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 85.25.120.163 (talk) at 14:25, 27 March 2011 (→the original article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move

Requested move 1 -- to "Libyan Civil War"

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

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

Well, if this request closes with no move, I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out.--Witan (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This request clearly has to close with a move. Not only do the 'support' votes outnumber the 'oppose' votes, but no sane person would still classify the Libyan events as uprising. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the guideline on 'consensus' declares that it isn't about a vote. What does a 'sane' person call a situation where 2,000 to 10,000 people are supposedly dead? What does a sane person call a situation where one side is fighting to maintain power and the other isn't sure what it is fighting for except to stay alive? What does a sane person call something where nations who don't have to intervene (and seem unwilling to really do so) go ahead and indiscriminately launch weapons into a nation that isn't their own? Nothing about this situation is 'sane', and the idea that after a couple of days, we know what to call it, is probably just about par for the course we're playing on. -- Avanu (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly an inaccurate description of the situation. "The other isn't sure what it is fighting for except to stay alive"? Who are you kidding? The rebels have a perfectly clear goal: getting in control in as many cities as possible, calling themselves the legitimate government and seeking international recognition. Two rivalling governments conquering cities on one another, that is a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would really be amazing if those who are so focused on the name would get focused on the content within. This article needs body and depth. It's a serious situation that requires more thought than a emotional plea for a succinct title. We're talking about a simple situation that is now complicated. Most of us editors have ZERO direct experience with the situation, and yet to listen to the arguments made, it sounds like we feel we are the experts somehow. It is wonderful that so many people want to contribute to this article, but if it means that we leave encyclopedic standards at the door in favor of the 24-hour news cycle, why bother? -- Avanu (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. The situation there is far from 'sane'. What I meant is that if Wikipedia would keep on calling it an uprising as of late March, that would be an ignorant understatement. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 08:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why some editors want to abandon a perfectly accurate title in haste. The situation, as far as I can tell, is continuing to rise up. I pointed out a news story below in another section that makes it clear that few people really KNOW what is going on in Libya right now. Yet despite all of this, we're willing to make claims, bomb things, and generally stir up shit. I could have sworn someone said patience was a virtue. But why should we wait to find out whether that's true? :) -- Avanu (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more "votes" for support, but the Wikipedia rules are clear, and I don't see a lot of sources calling this the "Libyan Civil War". This conflict doesn't really have a name yet. It's very possible this could close with no consensus on that basis. If that happens, I'll nominate that this article be moved to "2011 Libyan conflict" to more accurately reflect the events of the past week and the fact that, while this is clearly more than a simple uprising now, no clear name for this conflict has crystallized out yet. Then if, in a few months or years, this conflict becomes commonly known as the "Libyan Civil War", it can be moved again. But that may take a while--Witan (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually some very important sources, like CNN and the Red Cross are calling this a civil war. As should Wikipedia. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be perfectly content with the word 'conflict' instead of 'uprising', even though I support keeping the name as is. I hardly see how this can be called a 'civil war' at present when the massive outside power of the United States (and others) is being brought in, and could easily disintegrate (literally) the existing government. -- Avanu (talk) 12:31, 23 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.

Possible manipulation of this survey. As you can see here, a bunch of unsigned and other "supports" have been thrown in near the top of this survey. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk)

  • Strongly Support The war has been going on since February 15, 2011 and the tyrant won't give up until he has to which we be a long time. Also, some wars have been less than a year-long(in response to that comment). So I strongly support calling it the 2011 Libyan Civil War(see here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk • contribs)
  • Support In response to the last comment, the 6 days war was 6 days long. Samit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.205.230 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The conflict, while certainly a war to the person watching their blood seep into the ground, could be over in a week or two. Uprisings are generally not year-long. Wars are, or are between nation-states, or are somewhat more organized than the current very grassroots and diverse opposition to ONE SINGLE PERSON's rule. It's more an uprising AGAINST that one single person than it is a civil war between two sides of the country or two ethnic groups or two religious factions.Pär Larsson (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The situation has evolved into a conflict between two parties that want control of the country. The uprising title was fine at the beginning, but this is no longer just protests, this has escalated into a full out war between two sides, which are both armed and organized, with limited international involvement. I believe the title of "civil war" would fit the situation better.

-Support Every conflict is a war, is it not? (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC

  • Strongly Oppose It is too fast to define it with "civil war",because many people are angry at Gadhafi's action.I prefer to see "revolution"!--Huandy618 16:04, 21 March 2011
  • Strongly Support This is a war, and to continue to call it a protest when there are clearly 2 sides with different agendas; it should be called as such. Definetly a war. Everybody on the planet should support the bravery of the Libyan people in fighing for democracy and freedom against this madman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.56.211 (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support 'Uprising' is misleading; two sides to the conflict and the rebel side has generally consolidated with a transitional government in place. It is a state of war in many respects.
  • Strongly Support March 19 @ 9:15PM. Count: 54 Supporters, 16 Opponents, 9 Neither. A democratic Wikipedia would change the name. Otherwise I sense partiality towards the 16 opponents.
Well remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, lest the peasants start getting ideas about these 'rights' I've been hearing so much about lately.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Strongly Oppose Civil war necessitates organized national forces on both sides. Although "rebel" forces exist out of necessity to protect civilians from Gadhafi's violence, they were not organized prior to the democracy marches and uprising, and they continue to be disorganized. Also, if this was a civil war it would be between people with some kind of tangible difference other than one man (Gadhafi). The Libyan people are not in conflict ethnically, religiously, or tribally. This all comes down to one guy - Gadhafi and how much money he can buy support with. Ultimately, this will be a "revolution" - and that isn't the outcome of a "civil war". --Sarurah (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2011
  • "Support" Meets the definition of a civil war. Do not like the "uprising" name because it doesn't really express what is happening at this point.
  • Support "Civil war: a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic." By Wikipedia's own factuality we have stated (in the article) that there are organized two groups (the government, and the rebels) fighting in the same country; therefore, this must be a civil war, if only by what the collective community of Wikipedia has stated. 70.112.139.17 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Political scientists are starting to call this a war.
  • Support There is confirmed intelligence that the rebel forces receive support from countries outside Libya in forms of both civilian and military aid. The rebel forces are known to use both light and heavy weapons like military aircraft and tanks. These facts render the situation more like a civil war than an uprising.
  • Support I support for three reasons. 1. Meets the definition of civil war, as many pointed out already. 2. Uprising is misleading. Wikipedia's article refer to a limited conflict as rebellion or uprising. When the conflict is enlarged, it becomes a civil war. 3. Both sides have organized battalions armed with automatic weapons, tanks and military aircraft. Also, parts of Libya's military defected. If this type of in-fighting doesn't count as civil war pretty much nothing counts.
  • Support This is an armed conflict (a.k.a. war) I think it would be best to move it to Civil War. Much of the media calls the conflict a civil war (examples).
Is SineBot on vacation? Who put this one here? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 14:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[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]
  • Support Let's just play ahead, the french are ready to strike and Gaddafi wont back down like always. Let's call it a war!
  • Weak Support I'm concerned about the intensity implied by "war" (especially if the rebellion just melts away relatively quietly from here on in) and prefer "conflict" but cannot oppose "war" given this quote from one of [now missing] NY Times reporter Anthony Shadid's stories: "... a protest that became an uprising and an uprising that has become a war."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[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 [1] vs. [2]) 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 [3] vs. [4]). 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]

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

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

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

That IP doesn't know: WP:SYNTH. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is clear that this is a civil war. All media outlets have called it a civil war. This is much different than the egypt protest. The opposistion already has formed a transitional government, flag, and military. It is clear that this is a civil war. It should be called the 2011 Libyan Civil War.
  • Tentative oppose The only thing that is still preventing me from supporting the move is that the BBC are still referring it to an uprising. Many media sources provided are more sensationalist than the BBC, whereas the BBC has to remain neutral on the issue. If the BBC change it to a civil war, then my opinion shall also change. Calvin (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. What is going now is actually a civil war. To name some well-known sources: CNN, Time, Telegraph, Daily Mail, NY Post, Huffington Post. Brandmeister t 14:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pro-Gaddafi Libya has declared a ceasefire. Keyword: Ceasefire. ~AH1(TCU) 15:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: This conflict had most (if not all) the characteristics of a civil war. Even the language is of war (offensive, bombings, ceasefire, etc...). As the days are passing, this conflict have less similarities with other current Arab world conflicts (Tunisia, Egypt), and more similarities with other wars of precedent decades. What I think it is no logic or NPOV is to wait until a foreign intervention to rename it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Okay, first, I ALREADY put my support here, so someone must've deleted it to support their views. Second, I support it. Don't be metaphorical and say "Oh, it's the people of Libya vs an Evil Dictator Foreigner" like some people have been saying, very passionately. But you have to get real, this is an actual civil war. This is no longer an uprising, or an unrest. If it was, there wouldn't be an actual military that is still part of Libya, fighting another military that controls military. I don't think an uprising would have rebels with tanks, you think? --24.192.70.167 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This falls more into the Civil War category then any other in my opinion. There are 2 clearly defined political and sides organized in a militant manner, occupying the same geographical place, both vying for total control and removal of the other. 13:03, 18 march 2011 (PST)

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

  • Support Well, CNN think it's a 'civil war'[[6]][[7]].

