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 130.228.251.10 (talk) at 09:45, 18 March 2011 (→‎Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are you here about the name? If so then please go to Talk:2011 Libyan uprising#Requested_move. Please do not make a new topic. Please be sure to also review WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, WP:VOTE, and WP:DUCK (to see why it is irrelevant here) before contributing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre- and post- UN mandate decision

I think the uprising page should be made "definitive" as of March 17, and a new page should be added for the UN intervention in Libya. It makes no sense blending the uprising figures, troops and tribes, and the international force that will take control of the skies starting tomorrow. Or maybe the page should be shortened and point to "2011 Libyan uprising (pre-UN intervention)" and "2011 UN intervention in Libya", or something like that.

Will readers accessing this article 5 years from now be able to understand what happened in the country if we mix and merge everything? 74.198.87.10 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

Reference tag


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]

A Better updated map

The Guardian has a better-updated map, which is frequently updated. In it, by the way, Gharyan is correctly marked as held by pro-Gaddafi forces. I believe that city should be changed on the wikipedia page as well.--Screwball23 talk 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map updates on Wikipedia are truly slow. Brega and Ajdabiyah should be green hours ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.135.224 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. From the news I've read, Ajbadiya is now in Qaddafi's hands.--Witan (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdabiya has not been completely overrun by Gaddafi, he has surrounded it but not eliminated. Its kinda like Ah Zawiya where the Rebels control the inner city and the Libyan army controls the outskirts. 71.251.112.178 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Want to change the article title?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If you're coming here to start a "requested move", please see WP:RM for instructions on how to properly list an RM. In particular, keep in mind that you're supposed to "subst" the {{move}} template. Thanks!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just great, isn't it? For the contributors who oppose the move to Libyan Civil War, I mean. Because, while the move request may not have been exactly in keeping with official guidelines, there was overwhelming support for moving the article to Libyan Civil War, with just a few dissenting opinions. Now this request gets simply closed and a message posted saying we should do the discussion all over again, this time "properly". Now that's just ridiculous, isn't it? Guidelines or not, a blind man could see that there was consensus. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are helping to run an encyclopedia here, not the state of Florida. Even if there was major consensus that it should be changed, the way it was done was so flawed and messy that it just became a bad joke. If you want to open up a new one you are welcome to. Just click up on WP:RM, I'll put my little notice back in place, others will put the other notices and then maybe we can have a proper concensus. =p As well, this is not a competition between people that oppose and support. It is really the differing opinions people who think it is a civil war logically and want to add it without following the wikirules (quite a few of the supporters), and people who want to abide by the core rules and wait until civil war is the most commonly used term (even though they themselves, for the most, feel it is a civil war. But let's try to not make this a pissing contest between two sides, eh? People actually do read this encyclopedia and take it seriously (whether they realise it or not), and it's our responsibility (which we have voluntarily taken up) to convey the information as best as possible, and that is the reason for the guidlines and wikirules in the first place, to facilitate that.
Also, to Ohms Law, I checked and Libyan Conflict is also popular in the news (slightly more so than civil war apparently), and there is only overlap of about 150 for Libya Chad conflict. Uprising is still on top though it seems. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia can not be deemed serious withouththe acknowlegement of a wide consensus. This encyclopedia can not be reliable for it does not keep up to date with a civil war that has been raging for almost a month. Please spare us the "Oh it didn't match with the wiki rules" for the Wiki rules are very open to indivicual perception and one mans idea of matching the rules is not the other mans... Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This army of editors has kept the content quite up to date I would think. The title is the only real point of contention. WP:TITLE, (specifically WP:COMMONNAME), WP:VOTE, WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH), WP:DUCK (revised), and WP:V. So I trust you have read all these and have a full understanding of what ways they are to be interpreted then in this case? It appears the editors who cited them have a very different set of interpretations. Best to sign with 4 ~'s btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There will never be a media consensus on what to call any occurance in the world, consensus on the name must be found here and not within the media. We must also take the issue of a common name with a grain of salt, common names often emerge months or years after an event take place (i.e. world war two was not called world war two circa 1939). More importantly, 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 a conservapedia and rename barack obama's page to "barack hussein obama" in order to express their partisan opinion while making the excuse that "well, that's his name". No one is trying to do that here so lets get on with the issue. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been stated before though, it's not a full concensus, just whatever term they use the most at the time, which really doesn't change all that often (I'm afraid that's a bit too much in the way of faith in the individuality of the sources). It is important nonetheless to use it for recognition purposes. Did they really do that? Lol. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support renaming the article because the ongoings in Libya are a textbook defintion of a civil war. 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". 174.114.87.236 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would now support since there are now enough sources to support a renaming. That said, I only weakly support and have few objections to the status quo name because a "war" implies that there have been identifiable battles as opposed to one side largely rolling right over the other. If Benghazi falls without a shot fired the "civil war" title won't fit well.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, uh oh, best to nip this in the bud. There is one dedicated rename spot for the article, and we don't want another mess. Let's wrap this one up with a nice bow. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:52, 17 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.

Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons?

(WARNING GRAPHIC) Gaddafi may have used Prohibited Chemical Weapons used on people. Its VERY VERY GRAPHIC. Not for the weak hearted. if you have a weak tummy, dont open it; if you are pregnant, dont open it; if you have a heart problem, dont open it. Be warned. I couldnt take more the 2 sec. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They removed it. I probably could have handled it. Once you've survived the offended page on ED, you can handle pretty much anything. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Is there any other place with this video and do we know it is specifically a Swineddafi-ordered attack? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also is there a news article that can confirm this? Because YouTube isn't that reliable source . Spongie555 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this article Muammar Gaddafi's response to the 2011 Libyan uprising it does mention mustard gas although I do not think he was for using it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the video. [2] Surprisingly I did almost feel the urge to vomit, so disregard what I said earlier. Warning, it actually is pretty graphic. I put a request for the fellow who put it up to give us a sauce for the vid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the video, and I agree with Spongie555. I also think the video doesn't prove anything, it just shows two dead men who have suffered severe physical trauma. They could have been killed by artillery or bombing or any number of violent ways. I didn't see anything that showed that they were killed by chemical weapons. I think it should be left out until reliable sources can vet the claim. 75.177.190.19 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, someone could have easily put this video up of two dead men who died from other causes and is promoting the video saying that the cause was Prohibited Chemical Weapons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been kicked off You-tube, but is still here[3]. I have seen it and it is indeed VERY VERY GRAPHIC! The men have suffered severe physical trauma, like thay had been blown up by a bomb or shell. One guy was also partially burnt up (the black and charred corpse on the right). He was probably napalmed. Chemical weapons don't burn with fire or blow people up! -Wipsenade (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i have seen the video, its sad, sometimes i start to think how could people could do those things, using that horrible weapons. Good for the people that filmed it and posted it at the internet. These horrible things have to be known to the world. Gadhafi its a monster the same kind of Saddam, hitler, stalin, bush and nixon. Hope this sh!t end fast. Poor libyan people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States?

On the opener its states the United States is supporting the Rebels and its cited by Youtube. Should that be eliminated until a better resource it found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooah82 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second, I thought that as well at first. Then I clicked the link, it's a YouTube video of a news report from 'RT', not sure what the initials stand for, but it is a news report by their service's YouTube account. The guy didn't put anything in the way of a good citation though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to all - I hadn't read this discussion, but removed some suspicious "limited/alleged belligerents" anyway - the youtube clip dealt with Proposed Libyan no-fly zone UN resolution and other possible measures, such as weapons shipments to the rebels being considered on part of the Western powers (and Saudi Arabia). The alleged involvement of the Netherlands was "referenced" by link to the article dealing with release of a helicopter crew, seized during the evacuation operation of EU citizens on February 27, which was hardly any involvement in the conflict against Gaddafi.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.:'RT' stands for Russia Today TV Network.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indeed rather dubious. To be honest, I only looked at the first 20 seconds. Glad to see someone else was a lot less lazy than I. =p
Ah, that makes sense. Russia_Today#Controversies_and_criticisms - Doesn't seem very popular abroad. Can we trust it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...sometimes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and this is just my opinion, how do we know it's not Putin (through Medveadev) manipulating reports? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reports that they would be reliable for, would be reports where their generally apeing what everyone else is reporting. Which, in this day and age of 24-hour cable news, unfortunately isn't much different then how we treat pretty much everyone else (especially with political coverage).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RT is not a reliable source for claims about US foreign policy. I might add that according to the NY Times, "Privately, some European officials expressed frustration with the Obama administration, with one saying he believed it was supporting strong measures [supporting the rebels] in an attempt to draw a veto [against any measure supporting the rebels]."--Brian Dell (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is less one of RT's reliability than verifiability and weight. The article should not be based off of YouTube videos. Even if RT is reporting this on its website, the sheer fact that no other outlet (well, no serious news outlet anyway) has made such claims means at best it should get a single-sentence mention as "according to RT" followed by things like the NYT report you mention. Even then it would be questionable whether we're giving undue weight to what is likely a fringe theory unless other sources agree. Gonfaloniere (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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)[reply]

