Jump to content

Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.187.90.194 (talk) at 20:49, 8 March 2011 (→‎Fallschirmjäger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fallschirmjäger

Just wanted to let you know that Fallschirmjäger is singular and plural. No need for the additional S in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.45.152 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Fallschirmjager is the singular then? =p Ich verstehe nicht warum Deutsch hat ACHT Pluralformen. Es ist gar nicht schön! (Ich bin Deutsch 002 Student). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Fallschirmjager" doesn't exist. The German inclination is very difficult, I agree (being a German native speaker). "Fallschirmjäger" is both, singular and plural. There is no difference between both forms. We have "Mann : Männer" (man : men), but don't mix this with "Jäger"! That's another paradigm. The English had all these forms, but after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 they lost them, due to the French speaking Normans.;) Don't read Petrie about pots, read Gardiner about grammar!--90.187.90.194 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Swiss attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Swiss mercenaries fought all over the world.--90.186.236.247 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss mercenaries have fought all over the world, despite the nation being neutral as a whole for about 300 years.Wipsenade (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Well, the U.S. has a Neutrality Act, and also there have been times when "unaffiliated" invaders have brought back trouble - e.g. the Bay of Pigs Invasion. When you take away any right from private citizens, whether it is the right to free speech or the right to be a mercenary, it makes the government formally responsible any time that it is allowed. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not? If you follow through that link you'll see the last Neutrality Act was repealed in 1941. All that is irrelevant of course without a credible source saying that this whole thing is any sort of attack on Gadhafi by any government, Swiss or not. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I just read at Neutrality Act of 1794. Sorry, didn't think to disambiguate. Wnt (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be damned, following the link to the US Code, it's indeed still in effect, even if it is usually ignored. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A preamble to war?

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

See the No Fly Zone.[[1]]

The US Navy has an Amphib in the med, with a loaded Marine Expeditionary Unit onboard, I hear. This shouldn't really be a surprise. I wouldn't characterize it as a "preamble to war", though. If (when) NATO goes in, it will be a peace-keeping mission. Police action. Regardless, this is all rank speculation, and this isn't a forum, so...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-)Wipsenade (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...So, when/if the boots hit the ground is when we start writing about it. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't Vietnam and Korea "not wars" and in fact "police actions"? Hasn't "police action" generally served as a euphemism for war? See our own article (even if it could use a few additional citations). Anyway, the leaders of the Libyan opposition have been effectively unanimous in explicitly clear statements opposing such a level of intervention. If such occurred, anyway, it would clearly be motivated by Western geopolitical interests rather than any humanitarian concerns -- let's note the stunning US silence regarding murders of protesters by the Iraqi regime several days ago, as well as US silence regarding Saudi movement of weaponry to crush the Bahraini uprising. This is not a forum, however, and this topic should be discussed in terms of its relevance to this article -- I think that it would be appropriate to mention both the NATO military movements near Libya, as well as the repeatedly stated opposition to any invasion by leaders of the Libyan opposition. Adlerschloß (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, leave it for reactions of notable people in a month or two maybe. Depending on how things turn out in the end. I think that mentioning the opposition is a good idea just so no one gets the wrong idea about what our govs might be up to (if they're not actually doing anything I mean). I left you a (silly) message btw on your talk. :p Sprechen Sie kein Deutsch? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Policeing' troopers as seen with the USA in Iraq?82.11.106.115 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quit questioning our actions or we'll invade you. (=p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really an overseas plot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

:-)Wipsenade (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have been pretty shocked if he didn't blame us Jews for this (we are ofc planning to steal their oil and make their children into matzah). We can't actually put that he's a crackpot without a documented psychological examination suggesting it though. :p TheArchaeologist 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

All jokes aside, we can agree that Gadhafi is not a reliable source for information on this whole thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, he's not a trustworthy (or even sane) source!Wipsenade (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

news - needs sources

currently al jazeera english tv.

collection of news

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

References

Info on US & UK is trivial

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

Mostly true, with one exception: Wikileaks released a lot of relevant information, such as Khamis Gaddafi trying to buy helicopters for the Khamis Brigade, which since apparently used them to kill protesters. Like it or not, the U.S. has become the world's foremost exporter of leaked diplomatic correspondence! Wnt (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travel warnings? How many Americans actually vacation in Libya? Who would actually care about seeing that information? I agree though that this should definitely not be Amerocentric, especially because the English Wiki is read by many English-speaking Commonwealthers. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