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

  • Oppose Clearly now, the designation of the conflict as an uprising is misleading and ultimately does not describe the situation as it now occurs. With international military intervention now underway in support of the rebels against the forces loyal to Gaddafi, it would seem more apt to describe the conflict as a civil war. However the media consensus is by no means united, BBC for example as of writing this still refer to it as an uprising. Because of this and the idea that Wikipedia is intended to group together information already available and not creating original information i feel that the name should not be changed until some larger media consensus. Richardhunter37 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. We are now seeing international involvement and a relatively clear distinction between two opposing forces, both of whom claim to be the legitimate representatives of Libya. This goes beyond the actions in other countries, suck as Egypt and Tunisia. This has reached the point where it can be called a true civil war, where the winner will be in control of the country. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 17:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support It has now turned into a civil war, it isn't just a conflict any more. It is a war, an internal war within Libya; therefore it is fair to call it a Civil War. IJA (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All the news sources call it a civil war and it is one... Plumber (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Both This event is an uprising which has turned into a civil war, so the title should reflect that. It should therefor be 2011 Libyan Uprising and Civil War
  • Strong Support I'm not sure I've seen anything that is so clearly a civil war than this. Anti-government forces take over part of the country; large-scale combat ensues. This is a no-brainer. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current title is inappropriate as the situation in Libya is clearly more than just an "uprising". There are two obvious sides, each with significant support, and now a third party has entered the picture. If they call this event something else in a year's time, then so be it, we can change the title again. But now, clearly Libya is in a civil war. --Tocino 20:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War had foreign interventions too, see the infoboxes--78.3.217.86 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support If this isn't a civil war, then neither was the U.S. civil war. Jeffrey7777
That's also a good description of a gang war (just a fun observation). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support At least one country has recognized the rebel force as the legitimate government. How can it be called an "uprising" if the popular uprising has been recognized by the international community as a legitimate governmental force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.195.212 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is in every sense of the word a Civil War, this has gone from protest to armed rebellion, this is the Libyan Civil War.
  • Support This is clearly a civil war. Full stop.
  • Support Simply said - clearly civil war now. Not simply an uprising (which by its name is too 'light' to describe the events in Libya. --|★|BignBad|★| 00:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BignBad (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It seems clear most people agree this can be described as a civil war. The common name arguments are logical, but beside the point. Even if Libyan civil war is not the established name it is certainly the most descriptive name at this point. Libyan uprising doesn't fairly reflect what's going on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Uprising is usually used in case of a failure, e.g. the Warsaw Uprising. If the rebels win it will no doubt be called a Civil War. Remember history is written by the victors. So let's see which side wins first. Wikipedia isn't a news medium anyways. SpeakFree (talk) SpeakFree (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know I put WP:DUCK up there before for a reason. Now it's gone and it seems like it's needed again. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Okay, the UN has already launched airstrikes on Libya.. many call it a Civil War, and Wikipedia still calls it an Uprising? What next? Shorten it to Unrest? --65.60.128.62 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A civil war is a war within a country between two groups from that country. France and U.S. have launched airstrikes, so that means it is not just Libyans fighting. Just change name to Libya War.
  • Neither I think it should just be named Libya War as there are a good few nations involved (too many for it to be named a civil war) . This conflict however, is not an uprising as that implies that it was an unsuccessful rebellion which it most certainly is not. So I think Libya War is a suitable title as it reflects both elements of peoples arguments and views. User: WikiUniverse (talk)
  • Strongly Support This has become an all out engagement. Not only is it the Libyans fighting, there are also foreign militaries involved too. Civil wars in the past have included foreign militaries. If is is not renamed the Libyan Civil War, then it should at least be named the Libyan War. Although I strongly urge it to be called the civil war. Jar789 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The degree of public trust in the correctness of any government's decisions is directly proportional to the sheepishness of its citizenry." Benjamin Franklin. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - C'mon people, as events unfold the title is getting more an more ridiculous. This is a war, numerous sources have referred to it as a civil war, it has all the characteristics of a civil war, and despite foreign intervention (which happened in the Spanish Civil War), it would best be described, for now, as a civil war. It's time to rename.--Witan (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - As I look more and more at the Wikipedia policy, I have to conclude (reluctantly!) that it would not be appropriate to rename it to "Libyan Civil War". However, I do feel that the current name is inaccurate in view of the international participation taking place at this point, and believe it should be renamed to the 2011 Libyan conflict. I have made a new "requested move" section below.--Witan (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support By Wikipedia's own admission on the article for Libya, two governments claim legitimate sovereignty over the country, resulting in the "Disputed" description under the "Government" row in the infobox. —Ferrariguy90 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Do we want wikipedia to just repeat the mainstream media's narative? The conflict has gone on too long to be "Just one tyrant." Obviously there are a large group of Lybians who support the government.
  • Support This has really has gone beyond a uprising, two groups of people, fighting in the same country. This has gone beyond a bunch of protests. --

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

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

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

  • Weak support, rename to 2011 Libya civil war, 2011 civil war in Libya, Civil war in Libya, or (most preferred) Libyan Civil War. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support from ext. sources. Andrew Sullivan says, "It seems to me obviously correct to characterise the military conflict between Libyan factions as a "civil war", and thus to characterise the actions of the Americans, French, and British, which target the Libyan state's air defences, as "taking sides in a civil war"." [8] "...the civil war could be prolonged, even halting to a stalemate." [9] ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Mr.grantevans2's comment. Renaming something which has no firm form nor name does no good. Ihosama (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the fact that the current conflict may be the dictionary definition of a civil war is irrelevant. What matters is the name most commonly being used by reputable sources, even if the name may be technically inappropriate. Lots of conflicts could be classified as civil wars but were never called as such. Due to the lack of consensus of a name in the media the current name should stand DigitalRevolution (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If I counted right, 85 support votes and 24 oppose votes have been cast up until now, with the majority of the oppose votes being cast before the Coalition intervention, they have dropped off since than. That would mean three quarters of editors have expressed the need to rename the article to Libyan civil war. There is one more day until the full week passes since the voting started but by all acounts the majority concenssus is that this is a civil war and thus the article should be renamed. EkoGraf (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Although there is clearly more support to rename it to "Libyan Civil War", it must be remembered that this is not the commonly used name for the conflict. As such, the article should not be renamed to "Libyan Civil War" yet. If it were up to me, I would call it that, hence my original support for the move, but Wikipedia policy seems to be quite clear from the discussion I've seen; the move would not be appropriate at this point in time. As I've said elsewhere, if this request closes without a move, I'll request a move to "2011 Libyan conflict" to better reflect the events of the past week and the fact that no clear name for this conflict has yet emerged.--Witan (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: To early to tell if it's an uprising, civil war or revolution. Let's not change pages pre-emptively til facts are in. Give it another month anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support: The rebels have recently introduced an interim government in Benghazi. The fact that the rebels are now officially seceding from Gaddafi's control sounds like a full civil war to me. User:Doeville (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose It's not a conflict or uprising or civil war…, It is a revolution .

