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 Fovezer (talk | contribs) at 22:27, 30 March 2011 (→Personal Opinion vs. Facts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Is there a different article that has day to day what is going on on the ground in Libya?

I know that this article used to have a more of a timeline to it before the coalition intervention but it doesn't have it anymore. Did it get moved somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.116.177 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: move to 2011 Libyan civil war. There are actually three questions here: whether to rename from "uprising" to "civil war," whether to capitalize "Civil War," and whether to keep "2011" at the front. I'll take them in turn. There is a large majority of !votes here for renaming to some form of "civil war." Some of the pro-"uprising" editors claim there are not reliable sources for the term "civil war," but CNN, the Red Cross, and President Obama have all used the term, and that's strong enough for me. What's not clear is whether this is locked into being a historical term like "French Revolution" or "Korean War." It sure doesn't seem to be. So while it looks like a Libyan civil war, it doesn't yet look like the Libyan Civil War. As for whether to keep "2011" at the front, I decided it needed to remain because the Libya article says "As Yusuf weakened, factions sprung up around his three sons; though Yusuf abdicated in 1832 in favor of his son Ali II, civil war soon resulted." While I doubt we'll see a 1832 Libyan civil war article soon, it is plausible that we could need to distinguish on this basis. So for now it stays. It's highly likely this article's name will change again, of course. That's a consequence of editing articles about current events.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Mike Selinker (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, this page wasn't deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanmaq (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move discussion

Requested move 1 -- to "Libyan Civil War"

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

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]

Strongly Support. Right now it's a civil war, no doubt about it, two factions within one state each claiming sovereignty, and at war with each other. Right now it's a civil war, but after the rebels win it will become a revolution. Certainly not an "uprising" Rab777hp (talk) 21:00, 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]

Comment - As far as neutral, I think the word 'conflict' is more neutral than the choice of either uprising or civil war. When Western powers are throwing more armament into the fight than anyone else, and when they are freezing assets and looking to redistribute them to people willing to overthrow the long-time leader, it isn't a civil war, it is a ten-foot-pole invasion. (in other words they don't want it to look like what it might be). The only new title I would support at this time is '2011 Libyan conflict', but I'm in no hurry. -- Avanu (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - If it is an uprising, it would've been a rebellion that got crushed in a few days. The current situation wasn't something that got crushed entirely in a few days. The opposition is still standing here! --Jjupiter100(talk!|contribs) 01:46, 29 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]

  • Indiferent

Huh, why is the article called "2011 Libyan civil war" instead of "2011 Libyan Civil War"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.133.196.14 (talk) 19:44, 30 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]
I wasn't aware that 'uprising' and 'war' were opposites. I need to get a better dictionary.  :) just playing, by the way -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 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]
Consensus not numbers. This is a discussion, not a poll. --bender235 (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Avanu had several points, not one central one. Yours however has been consistent throughout the last few weeks and is well known, so quit putting words in peoples mouths to drum up support for your position. The vast majority of people want the move but you and a few others come on here at every spare moment to throw your opinion back out there and keep the debate going, this creates the illusion of significant dissent where the actual number of people opposing has diminished since this began.174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 days since this RM began. Since 10 days ago, a consensus to move the article has emerged and now we are just engaging in endless discussion that is going nowhere. What is taking so long? An admin should be BOLD and move the article already. --Tocino 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is taking so long? Why isn't this conflict in Libya over yet? Why hasn't Gaddafi just given up?
In the real world, things take time.
I'm in no hurry here, because the current title is accurate. It might not be sufficient, but it works. If it were inaccurate, I would clamor for change as well. But things don't have to be at the whim of the 24-hour news cycle. They don't have to be changed immediately because I write "strongly" in front of a comment. This article will be here for years, decades even. Why are we in such a huge hurry now? -- Avanu (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because using the term "uprising" to describe the current civil war in Libya is both inadequate and inaccurate. --Tocino 21:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is the conflict, uprising, or war, a civil one? Civil comes from 'citizen', and the major power being brought to bear in this situation is coming from outside the nation. It was a civil uprising, and it has since moved to something else, but the question is what. Certainly describing it as what it was (and still partly is), is better than calling it something that it is not. Sort of like having a pear and adding a grape to it. It is still partly a pear, but the grape ought to be considered, or at least eaten soon :)
-- Avanu (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep at current location. --19:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polental (talk • contribs)