How about moving them to International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising‎ if they are not already there, and if they are, you can take out the ones that you feel are irrelevant? =p Anyone object to that? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is a reflection of the fact that, in terms of current English language sources, this type of material is all that is available. Remember, until Friday foreign media wasn't allowed in the country. Libyan media is largely in Arabic, and is/was state run regardless, so...
    I definitely support the idea of moving stuff to the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article, however.
    I would like to say that it's troubling to me, how this sort of subject comes up so often. There always seems to be someone who comes along, at some point, with an anti-establishment axe to grind. It's tiring. Look, the English language world is dominated by the US and England. I don't have a problem with people who go tilting at windmills over that, I just wish that such views didn't have as much sway as they occasionally seem to have.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, few people from those countries, myself included, wactuallyould really actually want to visit Libya (Gadafi ofc doesn't take kindly to Juice), so the info is not exactly useful and the only people who would visit probably know the dangers already. Besides, what country doesn't have a US Travel Advisory? Idk about the other guy, but I do acknowledge, and indeed not care about the US-UK hegemony etc etc. Try using an internal link to Don Quixote with that reference as the display text. I forget the formatting, but it's automatic. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your point about visiting Libya. However, when the US State Department issues an official travel advisory, that's a Big Fucking Deal®. That action has (pretty severe) diplomatic consequences, if nothing else. There are travel notices and whatnot, issued to many places, but a full Travel Advisory is a fairly rare thing.
    Anyway, my only real point is that, given the fact that most English language current event information comes from the NYT, the Guardian, BBC News, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc..., is it really any wonder that there's a bit of a bias? What are we supposed to do? I can't help but to think of the point that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, didn't see the edit. Meh, idk, I mean isn't there something about trivial info? It seems like it's not really something people really need to know about unlike a travel advisory to Egypt or something. Maybe a brief mention or something. Hmmm, I think that a service mark would be better than a registered mark tbh. :p Looking at the advisory. Who the hell is this protecting power? God? Mercs? Well you can try explaining that to them and maybe include stuff from Aussie, NZ and Indian publications. It's kind of like when someone approaches an archaeologist and poses the theory that the Great Pyramid was a pump (this was actually someone's theory), and then you explain that the presence of paintings and that fact that it's an unnecessarily massive structure for such a task mean it's highly unlikey. If that doesn't work, tell them the truth about how humanity works. If that doesn't work, best to call in Piccard (warning, may cause lethal harm to the unprepared) and move on. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I think we should wait until we're sure. Also I think it only counts as a revolution if the old goverment (i.e. Gaddafi) is overthrown. THat's the description I got from a high school history book so I may be wrong 95.146.61.170 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always we should wait for most of the holy sources to start doing so first as that is where we get our info from. :p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 12:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! The Libyan opposition controls all of the country except Tripoli, according to Al Jazeera and the NY Times[39]. That sounds like a revolution to me! I added an appeal for a name change to the Administrators' noticeboard. Sanpitch (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a bit of motivation for the move to "2011 Libyan Revolution" see this google trends link[40] showing that "Libyan Revolution" is searched for more often than "Libyan uprising". Sanpitch (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well when the news sources start calling it such, then we can start thinking about doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few news sources calling it revolution or revolt: Al Jazeera[41], MSNBC[42], CBC[43], the Telegraph[44], Tehran Times[45], NPR[46], Toronto Star[47]. How many examples would you like? "Revolution" seems to be the word that is used most commonly in the mainstream media. We should do the same. Sanpitch (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about BBC, CNN, New York Times and the Jerusalem Post (alright the last one isn't necessary), but once they have picked that up then we can start doing the same. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voila: here is the BBC[48], CNN[49], and New York Times[50][51]. Also the threads below suggesting "Civil War" or "Revolution" are evidence that the time to make the change is *now*. Sanpitch (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very good, now all we need is consistency and one use being favoured over another by the majority of the sources. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "2011 Libyan Revolution"

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

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

Rename to 2011 Libyan civil war now?