(in this point Huandy618 --Sarurah is 100% right)

Plz be patient and read until the end to fully understand my intention plz plz plz

-What happened in Wikipedia during past events in other Arab countries is naming those events protests at first, then uprising if there were clahes and deaths, and revolution at the end if oppositin movement successed in overthrowing the roling regime .and this is a big mistake

Because:

1- many of world events,has been called revolution even after they have failed, and without taking into account the length of turbulant time (for Example the Russian revolution failed in 1905 and was short period.) On the other side french revolution succeeded was long . 2011 Tunisian revolution succeeded and it was short revolution .all have been named revolution.

2-Civil war is a fight between two (or more) factions of population, each faction have own militia(s) who are fighting each other. in the case of revolution, militia(s) are fighting against the regime/army only + demonstration are directed against poling regime/dictator ,not againt particular population group

3-in case of The 1789 French Revolution for example there has been clashes with the Louis 16 and later clashes between rhe new republican regime and monarchist forces, nonetheless it called Revolution Because it is between two forces and not between groups of comunity (notice for example: conflict Fatah- Hamas conflict)

4- one another example : Lebanese civil war : why it is civil war?becaue it occurred between various militias fighting each other upon different religious and ethnic topics but in the Libyan case, there is no justification for calling it civil war (no one says that fighting is on the basis of religious or ethnic or even separatist ground)

5-most important of all (( Libyan civil war)) is promoting by Libyan stete media and regime trying to prove that there are two peoples ,two wills :one with him and the other against . even though there is no (pro gaddafi militia) that opposing ( against Gaddafi militia) .it is just his army and prepaid mercenaries and special forces of his own children

6-most of media coverage for events is in Arab media networks, and not in western one ,becaue events are located in there own region .a prove is 24 hours arab interest in topic coverage that u notice in streets ,and search resault about( Libyan revolution) in Arabic, there is 30 million article

search result for libyan revolution in arabic


7-above all , arabs and Arab media,( particularly respectable and trusted soures ones , such aljazeera..) name it the Libyan revolution. ofcourse with the exception of state medias which designate it (chaos, violence and sabotage …)which are completely not neutral and for advantage of rgimes

8- the word conflict is very unspecific, u can understand it like Armed or unarmed conflict ,even Just tension.

9-libyans ,Egyptians and other feel it gave more French revolution-oriented meaning to call their actions revolution than calling it riot,clah,civil war or even violenct actions. the one and the excat name for this article should be 2011 libyan revolution

Please support the ( 2011 libyan revolution) naming if u agreed with my view point .if not reply why

Sorry for my bad English, because my native language is Arabic

And Plz ,focus more on the content . human lover

Strongly Support: Its a war, this is because other countries are involved. Like with the Spanish civil war other nations got involved. With this though its the French. They want NATO to take over, but that means U.S. troops. So to be truthful send in the French. All they do is talk big and brag about how America is scum. So, lets see them lose thousands of men instead of us for once. Now this is my opinion and mine only. But to be truthful, we have saved France now twice, and we are the only ones in the world to stand up for whats right and do the dirty work. So lets see dem Frenchies fighting!

Strong Support I did a google search for Libyan Civil War and received 19 million hits I then did a google search for Libyan Uprising and received 10 million hits. I do believe that we could change the title to Libyan Civil War and we would support common consensus about what the name should be.Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*'''Absolutely Support''' The Libyan crisis is much more than a normal uprising. Even CNN refers to it as "LIBYA WAR". There are 2 sides fighting each other with weapons. This undoubtly is civil war

I don't understand how it is that the article hasn't been renamed yet. A rough count of this survey shows 80+ "supports" to around 25-35 "opposes". Doesn't that amount to a consensus? Or does it require the survey to be closed first?72.27.0.38 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support There are political parties involved in the uprising, a foreign power has intervened, there are other conflicts that only lasted several months and they are labeled a civil war, see Finnish Civil War, the Dominican Civil War and the 1994 civil war in Yemen. This is a civil war, as is defined here on Wikipedia as "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic." This definitely meets those specifications. 99.231.200.55 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Many reliable sources now refer to the conflict as a civil war, which was not the case during my last vote against changing the name of the article. Also, as the situation on the ground has become more clear over time, at present I believe that "civil war" is actually a significantly more neutral name than "uprising." That is, the title "Libyan uprising" now, with more data available, appears potentially POV in that it could been interpreted as implying that the situation in Benghazi, surely a popular uprising in that regional context, characterizes the armed conflict in the entire country of Libya, when the reality is much more complicated. Credible reports indicate that Gaddafi does retain significant support in western Libya, especially in Tripoli. A regional, tribal, and religious conflict between different groups in the same country may include "uprisings" within it, but it is surely not accurate to portray the situation in its entirety as an "uprising." Contrary to my vote several weeks ago, I believe it is now appropriate to move the article, immediately. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) I think we should close the survey, its been open too long and we have more than enough answers --Gimelthedog (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion there is an overwhelming majority of people who support the move now.Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:50, 27 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".[10] 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]
Not sure why you would consider it a waste of time to look up the man's credentials and no idea why you linked the experts are scum thing either. Looking at this info, the guy definitely passes muster with me then as an RS and expert. One thing you learn about in Biblical archaeology is the great need to differentiate between people claiming to be, and called experts by some, and actual experts.
Example: The Naked Archaeologist, Simcha Jacobovici (who is neither naked in the course of his work or an archaeologist of any sort), who claims to that his silly theories are the truth (when only Hershel Shanks believes him, as well a good deal of the gullible public) and Erich von Daniken who is a major propenent of peddling ancient aliens to the unwitting public, many of whom really do buy his nonsense hook, line and sinker. On the opposite side you have Eric H. Cline who is a widely-recognised expert in the field (though his main focus is on the Bronze Age) or Israel Finkelstein, who, though he has many enemies as a result of his very controversial theories, is also regarded as one of the foremost archaeologists in Israel. So you understand my reasons now for wanting a credential check? Of course, people claiming to be experts happens a lot more in archaeology (especially biblical, where everyone and his dog thinks he can do archaeology) than in something like say political science. Also it's wikirules that we need to make sure our sources are reliable (not just the site presenting them, but they themselves as well). Thought you might like an explanation. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[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]
If it were successful, people would most likely refer to it as a revolution regardless. Most lay people consider tossing off one's government and creating a new one as being the only qualifier for a revolution even if like you said, the denotation is a rapid change. Look at American Revolution for instance where we just tossed off the Brits and adopted a somewhat representative democracy ruled by the wealthy landowning whites. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[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]

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

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

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

Note WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAMEWipsenade (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is now neither an uprising nor a civil war. With so many countries involved it is now the Libya War. noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fellow does have a very good point. Given that other nations are now going to become involved in making sure Gadaffi's shitty MiGs (or w/e he uses) stay on the ground, this could become something along the lines of the Bosnian War and especially Kosovo War when we had to teach Srbija (specifically Slobadon Milosevic) civility (our finest hour in years, in this editor's personal opinion). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War had foreign interventions, too, see the infoboxes--78.3.217.86 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support just 'war', there has already been 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. and British ships, and an airstrike that involved 20 French aircraft [11]. --Natural RX 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this still being called an uprising? Wikipedia has fallen way behind here! Need to get this renamed to War or Civil War ASAP. 90.218.96.77 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Strongly Support

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

2011 Libyan Civil War or Libyan Civil War

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

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

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

  • Abstain. Wikipedia does not name wars (addressing above remark), we're simply deciding whether it is a civil war or an uprising. This is purely scientific but there can in real terms be elements of both (ie. the government in combat with opposing faction whose loyalists revolt) which could usher a separate article into being. Remember, "civil war" plays into the hands of the government and "uprising" the rebels. A civil war not only means active belligerents but it implies clash of ideologies which in turn benefit a state's people, suffice it to say that here, each belligerent represents a population. So far, no accurate information has emerged concerning what percentage of the citizens are pro- or anti-government and to be honest, it hasn't been truly visited either. The apostles of the No-Fly Zone speak of "the Libyan people" knowing that they refer exclusively to opposition loyalists and this ignores the pro-government supporters. Does anyone know what percentage of Libya they constitute? Regardless of how much, just how much of the remainder is pro-opposition? May there not be opposition to both from persons presently remaining silent and continuing with life in Libya? Is everyone honestly involved to one extent? This is the information required before we know how to refer to the crisis. "Uprising" most certainly suits the opposition as it entails widespread rejection of a regime, something that a government (not only Libyan) will go to lengths to deny. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYes, I know that many people support the rebels, but uprising still has a POV issue. When you hear the word "uprising" you often think the rebels are the good guys. Uprising also implies the rebels will win, it is most likely but no one knows for sure. Calling it a civil war would take away those problems. Thus, it is a civil war. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how it should be