Support, for the 800th time This has seriously become a joke, the vast majority of people who have commented here have wanted to rename this, a number which has only increased since the UN intervention. The majority of news sources have referred to this as a civil war, it is a civil war by all definitions. This is by far the most retarded debate over a name that I have ever seen on wikipedia, and it is being continued by a select few people who were opposed to it in the begining and continue to comment and argue with the people who do support it simply because THEIR chosen source has never referred to it as such or they're holding out for some elusive common name which for political reasons is never going to occur in the lifetime of the conflict. Pull your head out of your ass people. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a Civil War Right Now Without International Intervention?

Not likely, it would, according to the Reliable Sources, be all over with Benghazi having been retaken by Gaddafi. Hence, 1+1 equalling 2, to call it a civil war right now one must somehow perform some doublespeak gymnastics to somehow include an international community in the civil war. This is all in response to the various arguments above, but the real important point made by another Editor above is : Wikipedians do not get to decide whether it is a civil war ! and when we do a google news search for "Libya" [12] we get few usages of the term "civil war". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please define Reliable Sources™. Sindragosa (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Which, by the way, is as much required reading as anything is, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1)"Libyan Civil War" outnumbers "Libyan Uprising" on google hits 2) Every intra-state conflict post 1945 has in some way involved a 3rd party or international intervention, whats your point? 3) It doesn't matter if it would be over right now, the point is its not. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Google news" hits is better for our purposes and there the "libyan uprising" [13] is double the "libyan civil war" [14].

This entire survey is Editors' Opinions driven

It is not in any way being driven by the content of Reliable Sources. At this point, 2011 libyan uprising is better than civil war although 2011 libyan conflict would be better and much less biased. I am still waiting for someone to tell me how you can have a civil war when the most powerful and likely the determining participant is an outside "community". The civil war argument is DOA in terms of logic and definition and more importantly the Reliable Sources are not using it in anywhere near enough frequency to necessitate its usage in an encyclopedia. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:03, 29 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]

I don't think this conflict yet meets my citeria for a Revolutionary War, but it certainly meets my citeria for a Civil War. 12.44.106.156 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The dispute over naming isn't likely to be resolved by introducing another name, the people who oppose "libyan civil war" oppose it because its not a common name, and it is has not been referred to as such through the media. If they think thats true of libyan civil war, then they'll think its even more true of some name pulled out of a hat.174.114.87.236 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Seriously, "revolutionary war"? That sounds like the propaganda used by the likes of Fidel Castro, Stalin etc. It has no place in a serious description of the events in Libya. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:51, 28 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]
Do it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanmaq (talk • contribs)
I notice this often when there is a high profile item in Wikipedia. Someone creates a nice, accurate article title, and then other people complain a LOT about how the article title doesn't meet their expectations. The current title is accurate. It might not be sufficient, but that isn't a reason to spend most of our energy on the title. If it naturally changes, then it can be renamed, but really, seriously, have we nothing more to do than quibble about this? Sheesh. Improve the content in the article, look for bias, but please stop trying to push a long-term name onto a VERY immediate situation. In time, it will all work out. It doesn't have to be done *now*. -- Avanu (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to a move deferred? Zanmaq (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but I doubt it has anything to do with A Raisin in the Sun. Polental (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC) --Polental (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Please move this article to Libyan civil war. It is not capitalised.