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

Only when the lion's share of the major sources start calling it a civil war. Can we maybe put a redirect on 2011 Libyan Civil War in the meantime? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 01:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made the 2011 Libyan Civil War redirect. Sanpitch (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "uprising" is vague. It would have been better if at the closure of the move discussion, when "revolt" and "uprising" had both received support, the former had been chosen. Perhaps that should be revisited. It's particularly embarrassing that readers are supposed to understand, via the legend accompanying the region-wide map in {{2010–2011 MENA protests HTK}}, the label "uprising." That is a very weak term (in English it need mean no more than "major protests," which is how Oman is labeled) to compare what is different in Libya, where the government has lost control over much of the country. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hate to disagree with a fellow waffle-lover and right-coaster, but I don't think that uprising is a weak term given the most famous uses such as Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Easter Rising, I would say that most people think of something very bloody. It might usually make people think of something that failed badly, but there they are. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see from the threads above, the only person (in the recent threads) who is in favor of keeping the terminology "uprising" is TheARchaeologist, while several have stated the obvious, that the name of the article should be changed by replacing "uprising" with "Revolt" or "Revolution" or "Civil War". I gave links above showing that the media consistently uses the words "revolution" and "revolt". Here is a link[52] to a Google Insights page showing that the term "Libyan Revolution" is used dramatically more than the terms "Libyan uprising" or "Libyan revolt", so I suggest that the name be changed to "Libyan Revolution". The discussion above about moving from "protest" to "uprising" suggests waiting until it is clear what has happened; It's clear to me, it's revolution. Sanpitch (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by the sources, and I didn't say I was in favour of keeping it, I was and still am in favour of using whatever term most of the sources use as we are supposed to and which is in fact the "obvious." =) If most of the sources are calling it a revolution then by all means I agree it should be changed. =p TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: I must admit that my only reason for the first post in this section was in reply to his apparent characterisation of an uprising (at least from the way I saw it) as something light was that I felt it did not do justice to either the Irish in the Easter Rising or the Warsaw Uprising, not that that was in any way his intention. I just wanted to point out historical usage. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If sources now call it a revolution, then we should call it a revolution. bobrayner (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the map because I think the classificatory implications of these labels have to be taken into account. I support "revolt" because it clearly means a revolution in progress (and partially successful), thus showing that Libya has not completely experienced a revolution as a state on the one hand, and on the other hand that it is not simply experiencing protests or cabinet reshuffles. By the way, I don't dispute that uprising can have the right meaning; I just think by using it we're being more poetic but less clear. P.S. I see the discussion below over "civil war" as wasted (oppose "Civil War"); it is a spreading revolt and progress towards revolution, and only if and when things get badly bogged down with indecisive battles, etc., do I think we will be ready to label it "civil war." Wareh (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think revolts and revolutions don't have much to do with each other (i keep challenging you on definitions; it's annoying I know, sorry) except when a revolt gets big enough that the revolting peasants/slaves/city (in the historical context) overwhelm the authority they are revolting against and throw off the offending authority. I don't think many think that revolt = revolution in progress, even though the beginning of the words are the same. Again though, most of the sources must also be using the term revolt for it to be the best choice. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 15:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm willing to accept that I simply personally find it more opaque, and in any case we're in agreement that the usage of WP:RS is the real arbiter. I only framed it this way because it seemed above that "uprising" and "revolt" were the two usage-supported alternatives being taken seriously as replacements for "protests" (even if that was true, things are moving swiftly, and we'd need to recanvass intelligently). I still feel that an uprising sounds more likely to get crushed than a revolt, which in turn better accords with something like your legions proclaiming their independence from you and claiming to represent the authentic government of the nation. But I could be wrong about that too. Wareh (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uprising does indeed have the conotation of a rebellion of some sort being crushed (though many historical revolts didn't fair too well either). Revolt actually does kind of work here as I would consider a revolt to typically be a city or what have you rising up against a central gov, or in this case, a good portion of the cities. Ofc as we bot agree, that's irrelevant because what matters is what the sources think it is. If they could just overthrow the swine (I know it's not gonna be easy) then we could all agree on Revolution! TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If most do, then yes, by all means we should. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - what if the most popular term used "by a majority of sources" fluctuates from day-to-day? We don't move the article every day to keep up. As long as the name is not inappropriate (as "protests" would be now), and people can find the article easily, that's what matters.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point however we should remember that most modern mass media typically operates using herd mentality and they usually copy each other for many things. So if more people are using one thing, more are going to go with it until someone with influence in this area decides X sounds better and then they run with it. It's not going to be often though. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It really is fairly simple per WP:V and WP:AT. Provide multiple high quality sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, and alike) that show it now is widely referred to as a civil war, and we should move it. What wiki editors "think" is should be called is entirely irrelevent. Wiki follows external sources, not POV by wiki editors. 62.107.209.191 (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see? That's what I've been saying this whole time. =p Too lazy to look up the actual link in wiki's rules for it though. Thanks! =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did come across articles from major media that talked about a civil-war in Libya. I don't feel like digging them up though :/. I'll let others do it :p. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support - I would say that revolution is a process involving elements of voilences or protests compare Russian Octoberrevolution. That is, Libya could be seen as a revolution in progress.

Also the use of heavy weapons including tanks and warplanes is something that resebles war. In the end the clashes migth have already passed 1.000 battle death (per year), which according to Baylis et al (Globalization of World Politics 2008 p.214) is one criteria for war. Compare this to "high-intensity".

Oppose - Neither side themselves are yet calling it a civil war, in fact Gadaffi seems to be saying it is all over now, so until one or both sides are regularly calling it a civil war, Wikipedia should maintain the status quo. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation on the ground is rapidly deteriorating, my opposition to the change is now weakening... Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Some news channels have started calling it a "war" or "civil war", and it's clear now that this is going to drag on for a while. This is now full-scale military operations fighting each other in a splintered country. bob rulz (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your source. =) Also can we maybe have just one renaming topic? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CNN: "Young, inexperienced go to war": http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/03/06/wedeman.libya.young.cnn?hpt=T2
MSNBC: "Fight for Libya puts civil war on path to Tripoli": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41938600#41938600
Alright, so that's all I can find at the moment. That's at least two sources supporting calling this a "war" though. I think it should be changed sooner rather than later. There's no point in waiting. bob rulz (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Many newsmedia have now started to call it a Civil War.