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

Even Libyan Revolution (2011) would be better than uprising, afterall the uprising is over, now it's a war between two powers, both with governments and organization. The rebels also hold territory and clearly have support among the civilian population, its not like the Iraq war in which the terrorists/insurgents were living and fighting within an occupied zone.
I suggested that, however, it for when they win if they win. However, there is a difference from a revolution and a revolutionary war. A revolution the event itself, and the revolutionary war fighting to keep the often good guys winning or (may I dare speak of it) losing. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conflict or uprising or civil war…, It is a revolution .Human lover (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do it already

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

That SuperblySpiffingPerson fellow is doing it I believe. You know you can move pages as well. The dropdown next to the searchbar. Hmm, you know I never noticed this, and in my citing of WP:COMMON, no one ever pointed out WP:IAR Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Edit: except it is move-protected, derp! Nevermind, lol. In other pages though, you can do that. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: in the news sources I'm reading (particularly Al Jazeera), I'm simply not seeing "Libyan Civil War" as the preferred term. The issue is not whether we think it matches some textbook definition of "civil war", it's what its Common Name is. Until the greater balance of media calls it the "Libyan Civil War I say it stays where it is. FWIW, Al Jazeera's live blog continues to say: As the uprising in Libya continues, we update you with the latest developments from our correspondents, news agencies and citizens across the globe. That's good enough for me until the front pages of newspapers and news sites have a majority calling it "Libyan Civil War". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Although I do think moving it to "2011 Libyan conflict" would be justified and more accurate, considering the international participation now taking place.--Witan (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a person who makes a study of History, the actual term for what is going on in Libya is Revolutionary War. Popular revolts come in phases of increasing severity which can succeed or be crushed at any point. These phases are roughly described as


1. Popular Protests- People take to the streets peacefully demanding change

2. Popular Uprising- The crowds get angry, start torching things, throwing rocks, and otherwise violently demanding an end to the regime

3. Civil division- The foundations of the state and government crack, with various factions forming. This happens when the ruling power fails to gain control of the situation or else bow to popular demands.


4. War- This happens when the ruling powers fail to gain control, meet popular demands, but still retain a level of support in the country.

We are at the final phase. In history its been referred to by various titles. Revolutionary War, Rebellion, and Civil War. Civil War however, denotes a fight between existing power structures, not an effort to change the system totally. It is why the American Civil War was called such, and not the Second American Revolutionary War. Of course, what the layman calls something and what it actually is is often very different. However, this is most definitely a war. Calling it a Civil War like everything else would be much more accurate then just "Uprising". We are well past that. In the case of simply calling it a Revolution, I would refer everyone to Wikipedia's own articles on the American Revolutionary War, which make a distinction between the political developments (the revolution) and the War (the military developments).

It might be wiser to have two different articles. One for the military fighting (the war) and one for the political results (the revolution) as is the case with the American Revolution ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose "Libyan Uprising" is a perfect name for the article - it fits both the military and peaceful protest aspects of the events. Also, a civil war is between two factions in one country, however, foreign mercenaries as well as coalition forces have entered the battle. So I think Libyan Uprising is suitable. Civil war does not make sense at all and calling it a war means you'll be ignoring the peaceful protest aspects of the uprising. Thanks. Andalus7 (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a good idea later on. Right now, not many sources are calling it a revolution. As well, while you've got a good analysis, I'm afraid it goes against WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH (part of the former). Sorry. =( I'm an archaeology student btw. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a civil war

Editors are proposing a move to civil war but can it still be called a civil war with UN involvement as by definition a civil war is a war within a country? Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Depends on if you see the international intervention as being pro-rebel with the intent of overthrowing the regime or simply to protect civilians and the rebels will be on their own to win the land battle (ie self determination). So it all depends on prespective.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again, the issue is not whether we at WP think it fits a dictionary/technical definition of a "civil war". The measure is WP:COMMONNAME, what the event is most commonly called in reliable sources. Since the preponderance of reliable sources are not explicitly and uniformly calling it "the Libyan Civil War", we don't change it until that's the commonly-used term in the media. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uniformity is not a prerequisite for the naming of an article. If it was, the current title would contravene this as well, because "Libyan uprising" is far from being the uniformly used name. Libyan Civil War, however, is a name used by some very reliable sources, such as the Red Cross and CNN. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support this has gone beyond the realm of uprising, which is usually used in terms of an upswelling of public sentiment/action/etc, and into the realm of a potentially protracted military engagement between two factions, both ostensibly having organized political structures (regardless of the relative complexity thereof). Even with the external military intervention, this is already turned into a struggle between two organized and armed factions for control of the country. Initial outbreak of rebel activity has been countered and now the two sides are hunkered in for the duration. This is, militarily, a civil war situation. Politically, both sides have at least the framework of an organized body politic, and are expressly competing for control of the country. If it was merely crowds of residents storming Qaddafi's palace and beheading him, it would be one thing. That's not the situation. This is not a loosely organized mass, these are two organized fighting forces and political bodies. It's a civil War. Whether there's fighting in Tripoli is irrelevant. Jbower47 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Situation Has Changed So Much Since The Discussion Was Opened

I am looking through all the comments of this discussion and I don't really see no consensus to move the article. However the event going on is still current and the situation changed, for one thing more countries got involved with the conflict and it's hard to say what it is going on, also making early comments in the discussion invalid, probally requiring a realist of the discussion or a no consensus close. I think the question is right now is: Is this still considered an Uprising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.94 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it already

Counting the opinions above, I find 92 people in support, of which 33 'strongly' or 'absolutely', of moving the article to Libyan Civil War, and 28 people opposing, of which 4 'strongly'. There is thus overwhelming support for the move. Let's do it already. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are great, the opinions of reliable sources are best, the naming apparently still is not settled there, and we have NATO, the US, Arab States, etc all getting their noses in the middle of this also now. Civil war.... sure? When the West is arming Al-Quaeda and we have foreign nations getting involved to the extent that THEY, not the civil powers are the ones doing most of the damage.... hardly a war within the nation at this point. Uprising may not be sufficient, but at least it is still accurate. Civil war just seems to be off the mark. -- Avanu (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't go through the whole RM process just for someone to come up and say: hey, opinions are nice, but despite the overwhelming support for the move we shouldn't do it. Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but that doesn't mean it should do the exact opposite of what a majority of the community wants. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish '''Civil War''' and the Russian '''Civil War''' had foreign intervention. So your point? Thanks, Steve T. R.! --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avanu's central point was about the reliable sources I believe, so that was his or her point, please re-read and respond to that bit as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"

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

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


2011 Libyan uprising → 2011 Libyan conflict — The current name is dated considering the developments of the past few days (to say nothing of the past couple weeks). Witan (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[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.
  • Strongly Oppose This event will most likely end up with Civil War or War moniker. The same reasoning used in Civil War name change proposal applies here: Wikipedia shall not define the name. Let's wait a few weeks to avoid 1) confusing renames 2) being the one who creates the name. Redirects are enough for now. Ihosama (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. 'Conflict' is an even more meaningless and less suitable term than 'uprising'. Why would we want to use that? Plus, the new article title will most likely end up being Libyan Civil War, per the discussion above. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is NOT just any conflict; it's Civil War. When you have the rebels that have now formed their own government within their country, consider it a Civil War. - User:Doevillw (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Well, we still have a week to see how things turn out before this request gets closed (if I've read the policy correctly). The term "Libyan Civil War" may take months or years to become common, but I think "Libyan conflict" will become the most common name very soon here, now that there is foreign involvement.--Witan (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it appears that it is becoming an increasingly proper way of referring to this (well over civil war) in the media. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In here declaring this matter closed I issue findings next to be implemented that:

  • The civil war participants are Libyan Arab Republic, Libyan Republic and foreigners.
  • The sweep of discussion as re naming 'uprising' or 'war' produced the consensus that it must be acknowled as the latter.
  • There is WP:UNDUE focus upon the family name of the Arab Jamahiriya's political head.SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative compromise: Libyan Revolutionary War (or some variant thereof)