CNN has long said it's a civil war.Wipsenade (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Libyan conflict" is commoner in news reports

To follow Dbachmann's methodology from five days ago:

"Libyan conflict," as inane as it is, beats the current title, and is probably more strictly accurate. (I'd like "armed conflict" better, but I'm trying to insert an unobjectionable fact here, not an opinion.) Wareh (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that (2011 Libyan conflict), also, it would stand the test of time. (unless this goes on for a decade like other conflicts we have seen). -- Avanu (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd equally support conflict. I'd prefer not to see a move but a move to conflict is better than a move to civil war. As I noted in my comments above, The hit results for conflict were higher than civil war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any hope someone will close the "Libyan civil war" !vote above, so we can have a !vote on "2011 Libyan conflict" without the speedy procedural close that shut it down last week? Wareh (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. What r we waiting for? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War in the press

Telegraph: "Libya's civil war" here, Globe and Mail, here, CNN, here, there's plenty more these are just a few. Let's move the article please. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but
Perhaps this means there's some hope "2011 Libyan conflict" will be a compromise that a consensus here can deem an improvement? Wareh (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the following (all are from 28 March unless otherwise noted):

  • Fox News: "President Obama will address the American public about his decision to enter the Libyan civil war on the side of rebel forces."[15]
  • Seattle Times: "The U.S. role in Libya's civil war" [16]
  • The Atlantic: "The evil tyrant Qaddafi is highlighted, but the civil war raging in Libya is not." [17]
  • The Wall Street Journal: "The decision to become involved militarily in the Libyan civil war couldn't take place within a less hospitable context." 25 March
  • And more... (7,485 articles using the term "civil war")

At this point, Wikipedia is making a conscious decision not to call it a civil war when most news outlets are calling it a civil war. --TimothyDexter (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're all nucking futs

Why is this such a big deal? Sindragosa (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedian seems to be to argue every point no matter how miniscule. Joesolo13 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I believe a hearty "NO U" is in order, so NO U! (=p) Secondly, the above guy is correct, when someone starts a discussion about something and some people agree and some do not then you will have a big fight like this break out. A good example, if you go check Talk:United Nations and Talk:Ofra Haza, is the argument over what languages to put a name in. For instance, in the UN article, some want to put its name in the all of the six official languages and in the Ofra Haza article, they want it in English, Hebrew and Arabic. Now my reaction is "Are you guys serious?" I take the view of course that they should be put in and that's it is just a few more words so who gives a ****? Yet some people will argue over it. I finally put Ofra's name back in Arabic as she was fluent in all three, Israel's official languages are Hebrew and Arabic (and unofficially, English), and she was a Yemeni Jewess, so the Arabic partly a piece of her culture. So yeah, lots of nutty stuff. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed this is all irrelevant. An encyclopedias job it to record not to decide. It have been called the uprising. That fact that it is a war or not is irrelevant, if it continues to be called an uprising predominately then it should be named as such.--91.125.197.133 (talk) 16:57, 29 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.

Requested move 2011 Libyan civil war -- to "2011 Libyan conflict"