CNN: "The development comes as Libya enters its fourth week of bloody clashes Tuesday and there was little doubt that the situation had turned into all-out civil war.": http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/08/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1#

National Post: "Libya’s peaceful Day of Rage has lurched into civil war and the regional ramifications are immense": http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/08/goodspeed-analysis-libyas-civil-war-could-destabilize-africa/

The Telegraph: Libya: civil war breaks out as Gaddafi mounts rearguard fight - Forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi made good on threats to trigger a civil war in Libya on Wednesday night ...": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6,500 dead

According to the Emirati newspaper Gulf News, an official for the new Libyan interim (opposition) government, has stated that their official death toll currently stands at 6,500 see [53] for more details. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Al-Jazeera is reporting an estimate between 600 - 2,000 people in Tripoli alone which would make the opposition estimate possible. See: [54]. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go by what most are reporting. With no offence intended toward the Interim gov, the numbers might be inflated and counting the missing. Let's go with what most of the sources give. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up to freedom of the press!!! asdfjkl1234 talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Military equipment from Belarus flown in from Belarus

According to SIPRI Gaddafi's son Mutasim has been flying out valuables from Libya to Belarus and returned with military equipment during the recent weeks [55]. Närking (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a source in English. [56]. Närking (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is another article on this [57]. It's even suggested that the European mercenaries in Libya might come from Belarus. Närking (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

NPOV dispute

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

Can you find a reoutable source for that?--U5K0 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are just going by what the sources say as we are supposed to. It is not our fault or our problem really that none of the reputable sources give a pro or even not unfriendly view of Gadaffi. If you can find a source that does and that is not a propoganda piece then by all means please put it in and some of what it says. Thanks. =) TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it says it isn't a propaganda piece doesn't mean it isn't. They could be lying.--SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's a propaganda piece or not. Gaddafi's side should be covered. Actually, I am quite mystified why Chavez, Ortega and Castro would be favoring this doomed and unappealing cause, it it would be most interesting to hear more. Perhaps their local presses offer a defense. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, based on the sources involved, it does matter if it's a propaganda piece. If the source is not one recognized as a reputable/credible source, then it should be added as a backup for factual content. One could, however, write something concerning "pro-Gaddafi factions argue that (x/y/z)", but it would have to be given due weight. And this is not a balanced weight issue..the "Pro-gaddafi" side of things are seemingly much in the minority. However, I would take issue with the idea that reporting the facts of the matter are somehow "anti-gaddafi". Not agreeing with propaganda is not necessarily pro or anti. Stating somehting different than state propaganda is not inherently anti-gaddafi, if it is based on facts from credible sources. Anti-gaddafi would be unreferenced propaganda that swings as far against him as the pro stuff swings for him. This article aims for the middle ground of reality. Jbower47 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typically the propoganda pieces will differ greatly from our other sources and we will know where it came from. Sometimes they also seem kind of obvious to the educated person. Usually they're written for the more, well, gullible people in the population who are not very well-educated. I know that most Libyans are literate, but I don't know how good the education is there. Well, Wnt, let's take a look at why they might. What do Muammar Gaddafi, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega all have in common? They were/are all at one point or another socialist revolutionaries (that probably should be mentioned somewhere as it's only apparent when you look them all up). That is just my thought though. As far as Gaddafi's side of the story, I think that has been reported by various sources. Here is Christiane Amanpour's Interview with him. We also covered Gadaffi's side a bit in the first talk box where he blames everyone from the US and Zionists (like moi) to al-Qaeda. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Anything in edits of the timeline to help with that maybe? It seems like a very good idea to do this, but I think *knock on wood* that most of the towns are falling under Anti-Gadaffi control so we don't have to worry about back and forth yet. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was the instance a few days ago where, in the accompanying map, Tripoli was shown in rebel control after several days of being disputed, then the next day it shown back under Qaddafi's control. I'm not that sharp on the geography of Libya, & all I know about the situation is what I see on the news & what I read on Wikipedia, so I have no idea what the story was with that. (Dates when towns fall to the anti-Qaddafi groups, or are taken back, would help someone like me determine if control of the city was traded, someone got too enthusiastic over the reports we've been getting, or if that was just a mistake.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved without any concensus or asking anyone

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

Wait, it got reverted. Thanks! =D I was wrong btw, he did put a source, but it was an opinion piece, which is just about as bad for this sort of thing. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, that's why I thanked you. =p Thanks again. I'll put a note for him to come here about the name change. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, I'm kind of new to editing wikipedia, and I saw someone else proposed it be changed to 2011 Libyan Revolt a few days ago, and most people supported it. Now that its a few days later I thought there wouldn't be a problem with changing it.. Gabe896 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, everyone makes mistakes here (and I do mean everyone), though they get a bit better with time. If you look through the endless WOT (wall of text) that is the Uprising bit though, you'll see it had more supports than Revolt though, even though a good bit of it is separated by comments. There will probably be another name change thing soon. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, there were no mistakes made here! Gabe was bold, he did exactly the right thing! kudos!
    Shame on the rest of you for trying to take him to task. He did something, was reverted, and came here to discuss it. The only real issue here is the idea that some sort of process wonkery is required. If we all had that attitude, then nothing would be accomplished!
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I was wondering what all that bold talk was about. Well good on him then. :p Are you asserting that getting bogged down in details for every little thing (like the convo about how many languages to put the UN's name in in the United Nations article or Ofra Haza's name in Hebrew, English and Arabic) is somehow not productive? That is proposterous good sir! {Hmm, maybe I should go and put her name in Arabic as well then, be e-Bold :p} TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic responses