It's an odd name, but considering that it's a war (there can be no question about that) and deals with a revolution (or at least an attempted one), it certainly is fitting. I still believe that "civil war" more accurately describes the situation, but considering the virtual ink spilled above, it might be a better option. I recognize this runs into issues with SYNTH, but hey. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Gadhafi bias

I am concerned by the bias concerning Col’ Gadhafi himself! I agree that he is a human rights abuser and tyrant, but he has had some achievements like his water pipeline. I added to the history section and his personal page a note on women’s rights, his 2006 water pipeline, child poverty in Tripolitania and urban literacy last month. It was deleted from this article, but not his personal article shortly afterwards. I did not condone his nasty ideology, just listed a few achievements. It is unfair to portray all tyrants as intrinsic losers and flops. I even had sources for the water pipeline and poverty levels. Wipsenade (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator Nation Achievement
Saddam Hussien Iraq Roads, woman’s’ rights, less poverty and literacy campaigns
Muhammad Siad Barre Somalia Literacy campaigns
Daniel Ortega Nicaragua Literacy campaigns
General Manuel Noriega Panama Literacy campaigns
General Augusto Pinochet Chile Pensions and literacy campaigns
General Avril Haiti Tackeled the Voodoo cultists and literacy campaigns
Colonel Moammar Ghadaffi Libya Woman’s’ rights, less poverty, literacy campaigns and irrigation.

I don't want it make an obvious violation of WP:NPA.Wipsenade (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note the article title "2011 Libyan uprising", it is not about his achievements, rule, life, ecc. so, these aspects belong into their respective articles, this article is about the Libyan uprising. noclador (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noted your note on my comment, but the Ghadaffi bit was just a posative note on this article, not a section.Wipsenade (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we shall remove also 90% of the History section bashing him. As it stands, the "historical context" is a list of cherry-picked negatives.Ihosama (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, there's an evil term, cherry-picking (it comes up a lot in archaeology when you're debunking someone's ridiculous theories about Atlantis being in Ireland etc). If they don't actually add anything to the article, then sure. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ours to judge - what are the mainstream media and scientific reports saying? Do they mention Mr. Gaddafis achievements? If we cannot read about that elsewhere, we cannot do it here. Otherwise, why not. --Edoe (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the bashing seems to have base in reality. So I see no problem with it per se. But selectively removing positive background while keeping the negative stuff reeks with PR warfare.Ihosama (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it does. So just make use of good 'ole WP:COMMONSENSE in dealing with it then. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exsactly! :-).Wipsenade (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar

It's ridiculous to see Qatar in the infobox considering they commit 6 planes, no ships and no bases for the air exclusion zone. There are other countries far more involved that aren't present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.131.191 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All combatans shound be listed, whether it baces, planes or ships.Wipsenade (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most are listed, but in order to not have the box occupying the whole page they are divided between "main" (shown always) and "others" (shown if clicking). The "main" are supposed to be the most involved in any given conflict. The number is arbitrary but it is usually 4 or 5. Now, going by the article on the no-fly zone, we have the following numbers for committed forces:
United States: Several planes (no number given), 11 ships (including submarines) - listed as "main"
France: Several planes (no number given), 6 ships - "main"
United Kingdom: 14 planes, 2 ships, 1 submarine - "main"
Canada: 14 planes, 2 ships, 1 helicopter - "main"
Italy: 10 planes, 3 ships - "main"
Netherlands: 11 planes, 1 ship - not listed
Belgium: 6 Planes, 1 ship - "other"
Spain: 6 planes, 1 ship, 1 submarine - "other"
Greece: 1 plane, 1 ship, 1 helicopter - "other"
Romania: 1 ship - not listed
Denmark: 7 planes - "other"
Qatar: 7 planes - "main"
Norway: 6 planes - "other"
UAE: Up to 24 planes available but not yet deployed - "other"
In addition France, Greece, Italy, Spain, UK and USA commit bases.
As you can see, Qatar is one of the countries contributing less to the no-fly zone and judging by the alledged article its planes have not even seen action yet. I see no actual reason why it is listed as a "main" at all. I see also Saudi Arabia listed as an "other" despite being completely absent from the article on the no-fly zone (map included) and Egypt being listed twice as an "other" and in "alledged/limited"; no mention of it in the no-fly zone article either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.28.53 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about main and other. Thanks for finding the Romanian ship for us, I had not found it yet.Wipsenade (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be more inclined to see no individual countries mentioned under those enforcing the UN resolution. It not only becomea too difficult to identify what merits being a "main" participant but the infobox is alreayd so large that adding additional "main" participants will only make the infoxbox bloat worst. Have "United Nations member states enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1973" and if need be an expansion option to show those members.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.Wipsenade (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Updated infobox to reflect the NATO takeover of the command. remvoed the commanders as its not clear who is (or will be) currently commanding the mission now that it falls under the NATO organization.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

42 year rule necessary?

Just wondering. If Generimerica were to invade Normalia, with the leader Normalar Normalfi, who has been in office for two years, would the article say.

"The 2011 Normalian invasion is an ongoing armed conflict in the East Mundanian state of Normalia against Normalar Normalfi's 2-year rule"

No it wouldn't, so why should this article do the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.34.1 (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? A 42-year rule is much more unusual than a 2-year rule, in fact Ghaddafi is the longest-ruling person in any country in the world now, AFAIK. And articles naturally mention unusual things rather than usual things. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Queen Elizabeth II has ruled for longer - since 1952 in fact - but 42 years is exceptional and notable, Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So has the incumbant Thai King.Wipsenade (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to not have in the article afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the length of time a stable monarchy has ruled a country is different than how long a 'self-made' ruler has ruled. England has had a monarch since before AD 927 (with a short interruption under Oliver Cromwell in 1649-1660). So the fact that Queen Elizabeth II has ruled a long time is still remarkable, but not the same feat that Gaddafi has pulled off. -- Avanu (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik Gaddafi holds no official post since 1979, therefore calling him active ruler of Libya is a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.127.126 (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic you have to be given a title in order to lead. Not true. -- Avanu (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So by YOUR logic you can name any public person as a "ruler". Stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.218.245 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghaddafi is the de facto ruler, even if he holds no title (just as Kim Jong-il is the de facto ruler in North Korea, although his dead father is the de jure president.). It's not POV, it's a fact. PS. Keep your comments civil - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion

Category:2011 Libyan War and subcategory up for discussion, see WP:CFDALL. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible criteria for using the term "civil war"

One only has to look at Naming the American Civil War to see that the use of "civil war" has some implications. The North, which was the established government and was victorious, never allowed it to be officially called a "civil war" because of its obvoius bias and historic struggle to keep the rebel government from being recognized. Avoiding issues about the qualities of established government and the rebels (good guys, bad guys, tyrants, whatever), it seems to me that there are a limited number of easily-quantified and measured parameters that we can use as a guideline to help build consensus on what a "threshold for civil war naming" might be. Here is a short list:

  • Civil war - provides guidelines based on number of casualties, etc. Notions of "at least 1000 per year" are mentioned. It perhaps subtly implies that the conflict should be at least one year old. The Libyan conflict has 2,000 to 10,000 in around one month.
  • List of civil wars#Ongoing civil wars - the others conflict that appear on this list are measured in years. Of course, if the conflict is resolved and resulted in a revolution, then is is often granted the name "civil war", but only after the fact.
  • National Transitional Council#Recognition - To be a civil war, the rebellion has to control territory and to form a government with that region. There is probably a notion of when is this list "long enough" to support the notion of civil war. This list probably incorporates lots of other factors such as the rebel government having a "good enough" armed forces, leadership, cohesion, etc. As of March 24, 2011, only four nations recognizing the rebel government.