  • A: Google News exact phrase search yields 3 times as many hits for Libyan conflict as for Libyan civil war 2117691
  • B: It is Orwellian double speak to call something a civil war when the most powerful and likely the determining participant is an outside "community". The civil war argument is DOA in terms of logic and definition
  • and more importantly the Reliable Sources are not using "Libyan civil war" in anywhere near enough frequency to necessitate its usage in an encyclopedia. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A Google News search shows about 16,000 hits over the last 24 hours for Libyan+civil+war and about 22,000 each for Libyan+uprising and Libyan+conflict. "Libyan civil war" and "Libyan uprising" get 1,000 apiece while "Libyan conflict" gets 2,000. "Civil war" may become more common if the conflict becomes more prolonged. Equilibrium007 (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, I didn't expect that someone would beat me to the punch! But that said, this is ironic because now I'm going to be neutral on this move. I think enough sources are starting to call this a civil war that having the article title refer to this as some sort of a civil war might be justified. But as I said, for the time being, I am neutral.--Witan (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It does look better, makes more sense, and seems to be neutral the term "Libyan Conflict" than "Libyan Civil War" or "Libyan Uprising". There is a precedent in "Kosovo War" (look at the infobox) but "2011 Libyan War" is not in common use, so "2011 Libyan Conflict" is the best choice. 186.69.49.245 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Civil Wars can have outside intervention. What matters is the driving forces behind the conflict, the origins of the conflict, and what the end state of the conflict is. Here we have a bottom up revolt that resulted in half the country splitting off from the ruling establishment. This section of the country has subsequently formed a government, organized an army, and is now waging war against the other half of the country. I am sorry my friends, but that is the very definition of civil war. If any changes should be made, I think dropping the 2011 from the title would be more apt, as this is Libya's first (and only) Civil War. You don't see us calling the American Civil War "The 1861 American Civil War". ArcherMan86 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't really matter what this is or is not in a dictionary definition (there isn't anyway a clear distinction between "civil war," "uprising," "conflict," "rebellion" or any of the other terms associated with this topic.) What matters is what it is actually being called now. Equilibrium007 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Civil war is defined as a war between political factions or regions within the same country. I think this fits. Wikipedia's Civil War article also supports it. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support As per above, Libyan conflict is far more widely used than Libyan Civil War. And the sources that are using civil war are mainly using the term to emphasize a political point - e.g. Red Cross to emphasize the humanitarian crisis, or Ghadaffi in warning of possible consequences of the crisis. It makes the term "civil war" politically charged and in violation of NPOV, in my opinion. DigitalRevolution (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Eventually we're going to probably rename it 'civil war,' but for now, it would be appropriate to rename it 'conflict.' The name 'uprising' has a connotation that there was a brief period or violence that peaked early but then subsided. Here, we have an organized ground war with international intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.99.78 (talk) 20:29, 30 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. Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[18]]Wipsenade (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator. Nation. Achievement.
Saddam Hussien Iraq Roads, woman's rights, less poverty and literacy campaigns.
Kim Il-sung N. Korea Roads, Women's rights, less poverty and literacy campaigns.
Major General Muhammad Siad Barre Somalia Literacy campaigns.
José Daniel Ortega Saavedra Nicaragua Literacy campaigns.
General Manuel Noriega Panama Literacy campaigns.
General Augusto Pinochet Chile Pensions and literacy campaigns.
General Prosper 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]
I'm re-adding my water pipline bit soon.Wipsenade (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it makes sense to give the reasons for the anger of the libyan rebels. The historical background section isn't meant to be a balanced academic appraisal of Gaddafi's rule, it's meant to explain why people would revolt. 99.251.196.72 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Wikipedia is NOT the publishing house of Tripoli gov nor the Benghazi-based NTC. There were multiple points made about how "poor" Libyans were which is simply not true as far as material wealth goes. The article shall be fully protected to avoid further PR warfare which your comment is a nice example of.Ihosama (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the 2011 Libyan uprising! Do the people riot because Gaddafi built some water pipeline? Of course not! Please add only material that is relevant to the current events. noclador (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually about the 2011 Libyan civil war. Zanmaq (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pipe and poverty clams appear to be a propaganda hoax unlike the literacy and women's rights and thus can't be added.Wipsenade (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler: Anti smoking campaigns, healthy living initiatives, patron of the arts. Just because a guy does a couple of good things for a country, doesn't balance out the odd genocide. Did all the people who vanished under those dictators benefit from those 'literacy campaigns'? Czolgolz (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O'KWipsenade (talk) 16:43, 30 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]
It is correct, to mention Kim Jong-il.
Clay Henry was a goat, elected mayor of Lajitas, Texas. The goat probably didn't lead much, but held the title of mayor. Joan of Arc lead the French in several military victories, but held no title (as far as I can tell). The point is, leadership is simply about leading, not about what people call you. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kim holds several official posts, leading is not ruling, and there was no other official titleholder in the case of the goat :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.159.219 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of using good old WP:COMMONSENSE, just like everyone knows that the USSR was really Russia, Gadaffi is really the leader. Besides, the sources call him the leader, and if you don't like that then you should write a letter to each and everyone of them about it and keep doing so until they determine someone else to be it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[19][20][21][22][23]
  • 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]
I just spent quite awhile trying to figure out what happened to the image. Does anyone know? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was apparently a copyright issue with the image. It was removed from the commons earlier today.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Do you have any links to that discussion? I do not know how I can track it(the discussion) down. anyone? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No discussion, speedy deletion.[24] --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look today and see if there is a version of the photo that is appropriate for wikipedia. There may be one from a resident and not a news agency.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:10, 28 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: [25] (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 [26] and [27]. 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]