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

Are you sure it really warrants that? It doesn't look very long to me; unless someone changed it of course. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: Alright, maybe it's a little on the long side.... TheArchaeologist Say Herro 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was longer before someone condensed it alittle. Spongie555 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the heated debate tag

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

I think that if you look at the events from the outside rationally it would look like a bad vs. evil conflict. But I have lived in Libya for some time and I know for sure that a minority of Libyans still idolise him as he is the only leader they and their parents knew. It wasn't quite a shock for me to see some of my Libyan friends in facebook posting pictures of Gaddafi in army uniform just when the uprising started.
Also Gaddafi is considered by many nationalist Arabs as the rightful follower of Nasser. He was also seen as a hero by many African since he advocated a unified African political entity (with him as a leader of course).-- Rafy talk 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How come it seems like we haven't seen much in the way of people supporting him even through vandalism or legitimate discussion though? Is it because the internet is down or other things? I mean all the people aren't fighting. Oh yeah, I remember him pushing for a US of Africa a while back when I was reading about the different ideas for continental countries. I knew he was an old time dictator like Castro, but he seemed no longer relevant to the world (I'm 21, so you get what I mean). Hopefully he goes out with a bang or a short drop and quick stop. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
probally because hes not as propaganda savy as other dictoral nations. North Korea, china for example hire people for cyber attacks so its almost assured they hire people to post internet stuff. theres been more then a few accounts on various sites ive seen that are obviosly like that(eg, a procommunist who would not leave me alone on youtube, it got creepy) 24.228.24.97 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone who commented here: If that's the case (I don't really know), please, please, find some sources and add that to the article. I was the one who wrote most of the Gaddafi's Supporters section in an attempt to help NPOV and explain why he still controlled a significant part of the country, but I'm an amateur and the section's barely been touched since I wrote it. If you have knowledge, add it to the article (properly cited of course!) rather than making the points on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seleucus (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Civilian Casualties

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

Civil War?

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


Support:
Oppose:
Neutral:


EDITORS: Rather than just adding an entry in the support or oppose lists above,
please be aware this is NOT a VOTE, and make your reasoned comments and
contribution to the CONSENSUS below. Lynbarn (talk)

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

Comment: From a Google search it looks like most of the (non-Indian) sources are chomping at the bit to call it a civil war. They are saying it's on the brink of a civil war or is descending into civil war etc. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, which is why we should wait a bit. It'd make out lives much easier if just give the media some time. Although

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

(UTC)

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

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

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

  • Support Major news outlets have begun to refer to the events in Libya explicitly as a civil war. See: The Daily Telegraph ("Libya's bloody civil war"), Boston Globe ("Burgeoning civil war"). I think that more fighting is inevitable, as is more organization on the part of the rebels, so it's only a matter of time before the majority of MSM sources start using civil war. As it stands, enough reputable sources are using it that I don't think we would be editorializing.--Aeranis (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The country is now both geographically and politically divided. Large numbers of both civilians and army-defectors have joined rebel forces. There have been pitched battles involving heavy weaponry by both sides. I think it is now safe to call this a Civil War MCQknight (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (MWT)