Can anyone else think of other such parameters? This is not a vote but an attempt to build a knowledge base and consensus (as opposed to the above vote-that-is-not-a-vote).--189.17.38.252 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four nations? I thought it was still only France? Lynbarn (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First the above should be in the discussion above about the article name. Second, while interesting the above points are mostly irrelevant. Other current internal conflicts also meet your checklist and aren't called civil wars. A case in point is the Naxalite-Maoist_insurgency in India and the Colombian_armed_conflict_(1964–present). Both of which actually have lasted longer with more casualties than the present libyan conflict. We don't go with the technical definition of an event - we go with the most commonly used name by sources. Otherwise, the Boston Tea Party would be known as the 1773 Boston Revolt. DigitalRevolution (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Most commonly used" is, of course, the de facto criteria, but it does not seem to be leading to consensus in this case. Words also have meaning and the poster seems to be suggesting the sometimes specific criteria that we are more likely to agree with might be the basis for consensus when "most commonly used" fails.--118.97.164.79 (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done

I know this is slightly irrelevant! I would just like to voice my approval of all those who have done their best to keep this page up to date, relevant and neutral. This has been achieved despite scant available souces and even less unbias ones, criticism from users and fast changing situations. So a huge well done to one and all. 81.129.55.37 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)RS 24/3/11[reply]

Neutral? Where is the criticism against the intensity of the bombings? Where are the African Union and Arab League worries? Where are the possibility of Libyan civilian causalities merntioned?Mange01 (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mange01, there is too much on this subject to put it all in one article, so it splits out into others that are there to cover different aspects. See for example Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya, International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya and the like.
Over all the articles on this subject as a whole, I do think you will find a fairly balanced view, but feel free to add your own information, with suitable reliable sources, where you think it is lacking. I look forward to your input. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I added sourced criticism twice, but it was removed. Mange01 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and the criticism please? If they were from RSs and relevant, there is no reason for them to be removed. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab League approved the no-fly zone on 12 of March, but on 20 of March secretary general Amr Moussa criticized the intense bombings and the civilian casualties.[1]

  1. ^ Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya, Washington post, 20 March 2011
And then straight away afterwards made it clear he still supported the U.N mandated action. BBC journalists asking to be shown evidence of civilian casualties from U.N mandated actions have been shown nothing that convinces them it is a fact - Amr Moussa wobbled, then got back on board at once, that is the story is it not? [12] Sayerslle (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant3: UN forces?

Hi, should the UN forces not be moved to the combatant 3 column? While one could argue they are supporting the rebels, the UN resolution states the air strikes and no fly zone are to protect the civillians hence would appear to be possible justification for 3 columns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous proposals in this sense were soundly beaten, and although I personally believe that there're enough distinctions between the international coalition and the rebels (not entirely the same aims of their actions - which would be more and more markedly seen as the combats progress; different means; and the combat actions of rebels are clearly not covered by UN SC resolution) there are (as yet) probably not enough sources justifying such a differentiation. We're still mostly in the phase "the coalition against Gaddafi, helping the rebels." --Hon-3s-T (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperblySpiffingPerson's POV pushing continues ad nauseam...

I'm glad someone else undid you just as I was trying to. "warlord"? "Jalilist guerillas"? "uprising civil war"? All your edits today are throwaway edits of no value, you just came off a block, don't push it. Nobody will let nonsense stand, here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperblySpiffingPerson strikes me as an editor who potentially could bring an interesting and educational view of things to this page, but I hope they might start by simply giving us a story or a few paragraphs about why they have these views that the majority of others (in the West at least) seem to entirely lack. I agree that they need to learn to work with others a little better :)
I just hope the lesson gets learned before we lose them as a fellow editor due to Superbly's incredible zealousness. -- Avanu (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're not 'Gaddafi's' Air Defences, they're the Libyan Arab Republic's air defences

It's an entire community that's standing up to the aggression of the saboteurs, not to be conflated with the name of one family or one person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Why do all his cult of personality followers shout that slogan the whole time then '..muammar,..libya' thats all you need - why do they not shout with you 'its us, the entire community, not to be conflated with the name of one family, or one person..libya.. thats all you need,' Superbly Spliffing Person? How wrong can a person be? 92.4.54.195 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya's air defences. The country hasn't been known as the Libyan Arab Republic for quite some time; I am surprised you didn't know that.

Rebel plane shot down

I am considering a RFC for this because I think that the Rebel plane shoot down is notable yet it continues to get excluded and castrated in content.

I think it is notable because

  • 1: lots of reliable sources reported on the event (also,the photo is also used often on TV News background imagery)[13][14][15][16][17]
  • 2: its the only info for Readers disclosing that the Rebels have planes,
  • 3: it is the only incident where REBELS are claimed to have violated the no fly zone;

Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reported in several other articles, so it not being given greater prominence here isn't so much of an issue, but I would support your view in this. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's ok to give this incident it's own header in the article. It was just a passing event that didn't have any later implications. -- Rafy talk 16:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rafy - Kim Sengupta , The Independents excellent journalist commented on it as a tragic example of the indiscipline and ineptitude of the rebels but in the broad sweep of events , it is just a passing, regrettable , loss. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is but one element in the conflict, a small one at that. Friendly fire is a frequent result in warfare, the only reason this got much attention is because of some absolutely fabulous photography of the incident. It being mentioned in the article via a one line statement is sufficient in my mind. It certainly doesn't need it's own section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, its only incident of using airplane after UN declaration of no-fly zone. Since that Galeb was destroyed on the ground. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be mentioned. Giving it an entirely different section is silly. SDY (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which section and/or sub-section do you think it should go in? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should stay in the timeline. The picture is however spectacular and should be included in the main article as to show the amount of confusion and lack of coordination on the rebel's side. -- Rafy talk 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, that is a reasonable way to do it. It fits in pretty well now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eman al-Obaidi

Hi. I started an article about Eman al-Obaidi. I do not know if it can be covered in this article. -- Youssef (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brega and Ras Lanuf

Pro-democracy fighters now say they have moved past Brega further to the west. And that they are heading towards Ras Lanuf - another oil-rich town.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.178.102 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source for this? 92.4.114.187 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda, LIFG and mercenaries

User noclador keeps reverting information based on reliable source. This article [18] clearly states that LIFG and Al-Qaeda are involved (LIFG is well-known for its longtime activity in the area and please note that i put Al-Qaeda in "Limited/Alleged" section). Also, all reports of mercenaries on Gaddafi side are based on rebel claims and little else so they should be considered "Limited/Alleged" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles around that clearly state that western journalists have seen mercenaries with their passports/id cards...either dead (in army unifroms) or alive and apprehended by rebel forces! --Pranav (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles claiming Gaddafi bombed peaceful crowds and not a single picture of numerous airstrike victims yet))) There are plenty of articles claiming rebels were arresting any dark-skinned person without any evidence (there are even claims of outright massacres of dark-skinned people in Eastern Libya). Even if someone seen foreign passport on some dead body this makes "alleged" mercenary involvement "limited" at most.
The sources says "... he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya."; it does nowhere say that either LIFG or Al-Qaeda are active as an organization in Libya, nor that they are involved with the Libyan uprising, nor that the "some of them" are actually members of LIFG or Al-Qaeda. You are misquoting. noclador (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source says "...HE had recruited" these men. They are not all of the LIFG manpower, it's just HIS men. And he himself is depicted as rebel LEADER. You really should read LIFG article to know more; and please check this [19] for some further insight. Also, al-Qaeda pillaging military arsenals qualifies at least as "limited" involvement as well.
Exactly - they were probably members of Al Qaeda in the past - that doesnt mean Al Qaeda is actually fighting Gaddafi nor does it mean that Al Qaeda is organising in any way in Libya! Also the eastern parts of Libya have had a terror history, there have been people from around these areas who have taken up arms and joined terror cells abroad, but that once again doesn't mean Al Qaeda is in Libya itself! I think the rebel council is the organiser and the main party from the rebel side, and thats all to it!--Pranav (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So how can al-Qaeda pillage these arsenals (as article claims) while not being there? :D
As far as the mercenary condition is concerned, alleged and limited is a term we cannot use. There have been enough articles from many respected organisations and media outlets on finidng credible information that rebels had captured "merceneries for sure" and it was not planted evidence. And furthermore these very media outlets are the ones that also reported on "the sense of insecurity thats leading to any dark colored person being captured" and "such people being massacred" - so lest you wanna say these media outlets have gone crazy - you are welcomed too - but all they say is that both sides are making mistakes, and gaddafi IS using mercs! In fact Gaddaffi has had mercenaries from ages in his army! And there was this commander who controls them all, read an article.--Pranav (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, alleged or limited is exact term to be used regarding the mercenaries. Anything without firm proof is "alleged". Anything under a few hundred is "limited". Referenced articles use terms "alleged" and "suspected" as well. So there is no firm proof of significant mercenary numbers on Gaddafi side, and thats all to it!