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]
Genocide is the wrong term at any rate-that's a much larger business tasked with eliminating an entire group, which this is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is Kudzu1's suggestion above agreeable to everyone? If so I will fix and remove the tag. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I did my best with it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV Flagged

In response to the discussion above I have pov flagged the Humanitarion situation section until the content removed is replaced or improved upon. Since everyone is saying the topic needs to be included, and since noone has included it, this renders the section pov by omission, imo. Any content negative towards the rebels could be seen as being hit with unexplained removal and pov resistance both in content and timing (inclusion is slow as mollasses). This might be understandable but not acceptable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself without slapping on a redundant tag.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option, but I think the Editors involved in the discussion should do it (have done it) as they are more acquainted with the topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respect the words on the tag. I have put the section tag back; it is not a redundant tag and should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. It is a blockable offence to remove tags prematurely. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the tag and did it myself as Kintetsubuffalo suggested although I have not been following that particular issue. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:30, 30 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]

Is he User:HanzoHattori under another name. User HanzoHattori screwed about on the Egyptian pages resently.Wipsenade (talk) 16:42, 29 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.

[28] [29] 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]
    I disagree. Perhaps you could specify which part of the notability guidelines you doubt it meets? I can certainly provide dozens of RS articles and videos to show the notability so I believe the exclusion argument needs to be explained in more detail. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If we included everything, relating to this conflict, that had a reliable source this article would be massive. It likely is notable enough for it's own page but we unfortunately have to pick and choose what content represents the conflict as a whole. I'm fine with the it being included as a symbol or example, which is how it's done now. But a line and a bit is certainly sufficient. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, that sounds reasonable to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:36, 29 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]
Well, to me there was enough proof that al-Qaeda fighters were allegedly (yeah, just like Egypt) PRESENT. Otherwise they could not "pillage" anything of course))) 85.25.120.163 (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources or no dice. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to find, [30] or [31] for example. Are these [32] [33] given about Egypt (both based on some anonymous source and nothing more) really any better? 85.25.120.163 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I don't know about Chad's President and that al-Hasidi fellow, I'd prefer an independent reliable source confirming al Qaeda presence over people that hate Gadaffi. I miss anything important in those? (I skimmed, I won't lie.) Though it is in al Qaeda's best interests to be there in my opinon (if I were thinking how they do, wanting to get more possible recruits). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point was: ARE THE SOURCES TALKING ABOUT EGYPTIAN COVERT OPS IN LIBYA REALLY ANY BETTER? Is it ok to remove Egypt from the infobox on the same grounds then? 85.25.120.163 (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do shout a bit more as it will help get your point across much better. Well if you feel that way then contest the Egypt one. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having got my impressions mostly from BBC News 24, the specialists seem to say, in so far as a religious term could be used to describe the religious spirit behind the rebels, it would be 'moderate Islam.' Sayerslle (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Others think otherwise: [34] 95.32.159.219 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph had confirmed, that Libyan rebel has al-Qaeda links[35].83.181.93.81 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, it says "his fighters have al-Qaeda links" in the headline, a claim which is then NOT back up in the article. see the lengthy discussion at Talk:2011_Libyan_uprising#Al-Qaeda.2C_LIFG_and_mercenaries, why this claim is wrong and will not be added to article. noclador (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same, unless you are the commander of al-Qaeda and declare that you haven't send any fighter of al-Qaeda to joint the anti-Gaddafi group. 83.189.94.84 (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely not the same. I'm with noclador on this one, the article doesn't claim that Al-Qaeda is involved and it's not the article's place to make that stretch.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should prove, that those fighters came from the Al-Qaeda have no connection with Al-Qaeda any more. Don't forget, that Al-Qaeda is a "multinational, stateless" group. That source shows the rebel knows about it and works with them, and Al-Qaeda has also claimed they support the anti-Gaddafi movement[36]. 213.101.230.37 (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what if they expressed support? Chavez and Ortega have expressed support for the Gaddafi regime, but we aren't adding Venezuela and Nicaragua as belligerents on Gaddafi's side, are we? Even if a handful of rebels do have some ties to al-Qaeda, that is not enough to add al-Qaeda as a supporting belligerent. Where is the evidence that al-Qaeda as a group is actively supplying men and weapons to the fight? 64.1.120.166 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is, if Chavez & co. do really send their force or guys to support Libya Government, then you could & should add it, that's easy. But they didn't do that yet, this makes the difference, until now. 83.189.90.131 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Qaeda did not send anyone too; so why add it? noclador (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you represent the Al-Qaeda to make this statement formally, Sir? 90.128.116.236 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you have no evidence that al-Qaeda is actually involved. Provide evidence that al-Qaeda is supplying weapons and men in support of the rebels, and then you'll have a case. Until then, you have nothing. Your own article doesn't even support it. It states only "a few" of the 25 fighters he recruited to fight in Afghanistan are fighting in Libya. The guy himself belongs to LIFG, as the article states, and they severed their affiliation with al-Qaeda in 2009. See [37] You do not have consensus to keep adding them, see WP:CON. 64.1.120.166 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. One source shows that Al Qaeda expresses support and another shows that ~25 rebels fought in Iraq against the America-led coalition. Definitely not the same as Al Qaeda sending people in themselves. Munci (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