Support BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12660095), CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/06/libya.html) and the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/05/libya-civil-war-gaddafi-zawiyah) are now referring to it as a civil war.174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to find other sources for that. First two only use the word "civil war" once. First saying "there is a real risk of prolonged civil war" (i.e., risk but not there yet), second: "been sliding toward a civil war" (i.e., not there yet). Final simply notes that "savage fighting casts civil war shadow" and "fear is beginning to turn into a civil war" (i.e., on the way but not there yet). Hardly indisputable sources for a move. That said, I don't care where this page is placed. Just please find indisputable sources so it follows WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COMMONNAME. 212.10.94.137 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I logged on just to respond to that one. Oh well, nice work anyway. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Real risk of a prolonged civil war" implies that said civil war is occuring, the question being over how long it will last not if it is occuring. The Guardian had an interactive map earlier that was titled "The Civil War begins" (link can be seen here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/libya-rebels-civil-war-gaddafi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487), but has since been re-named to "unrest" again. Heres one from the Telegraph from Feb 23 that says "civil war breaks out" in the headline (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8344034/Libya-civil-war-breaks-out-as-Gaddafi-mounts-rearguard-fight.html). That means we have BBC and the Telegaph saying it, I don't personally think thats enough, but a couple headliners would be174.114.87.236 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know it has been said before, but seeing that people still add themself to the list in the beginning of this proposed move, please note editorial decisions on wiki are by consensus; not vote. 212.10.94.137 (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose - Per what I said, and a bit more: While I personally think it's a civil war, we don't have the sources saying so and has people like dab and myself and others have been trying to say, that is what really matters. What the sources say. I ask people once again to please read WP:SYNTH and WP:SOURCE as it appears that some might not have read it. They are not very long at all and they will help you wiki a lot better when you want to. Wiki has rules and it has central rules. It's good to break laws and rules when they're unjust or silly, but you should always respect the central rules as they are there for a reason and give the whole thing structure (unless they are unjust and silly, but these aren't as far as I can see). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per sources at this time. Will Support when the sources change. Right now, whether the uprising has formally become a civil war or not seems mostly uncertain in secondary sources. We should call it a civil war as soon as the balance of sources supports that classification. WikiDao ☯ 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think the uprising military forces are organised enough for this to amount to a civil war yet. Rwendland (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There ARE "two organized forces in the same state." I don't know how much worse it would have to get for you people to consider it a civil war. Macarion (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC's John Simpson: "It is a mistake to see this campaign as an outright civil war." Nanobear (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Situation has deteriorated dramatically. This is no longer an uprising. Both sides are fully weaponized and both sides are engaged in outright war. The rebel forces have even announced their own government. I think it is now tome to move this page. Holden yo (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Libyan Civil War (2011)The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [[58]] for an example. UPI calls it a civil war as well [[59]], there are a massive number of sources calling it one. There are now two governments that claim to be sole legitimate ruler of Libya. That is the very definition of civil war. Daily Record[[60]], The Telegraph [[61]], and LA Times [[62]] also call it civil war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is obviously more of an internal military conflict now than protests. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if reputable source is found - It seems like rebel governmental and military forces are rapidly being organized along more conventional lines. Organization would turn this from being just an uprising to an outright civil war. If a reputable source calls this a civil war, renaming would definitely be appropriate.--Witan (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As of 7 March, there are 69 Google news hits for "Libyan civil war" [63] and 2400 hits for "Libyan uprising" [64]. In terms of results only within the last 24 hours, 2,124 hits for "Libyan uprising" [65] and 66 hits for "Libyan civil war" [66]. In terms of plain English language google search results, 245,000 hits for "Libyan civil war" [67] and 585,000 hits for [68] for "Libyan uprising". If only evaluating the last 24 hours (respecting that events are quickly changing) there are 67,800 hits for "Libyan uprising" [69] and 18,600 hits for "Libyan civil war" [70]. --Labattblueboy (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although some editors in some news outlets are dubbing this a civil war, there doesn't seem to be any consensus among the major news networks. International media aside, I don't believe what is happening in Libya fits the civil war category... yet. Right now it appears it is the people of Libya in the east and west (Misrata, Zawiya and smaller towns as well as Tripoli to an extent) versus what's left of the Gaddafi regime including die-hard loyalists, but also thousands of non-Libyan mercenaries. This still appears to be a popular uprising. It has succeeded wholly in the east and partially in the west due to the fact Gaddafi harshly suppressed the revolt in Tripoli during the first week of the uprising. Analysts say there's a good chance that Libya might slip into civil war, but I repeat what I had said earlier: let's wait and see. There shouldn't be a rush to rename the article and it is clear that a consensus among us hasn't been established. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (closed discussions)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a already a formal requested move for the suggested name at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Civil_War.3F. It's not appropriate to start a new process until that one is completed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today the National Transitional Council has declared their selves to be "sole representative all over Libya"[1], for all purposes this now qualifies as a Civil War according to the definition of the Wikipedia article, that is A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state, [...]. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, further more, The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict., this has been exceeded six fold

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

WP:OR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. It had been said at least a hundred times that the editor must go based on the conclusions of the sources for article content, not their own conclusions. It is your job to decide what from the sources should be included and in what manner, and how good the source itself is. It is not your responsibility to come to your own conclusions about what is going on unless the source clearly says it, or to take 2+2 (material from different sources) and make it equal 4 (a conclusion based on that material from the different sources). That is the responsibility of the source and the source alone. Thanks. TheArchaeologist Say Herro 00:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make a faq about this? Otherwise we'll just be explaining the same thing over and over again. Our article titles are decided by plain English common usage, not by any official definition, be it the National Transitional Council or any other.