Well, since there are no more sensible arguments, i'm putting my edits back (this time LIFG goes into the "limited" section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no discussion anymore, because your edits are factually wrong and will never get into the article. the claim you make that LIFG al-Qaeda have a "limited" role in the Libyan uprising is NOT supported by the source you give and actually flat out denied by the original article, on which the telegraph article is based. noclador (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then all these claims about the mercenaries are equally "NOT supported by the sources given", as all of them only repeat unproven claims of the rebels and offshore anti-Gaddafi organisations; they're no more credible than Gaddafi speeches! If you trust them about the mercs and don't trust official Tripoli about al-Qaeda then you're BIASED here. Also as i said, the articles use terms "alleged" and "suspected" in abundance, and the last one mostly deals with possible immunity 'from prosecution for war crimes' and nothing more. So i'm putting this edit back again as you didn't answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the original article

[20] if one reads the original article, one can see that the writer at the telegraph did a horrible, sloppy crap work! The original article has interviews with people in Derna and a much longer chat with al Hasadi; and nowhere it says that he has ties to al-Qaeda, it says he wasn't in Guantanamo, it doesn't say he is a rebel leader, it says there is no al-Qaeda active in Libya, it says that Gaddafi himself claimed that al Hasadi was a member of al-Qaeda, also al Hasadi condemns the September 11 attacks and condemns bombings against civilians, it says that only a few of the 25 fighters that went to Iraq returned and half of the article is dedicated to other persons in Derna (a member of the rebels, an Iman, an Italian nun, an officer), who all deny that al-Qaeda is active in Derna. noclador (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original article states that famous terrorist and jihadist is in charge there, no matter what he says; btw he says things like "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, lets see: what is wrong in your last statement: 'The original article states that famous terrorist and jihadist is in charge there, famous terrorist = wrong, jihadist= wrong, in charge there= wrong. regarding "and are fighting against the invader" - it doesn't say where - so you conclude this is Libya?? lets make this simples: stop adding wrong information to the article. EOD. noclador (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
famous terrorist and jihadist = true "fought in Afghanistan, caught in Peshawar, handed over to the Americans, held a few months in Islmabad", "sent 25 mujahideen in Iraq", calls al-Qaeda "good muslims". in charge there = true, rebel minister quoted him as such several times. "fighting in libya" - i can conclude this, as the part about al-Qaeda pillaging military arsenals is absent in the original article but present in Telegraph as a quote of Chadian president. And pillaging an arsenal IS military involvement, so al-Qaeda has to be mentioned in "limited" section at least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it was Gaddafis deputy foreign minister Khaled Kaim who said he is a rebel leader; as for the first part of your statement: that's just your conclusions, as to what constitutes a "famous terrorist" and "jihadist". as for pillaging weapons depots: Idriss Déby is one of Gaddafis closest allies and actually came to power with Gaddafis help. Do you think he is a serious source??? noclador (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's no less serious than any anti-Gaddafi source without factual proof, so please either stop removing it, or delete any mercenary reference as well! Wasn't wikipedia supposed to be NEUTRAL? As for LIFG, as you see, i'm not putting them back YET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.136.241 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it, hehe. One source is as good as another to me; besides it's so cool to see al-Qaeda and NATO on the same side (again) 217.64.195.236 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vandalism, noclador! If Egypt and Tunisia are mentioned as "Limited/Alleged" belligerent, then al-Qaeda should be there too! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're the only one, who says so. What is your source for that? It says it nowhere in your article. Egypt is delivering weapons to the Rebels and has sent Special Forces to train the rebels; actually Tunesia has done neither of that; so Tunesia needs to be taken out here. However regarding al-Qeda there is 0 proof that they fight with the rebels. If I find an article that says some of a former group of 25 Russians are fighting with Gaddafi, then we add the Russian federation to Gaddafis allies - is that ok with you?? noclador (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pillaging military arsenal is act of war! These were bombed by Libyan planes and some of them were lost in the process, that's called FIGHTING! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
will you respond to arguments above or just continue coming up with new and personal opinions all the time? noclador (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sensible arguments above. The details of Egyptian involvement are unclear as well; that's why it has been put into the alleged section. And your talk about some russians is pathetic; there are well-documented examples of british and us citizens fighting for Taliban as individuals, that doesn't mean yet another Civil War 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is the point! even if some british and us citizens fight for the Taliban, that doesn't mean we add the USA and UK as limited co-belligerents to the Taliban. so why add al-Qaeda? noclador (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was referenced in the source as an organisation, not as individuals or split/former members. 85.25.120.163 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly ;) 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

show me that line. noclador (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here: "as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries" [21]. You can google "Idriss Deby"+"al-Qaeda" to get similar result (and more) in other sources. 77.45.136.241 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and where does it say in this line that al-Qaeda is collaborating with the rebels? noclador (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why it is so necessary or where it is said that ALL anti-Gaddafi forces are collaborating (small western berber towns for example, btw they appear to me as much better fighters than eastern libyans). It is said al-Qaeda attacked Gaddafis military assets, that's enough to put them into the box. 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
because to put in the box without a source stating "al-Qaeda (as an organization) is collaborating with the rebels" or "al-Qaeda attacked Gaddafi forces/bases/troops" (which it doesn't say in the line!), you put some original research and conclusions YOU made into the article! and this is absolutely not allowed on wikipedia. (see: Wikipedia:No original research). Therefore I suggest you remove al-Qaeda from the article. noclador (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear statement about the organised terrorists pillaging military installations is NOT original research! No more than suspected infiltration of egyptian special forces (never seen by anybody). Gaddafis allegations about al-Qaeda backing the protesters is NOT original research! If you don't know what's allowed in wikipedia you should not mess with it! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An as i said, therefore al-Qaeda should be mentioned exactly as "Gaddafi black mercenaries" are mentioned: either put them BOTH as primary combatants, or move them BOTH into the respective limited/alleged sections, or remove them BOTH! 77.45.136.241 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"pillaging military installations", didn't you say all the time they were cooperating with the rebels??? and Gaddafis claims - propaganda/fringe theories; and it's not backed up by any reputable source. and please moderate your tone. noclador (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, he didnt say that and rebel claims = propaganda/fringe theories as well, and they not backed by any reputable source 95.32.159.217 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77.45.136.241 at least get an account before you start with your rhetoric. Tunisia is allowing volunteers to flood Libya and Egypt is supplying and training the rebels! Egypt has had a very shaky relationship with Gaddafi you see ever since the peace treaty with Israel! Now as far as this al-qaeda goes, are you dumb - do you actually think that the rebels are so dumb as to take in al-qaeda support and then ask the west to help them get rid of gaddafi and get in place a no-fly zone.Also are you dumb as to not see that, France and USA and UK, all scared as sh*& from Al Qaeda wouldnt have evaluated this question before, or also the question of arsenals getting into hands of Al Qaeda which can then carry them through "porous" borders of Libya to African countries and take out "US/Western" targets. Hell they must have. They sure don't want an Al Qaeda fallout like in Afghanistan (see Charlie Wilson's War). Just get over it...there is no AL QAEDA HERE! Thats the consensus...its you vs Many who dont stand by this topic!...AND DONT MAKE CHANGES....GET THAT...WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT FAIR AND SQUARE! and also PLEEASSEE get us more sources if you are so keen as to this AL qaeda thing --Pranav (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All i see everything you mention is equally unconfirmed. At least president of Chad is not an anonymous source like those telling about the egyptian role. 85.25.120.163 (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NPA, because those attacks really harm any argument you try to make. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look, it is worth noting that Al Qaeda would like to support the rebellion and has done so verbally. But it is also worth noting that they cannot, because they have no foothold in Libya worth mentioning. So this isn't terribly relevant to the article. Al Qaeda has about the same notability as Hugo Chavez in this, they both made an announcement and left it at that. Al Qaeda is just afraid they're going to lose such popular backing as they once had in the Arab world, because people woke up and realized they don't need religious fanaticism to stand up to the tyrants. This will be relevant in Al Qaeda's article, most likely under the heading "decline", but it isn't more than a footnote in this one. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

  • Adding Saudi Arabia to the list of parties to the no-fly zone is getting too ahead of ourselves. There has not been any firm commitments and this page will go beyond its capacity if it starts off with a "proposed particpation" section - like the military intervention page.
  • Even the 2011 Military intervention page - does not have Saudi Arabia in it.
  • The link provided also just states that nations that might help in the no fly zone include Saudi Arabia --> But ever since there have been "0" confirmations on it, no comments either!
  • Please delete Saudi Arabia for now!