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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 [4] vs. [5]) 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 [6] vs. [7]). 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
However it is still relevant here, yes? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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 Fuck-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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Comment. I like this guy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Discussion

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Among many other sources, Gen. Wesley Clark also now calls it a "civil war".[9] Esn (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which was my point, when replying to 174.97.175.239's comment.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-)82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Insects and poples

Clo' Gadaffi's latest spech, a few days back; was rambling, untrue, incohrrent an bezarr. It seemed as HE was on the Al-Queada halusanagenic narco-drinks to me. Dose Colnell Gadaffi need to see Vision Exspress, or what? I dont know how he could mistake his one peoples for cockroches? It it battel fatgue? I dont understand and need help on the deaper aspect of Libyan culter prehaps? --82.18.197.19 (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was cacking a joke, dopy.--82.11.94.189 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to cite Dr. Montana as a precedent for this sort of thing: "Okay, Sosa. You wanna fuck with me? You fucking with the best! You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You little cockroaches... come on. You wanna play games? Okay, I'll play with you. You wanna play rough? Okay! Say hello to my little friend!" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents - alleged/limited

I removed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (added on March 13 by an unregistered, currently blocked, user) which part in the conflict is not confirmed/referenced, but I'm uncertain if al-Qaeda (added recently by an other unregistered editor) should be retained in the infobox? The only existing references related to al-Qaeda's participation are based upon Gaddafian propagandistic allegations and speculations based on them. I returned al-Qaeda with explanation on which is its inclusion there based upon, but I'm not sure if such an - clearly biased and non-partial - allegation is enough for inclusion in the infobox, even among the "alleged belligerents" (especially as even the reports from non-involved sources are far from being complete and fully objective at this moment). --Hon-3s-T (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moot, by default. My apology to Seleucus, as I was not aware that he was actually moving LIFG to the "alleged" section.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the addition of the US, UK, France, UAE and Qatar to the list of belligerents is a bit premature imo. We only saw a decision by the UN to enforce a no-fly zone, and none of these countries was mentioned in this resolution. We should wait and see who will actively participate in the military operation that might ensue. -- Rafy talk 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it will be just the UK and France that will be involved at first, possibly tomorrow already. I think Denmark and the US can be removed, for now at least. David (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion - if there is already existing some understanding between these nations, that they are going to participate in the resolution enforcement and/or preparing for it, that they could be listed there - even prior actual operations started. But participation in such an agreement must be backed by a reliable source, not just only newspaper speculations.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous media reports citing senior officials and diplomats seems pretty credible to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well - I believe that a serious media report makes just good, if it verifies that given country agreed to participate/is preparing to, even if it hadn't actually took part in any action yet, but I don't think some nation can be included solely upon basis of information kind like 'they are among possible participants' or something like that. Just for the wp:Verifiability and wp:NOTCRYSTAL sake.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard rumblings of doing to Gadaffi what we did to Milosevic (our finest war-related hour since WWII). I think we should wait until we start turning his crummy tanks into slag to add the US as a real beligerent. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed the belligerents list. In particular those under the UN mandate. Other than France, none have actually taken a pro-opposition stance or allied themselves with the opposition. Either way, the infobox was getting so large that it was pushing down images from sub categories. I thikn it would be helpful if we did our best to keep the amount of content in the infobox under control.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the NPOV disputed tag?

The tag itself does not point to any specific discussion or issue, so I think the tag is vague and unnecessary. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "The Liberated East: Building a New Libya". The Economist. 24 February 2011. Retrieved 26 February 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=419438793"