu (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion but the article currently claims it is a pro-democracy movement because of this dubious edit.--Razionale (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Damaged Article - Bias is simply rampant

This article was actually not horrible. But, at this point, I'm seeing almost unbelievable bias in the article. I can't even begin to describe what to do to fix it, except maybe roll back a few days to where it was actually reasonable. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years and now for some biased reason, I see the article describing him as 'Jamahiriya', which is a very unfamiliar term, and seems to want to minimize Gaddafi. In addition, a days- or weeks-old 'government' is being called 'transitional' as if it is the legitimate government now. We have journalists in the US and other nations calling this an undeclared and (at least in the US) an unconstitutional war, yet we aren't covering that. In short, this article is a mess. I implore my fellow editors to edit in a manner that is professional and without bias, and to try to recognize bias. This is just sad. -- Avanu (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well on the part about Jamahiriyah, it's the form of government under Gadaffi. The rest like transitional, idk where that came from. Editors should not put their own bias in, the only bias that cannot be dealt with in a situation like this is the bias of the reliable sources. People should make sure though to recognise the line between the source's bias and their own thoughts on the matter. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". All sources are likely to have some bias. But that is why we have to understand that just because we have a reliable source in hand, that doesn't mean "got a source, all done". -- Avanu (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No no, you misunderstand me. The central rule (as in one of the main three) of NPOV from all reliable sources is not really made for cases like this where we don't have any (or almost don't have any) reliable sources that have anything other than a negative bias against the subject. All the significant views are against our subject. The problem is we have to copy what the sources say. We cannot try to infer this and that from them as that violates WP:SYNTH. We get the reliable source, see what it says and then put it in. I said it earlier (in a way that was apparently good) in a now archived discussion. Lemme fetch it. Here it is: Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising/Archive_4#For_NPOV_Comparison.

While the actions of people like Hitler and Stalin can be examined from a more neutral standpoint because it is historians and the like writing of them (Hell I can write about Hitler in a neutral manner (with disgust inside of course) even though he killed seven of my ancestors), in this case, all we have is the news media and a few experts giving opinions people want to hear about Gadaffi, and what they want to hear is negative. If all they're giving us is negative, we can't really help it right now. If you can find reliable sources giving a neutral opinion, you're more than welcome to present them here (all negative sources isn't a good thing after all). =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What I am seeing is a lot of jingoistic media. No matter how loud, a large number of these do not equal neutral point of view. Determining what is 'significant' or what is 'fair' or 'proportional' is a matter of editorial judgement. For example, a matter of *weight* would require us to *wait* before we declare Gaddafi off of his pedastal and declare a 2-week-old ragtag group his new successor (aka transition government). Gaddafi has been in power FORTY-TWO years. This is not in line with NPOV no matter how many news outlets scream it. Declaring that various governments are engaged in military action (and having nothing more) leaves out the significant viewpoints of representatives in those various governments, whether in the same party or the opposition. Not describing the goals of the various agents in the conflict with some degree of detail makes it appear like pointless and arbitrary bloodshed, characterizing the players as cold-blooded killers. I could easily go on, but in order to remove bias, we have to be vigilant in every single edit. -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine points indeed (not being sarcastic, I agree with what you said for the most part, including the hawkish media (though I am mostly getting it from the sources people post, I haven't really watched TV since August, and I assume it is much more apparent there)). The only problem is that the jingoistic media is what we normally consider to be the RS's, and we don't really have more reliable info coming from elsewhere. For the most part anything Gadaffi says is presented on his state TV network (and occasional interviews from what I've seen) and most dismiss it as propaganda and ranting, even though it would indeed give his viewpoint. His viewpoints from what I have heard so far however appear to just be odd verbal attacks on the rebels, and if you go all the way back to the first archive you'll see it was shown he was blaming the conflict on every group imaginable. The rebels (who though I like them, I don't know what the long-term intentions of their leadership really are) have only stated their goal to remove Gadaffi afaik, without conditions, and Gadaffi to crush them brutally (as he has also said on state tv). As for the waiting bit, it's a nice thought, but as we saw with the Civil War renaming, people around here don't like waiting to see what happens oftentimes. So yeah, if you have the time, see if you can bring the article back in line with WP:NPOV. It's going to be a difficult task though from what I can see. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I replaced three instances of "transitional" with "anti-Gaddafi" - the catch is that the opposition movement calls itself the "National Transitional Council" so "Transitional" is more than an appelation. Equilibrium007 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we call them that when this whole thing started? Does seem like the best name. When was it changed exactly? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it happened a bit earlier, when the editor, SuperblySpiffingPerson, went through and changed quite a few things, to my mind, adding bias, and also changing naming (without consensus) from uprising to 'Civil War' in several articles. They appear to be a *very* new user, but are showing talent in moving and creating new pages. Not sure what to make of it. -- Avanu (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD and read up on how to edit properly before editing maybe? I'm sure if something were said about leaving anti-Gadaffi though, he would leave it as is. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that Jon Stewart from the Daily Show pointed out in his last show was that the United States (and other governments') responses seem to vary according to the military/strategic goals or percieved importance or relationship to those same governments. It would be easy but forbidden SYNTHesis for us to point it out, but The Daily Show (which could be percieved in the proper context as a reliable source) has made the case that the only reason we are bombing Libya is because of their oil reserves and hostile (to us) leader, compared with a place like Bahrain/Saudi Arabia where the killing of protesters merits the US government simply calling for 'restraint'. -- Avanu (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart is quite possibly one of the most intelligent BS-free commentators on current events I have ever had the pleasure of hearing in person (event at my uni last year, so awesome they got him, Robin Williams the year before). I think it could easily be argued that even though his job description is that of a comedian, he is definitely a very noteworthy, intelligent reliable political commentator (much better than the ones on CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc), even if he denies it. So his opinion should maybe be added somewhere. His actual analysis isn't much of a stretch ofc. The idea that we won't leave without a establishing a nice little base and garisson and some lucrative contracts for their sweet crude (as opposed to sour crude in Saudi Arabia, and yes these are real terms, people) seems almost silly to me. We don't do stuff for free after all (sad fact about our country). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth noting somewhere here that Gadddafi was already selling westerners most of his oil - [51] Equilibrium007 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Little known fact I guess? =p We want to make the pink slice larger then (my bit of synth)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Media from countries of involved parties have an inherent bias greater than media from other countries. So maybe more sources are needed outside of USA, England, France, and Libya. Currently USA/England news dominate the article. For example, RT mention of Dmitry Medvedev should be put in the article. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)