--Pranav (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli Shock: Libyan minders Snatch 'Rape Victim'

Where should this dramatic event be included ?

In short: Libyan woman from Benghazi is picked up at a checkpoint in the city. Gets shackled, tortured and gang raped by 15 men for two days because she is from Benghazi. Neighbors in the area helped her to escape. She burst into the breakfast room of one of two hotels where the international journalists stay. Police minders waded in, smashing a camera and pointing a gun towards the journalists trying to speak to her. The police minders tried to physically shut her up. 15 minutes later she was dragged out to car. Electron9 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

already done: Iman al-Obeidi noclador (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link from 2011 Libyan uprising perhaps? Electron9 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a farce 217.64.195.236 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Move requests

Can we move request protect this page or something? Or at least take the move request tag off the article since it's been there for a month? A user above said "I already have the template made up to properly relist the move I suggested there once this request has been properly closed out" and I'm getting sick of looking at that move request tag when I read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.salin (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like the article is approaching the point where a separate subpage dedicated to the name will be necessary. To answer your question, the article has been move protected since 3 March; there's no such thing as "move request protection" to my knowledge, though Wikipedia does have "sanctions" (a regrettably ironic name). I agree that the practice of making new requests as soon as, or even before, the previous one ends needs to stop, though the unusual circumstances mean an arbitrary break such as a month or six months is less tenable As for the tag on the article page, it's optional and I don't see a problem with its removal if another move request is opened after the current one. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with the removal. The article is posted at WP:RM, so it's out there for those who follow such things.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan rebels target black African migrant workers

The article at present extensively charts atrocities committed by pro-Gaddafi forces, but contains little information on atrocities committed by the anti-Gaddafi rebels. The most striking among these that I've noted would be murders of black African migrant workers. Credible sources have even warned of a potential genocide against black non-Arabs. Story here: [22] (African workers are one of the most vulnerable groups in Libya right now. Analysts say unless a preventative measure is taken, a massive bloodletting is feared. ... "I think it is urgent to do something about it now, otherwise, a genocide against anyone who has black skin and who doesn't speak perfect Arabic is possible," said Jabbar.) This has also received coverage from the Los Angeles Times. I wonder where in the article's present structure this can be included, or is a new section necessary? Adlerschloß (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check [23] and [24]. These were already referenced in the article, but looks like someone removed them, i can't say when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.120.163 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like Gaddafi...

I was thinking of adding a few sentences on this to the "Humanitarian Situation" section, but this seems inadequate -- we have credible sources warning of a potential genocide, surely one of the most dramatic aspects of this entire conflict. We have an entire section on "Gaddafi's response"... Would it be appropriate for me to create a section following that called something like "Atrocities committed by rebels"? This article is severely unbalanced at present. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the former solution would be most proper. There are reliable sources suggesting isolated incidents have occurred and citing wider concerns, but I haven't really seen any saying there's an ongoing genocide or that the rebels are committing atrocities en masse. Mentioning that black Africans have been targeted and some have expressed concern (the Somaliland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, notably) seems sufficient for now. If details emerge of rebel commanders being complicit in systematic killings of black Africans in Libya, then a separate section or page would be warranted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'warning of a potential genocide' - are there RS sources that anything of the kind has happened. Would it be appropriate for you to make up a section called something like ' atrocities committed by rebels according to me Adlerdross ' - no it would not. 92.4.114.187 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting focus off Gaddafi tribe and back onto uprising/conflict

There should be evenly balanced concentration of references to the names of each the GSPLAJ and Jalil warlord groups.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

WP:KISS, Superb. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have simplified terminology of the nature 'pro-Gaddafi', 'anti-Gaddafi', to GSPLAJ and LJ. The three largest combatant groups are foreigners, pro-LJ Jalilist guerillas and Great Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya defence forces. Names of the warlord Mustafa Abdul Jalil and others from the multiple participants are still seen there in the military conflict infobox— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I'm afraid this change violated WP:ORIGINAL and I have reverted it. I have seen absolutely no official use of the Gaddafist neologism "jamahiriya" (which does not translate to "republic" from Arabic) by the rebel government, nor has the conflict been defined by a consensus of sources as between loyalists of Jeleil and otherwise; it has, conversely, been defined as a conflict between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces, as in supporters and opponents of the guy who has created a personality cult that defined Libyan culture for 42 years. The acronyms are also WP:ORIGINAL; no media I have seen, and certainly not a consensus of reliable sources, have used "GSPLAJ" or "LJ". The inaccurate "Libyan Jamahiriya" label for your "warlord" faction is easily confused with "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", accepted international shorthand for the nation claimed by Gaddafi's regime, in addition to having no basis in factual reality. I think your change is ambitious and well-meaning, but it fails the criteria for defining style within this article. It's a potpourri of original research, factual inaccuracies, and misleading monikers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re. above IP: It is this blocked users IP. noclador (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page for Iman al-Obaidi - woman who claimed rape in front of Western journalists?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-woman-offers-glimpse-into-workings-of-gaddafi-government/2011/03/26/AFhBEbdB_story.html I'm thinking she is notable. For or against? Pär Larsson (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

: already done: Iman al-Obeidinoclador (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a disturbing incident being widely reported. It should go in here somewhere because it all apparently happened because she is from Benghazi and was taken at a checkpoint; both being related to the conflict.

[25] [26] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • As unfortunate a situation it might be, I doubt it meets the notability guidelines. As mentioned for a number of issues, this is an overview article and not meant to capture every element. I don't see this as worthy for mention in the main article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title challenge

I'm just going to go ahead and say it.

Everyone else have already put "conflict" and "war' when referring to Libya. Why is Wikipedia still using the term Libyan uprising? What's the point of a discussion to change the name when it's March 26, 2011.. So many people already support it. No change.--24.192.70.167 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take notice of the name change debate above.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake you have identified simply awaits correction from a higher level of administrator use access control than you have as an ordinary user. While that proceeds to its correction the right thing to do otherwise, is correct the false terms (uprising, conflict) to truthful ones (revolutionary war, civil war) in all related articles. Move the page names and content terminology including section headings and descriptors in infoboxes accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.180.156 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you describe are closer to blatant POV-pushing than some procedural technicality, though I agree that it's fairly obvious which direction the move proposal will go if measured by the numbers. If it's not, we may have an uprising conflict revolt disturbance argument civil war revolution intervention invasion quagmire of our own. Gonfaloniere (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda and Nato are co-beligrents?!

I have just saw the battlebox and acordint to it, there is an alleged involvement of Al-qaeda alongside the rebels and the NATO. Does this makes them cobeligrents? it sound crazy. Isn it?--190.118.9.11 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's BS. Al-Qaeda is 0 involved in this conflict, but an IP from Voronezh keeps adding this all the time. There is a lengthy discussion above (Al-Qaeda, LIFG and mercenaries), but he just goes on and on to put it back in. noclador (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Treat it like any other force. Unless we have confirmed al-Qaeda fighters present, don't include them. If they WERE there though, and if they're not fighting our guys, then it's like the USSR, we don't like them, but they're fighting on the same side as us for the time being against the same enemy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Removed KIA for Khamis Gaddaffi

There is no official confirmation (or) even widespread media consensus that Khamis is dead-could be plane rebel propoganda or more (first casualty of war is the truth) --Pranav (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we might add that the choice of "† as a symbol for "KIA" was a bit of a poor choice. --dab (𒁳) 10:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Image and data

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usarmyafrica/4621394806/

  • The image is under a creative commons attrib
  • This link has an image of a US general with perhaps top Libyan Commanders - now obviosuly if we are able to match their faces,etc and their details and loyalties, it will help expand articles about various belligrent commanders,etc
  • No Khamis Gaddafi in it though!

--Pranav (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Lanuf in Rebel Hands.

AFP reports that Ras Lanuf is firmly in rebel hands. [2] Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/live-blog-libya-march-26
  2. ^ http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/activity/web
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=420982602"