If you google 'civil war in Libya', you will find lots of phrases such as "nascent civil war in Libya", "threat of civil war in Libya", all written by journalists during the past two days. What is a "civil war" in plain English? It is a conflict such as the one we see in Libya today that goes on for a substantial period of time. What is a "substantial period of time"? That's a subjective judgement, of course, but usually more than a year, or at least more than a couple of months. Kindly compare our articles on the Satsuma Rebellion (January to September 1879) with Chilean Civil War (January to September 1891). It seems that a conflict shorter than a couple of months is not usually termed a "civil war". Since this conflict is barely a month old, naming the article "civil war" will seem to imply the prediction that it is going to continue for at least another couple of months. This is why journalists are reluctant to call it a "civil war" without qualification. Wikipedia simply follows common usage, and as long as people are reluctant to call it a civil war, so should we be. --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to Libyan Civil War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a already a formal requested move for the suggested name at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Civil_War.3F. It's not appropriate to start a new process until that one is completed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be renamed to Libyan Civil War (2011), major news sources are now calling this a civil war (which it has been for some time) see [[71]] for an example.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why have we opened this discussion again? It is currently being discussed in an above thread which has yet to be closed? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because the information i am presenting here was not available when the discussion was opened above. Many of the opposers above cited that no news sources called it the Libyan Civil War. Today many of them have.XavierGreen (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is obviously more of an internal military conflict now than protests. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but will support if Gaddafi doesn't leave within a day or two – We need to give this another day or two. Googling suggests it is still unclear whether the balance of sources consider it a civil war now or not. That balance is what we need to report here. We should rename the article when the issue becomes more clearly supported by the majority of reliable sources and not before. I'd say that should happen in a day or two - Gaddafi is either going to flee by then or is going to stay and try to fight it out. WikiDao ☯ 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two governments that claim to be soveriegn fighting with each other for control of the country if this isnt civil war than there is no such thing. It doesnt matter how long the violance goes on for (there is no definition of a civil war that requires a certain amount of time to have past before it becomes a civil war).XavierGreen (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for any of us to say when it becomes a civil war. It is for reliable sources to say when it has become a civil war. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, we do not have to be on the leading edge of this thing, we just have to have reliable sources and a consensus about what those sources say. So far the consensus is that they mostly say that it's not clear whether it is a "civil war" yet or not. But it is clearly still considered an "uprising" as is and ought to be indicated by our title -- for now. WikiDao ☯ 02:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Just looked down the Google News headlines on Libya: BBC "Libya revolt", CBC "Libyan rebels", NYT "at War With Rebels", ABC "Rebel forces", FT "rebel fighters" and "Libyan conflict", VoA "Libyan rebels". In the first 100 or so stories only one BBC story uses the "civil war" words speculatively in "Spectre of prolonged civil war looms for Libya"[76]. I don't see the consensus anywhere near calling it a civil war yet. Rwendland (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'm 174.114.87.236 (talk) from above, apparently the page has been protected for some reason. Anyways, google hits don't determine Wikipedia page titles, and neither does consensus in the media. When is there ever any consensus on contentious topics in the media? The question is if there is an authoritive, verifiable source that we can all agree would back up the change on here. Clearly that consensus doens't exist yet, but it is worth noting that there is no common name being given to this "occurance" shall we call it within the media, for some its an uprising, for some its a civil war, for some its a just rebels and pro-gaddafi forces. But the article does have to be named something, and clearly the Libyan case is quite different from the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt (which wikipedia is now calling revolutions, but which began as uprisings in name here). If a successful uprising is named a revolution, then what shall we call an uprising which cannot be decisively defeated or won by either side? I believe that is the textbook definition of a civl war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vietminh (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment We are just going by whichever is used more than others. It actually would be interesting to see if, as suggested up top, we did change the title and all the new sources suddenly called it a Civil War. Might not be exact correlation, but would be interesting to not nonetheless. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 06:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sirt color

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

Actually, it should be red, see [77]. --antiXt (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Press TV is considered Iranian propaganda that sometimes lies. If you look at their headlines, you'll see: "Iran Navy overcomes Israel at sea"; "US behind 95% of environmental disasters"... see what I mean?--Henohenomoheji (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I don't see any difference between Press TV and Guardian, both contain propaganda.--Giornorosso (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're joking. If not, please read WP:RS. 212.10.94.137 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a map scale please

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

Map color/category changes

I propose changes to the color-coding system for cities and towns on the map. Instead of three categories (Gaddafist, disputed/unclear, anti-Gaddafist), I think a more nuanced system of five categories would be proper (secure Gaddafist, Gaddafist but unrest reported, disputed/unclear, anti-Gaddafist but unrest reported, secure anti-Gaddafist). For example, Sabha would be secure Gaddafist; Sirt and Tripoli would be Gaddafist but unrest reported; Ghadames would be disputed/unclear; Zawiyah and Ra's Lanuf would be anti-Gaddafist but unrest reported; and Benghazi would be secure anti-Gaddafist. This would provide a more complete and truthful representation of the conflict in Libya. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the information available is of sufficient quality to allow such an approach. It is barely sufficient to support the map as it is. But fwiiw, you can present a more detailed suggestion on this on the map's talkpage, at commons:File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles about settlements at the frontline

Unfortunately we do not cover all settlements that are mentioned in the news as recently fighted. I tried to find all settlements in the Surt District from Sirt to the east: As Sultan, Mintaqat Wadi Harawah (referred to as Wadi-al-Ahmar, Libya from this article), Marsa al Uwayja, An Nawfaliyah, Bin Jawwad (as Bin Jawad at the map), As Sidrah, Ra's Lanuf. The next settlements in the east are Qaryat Bishr and Marsa Brega. Most of the articles are only stubs, some are missing or only present under different names. Some expanding and cleanup would be helpful. -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet events!

I added bullets to the event, starting with March 5th. Reading the events is very painful when it is all one paragraph, with most sentences not related to the ones before or after. Please follow suit - and add bullets to the previous days. This will greatly improve this article.

I decided to group together the fighting going on in neigboring cities, which are more interrelated, as well as events in geographically separate cities that appear to be a part of one offensive (such as air strikes on Ra's Lanuf and Zawiyah).

NittyG (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to tell you mate, but there was something about that in the archives, here it is. I think it's not supposed to be bulleted for w/e reason, I didn't read the whole thing (lazy). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bullets aren't really accepted as per Wiki style. The prose may be disjointed and inartful, but it's a very fluid situation and we'll have time to prettify the English once it's history rather than current events. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer handsomising it over prettifying tbh. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 20:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the "timeline" format is getting unwieldy, but the solution is not just itemizing the sentences. We have Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising where a more list-like approach will be acceptable. In this article, the solution can only be quality editing, turning the raw material that piled up into a coherent prose summary. Yes, that would mean actual work for those doing it. --dab (𒁳) 09:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds absurd.

I need to see people accountable to reason here, not a simple "we don't do that because it's not done..." or "we don't do that because it's easier..." Also, just because the majority of the active editors here do not want to take the time to add bullets, that doesn't make it better.

(1) Show me where it is a rule that there cannot be bullets for an article like this. If this is simply a convention, that is not a valid reason unless it has a reasonable basis.

(2) There cannot be editing here that would turn something like this into prose. Sometimes updates are a single sentence, not related to the paragraphs preceding or following it.

(3) The only thing I've heard here is that bullets are not "easy". That is completely absurd. Adding a sentence with a simple star at the beginning is the matter of hitting a single key on your keyboard. Furthermore, once things are clearly bulleted, people can sort similar events. For example, on the date I had bulleted the events, I found that the battles taking place were in at least 2-3 separate places, when they should have been grouped together.

(4) Bullets make it FAR, FAR, FAR easier to understand the content. Perhaps those who don't want to see bullets only care about their own keeping track of events, but wikipedia is about clearly explaining a subject to a reader.

(5) What makes the Timeline of 2011 Libyan uprising more of a timeline than the timeline given here?

If someone does not give me a good reason behind this, then I will revert an reversion that is made to an edit where someone adds bullets.

NittyG (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet crash

Google's Internet transparency report already cited in the article shows an almost complete shutdown of Internet activity after about 6:30 pm, 03 March local time in Libya in a pattern similar to what happened in Egypt. See also Category:Wikipedians in Libya. ~AH1(TCU) 01:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tribal rifts

I think with all the battles and keeping track of cities changing hands, the article lost focus on the tribal background, which will in the long run be decisive. The shift of allegiances of the populations of Sirt and Tripoli will probably be more decisive than armed skirmishes over the next few days. [79][80][81]

"it appears that the tribes of Tripolitania and the Fezzan have adopted a wait-and-see attitude" (BCC, 1 March). Apparently[82][83] (according to Al-Jazeera), the Qadhadfa are losing allies, and there is a "rift" developing between Qadhadfa and Firjan in Sirt. This could well be decisive if the rebels are now pushing on Sirt for a "showdown". --dab (𒁳) 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force losses

Have anyone any tally on how many aircraft the Libyan Air Force has lost? Two went to Malta and at least three has been shot down by the free Libyans. Should be part of the "losses" in this article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXOWikgcDpM Ectoras (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even before any losses, it is difficult to establish what they had at their disposal and airworthy before the current events. The Libyan Air Force article is attempting to keep up to date. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes, several has also been taken on the ground by opposition forces, so the air force are probably quite reduced. Ectoras (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they still have of the order of 30 attack helicopters and 30 attack airplanes. That's more than enough to bomb the rebels into oblivion in tactical terms. The reason this doesn't happen is not that they don't have enough planes, but (a) because Gaddafi knows that if he does this, he will have the NATO at his doorstep, UN mandate or no UN mandate, and (b) he doesn't trust his pilots. Gaddafi's Libyan bomber pilots allegedly only fly these missions because Gaddafi holds their families hostage. Which is the reason the bombs miss their targets, the pilots are forced to drop them, but they do not want to drop them on the rebels. It is possible that Gaddafi has some Russian mercenaries capable of flying attack planes, and these will drop their bombs exactly where they are told to, but nobody knows how many of these there are. So my point is, the limiting factor likely isn't the number of planes, but the number of people capable of and willing to use them against the rebels. --dab (𒁳) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report: Gaddafi agrees to leave power if his safety is guaranteed

Link Macarion (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something more detailed: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201138133847222111.html - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need more perspective on how the wave is cresting

I can't tell from the article if the rebels are winning, if it has devolved into status quo, or if Qaddafi is starting to turn back the tide. Some time dimension of control in a graph or SIMPLE discussion would be helpful.TCO (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/ferocious-battles-in-libya-as-national-council-meets-for-first-time/story-e6frfku0-1226016536676
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=417842348"