\

Extended content
It's funny, here comes 3 guys try to protect the innocence of Al-Qaeda, but the valid sources above show the true facts. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually it is only you, who can not read. and hoping between IPs all the times just makes obvious that you're not here to edit, but to disrupt. noclador (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@90: Lol, have you seen my userpage? Do I look like the sort of fellow who would protect al-Qaeda? xDDDDD In all honesty though, you make it sound like putting them in as helping the rebels makes them seem evil. To the average uneducated Muslim youth (not saying they are usually, but talking about the ones that do not have an education) it makes them seem even greater (from their point of view) than they already are. I am surprised they aren't sending people in as it would definitely up their recruitment levels. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest some form of dispute resolution is used here, the consensus here doesn't look that cut and dried and its not clear that all the IP editors here are the same person. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the connection looks a bit grey I would suggest not including it in the infobox, but adding some prose explaining it somewhere suitable in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to move al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section, or that section could be removed completely and along with al-Qaeda discussed with some prose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept this option to move Al-Qaeda to the limited/alleged section. BTW, Al-Qaeda is not a firmly central-organized group as we know, they are distributed very loosely and only the radical ideology connects them to each other, they call them self freedom fighter. We can't say, Al-Qaeda sends or not its member to joint into anti-Gaddafi group. But when its member involved the issue obviously, then they are right there. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that its discussed with prose, as limited/alleged doesn't give enough to discuss the matter fully but I'm not too fussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could obliviously be discussed in an extended section or any where else, anyway the inforbox is not the right place to do that. But just like the foreign mercenaries and Egypt, Al-Qaeda should be added in the infobox, there are enough the valid sources about the matter.90.128.116.236 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove Egypt from the infobox, which I suggest we do, I don't think there is enough to include it - at best their involvement is a couple of dozen fighters and the Telegraph article isn't black and white - there is a reasonable amount of grey there. The foreign mercenaries are in a different boat, there are a lot of sources talking about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt and Al-Qaeda are also totally different case. Egypt is a country, only the central Government can order its Army force to this to do that. But, Al-Qaeda is a loosely organized and widely distributed international extremist group, its member can be any where any time when they want, they doesn't need a firmed leader to order them to do anything, what they need is a simple ideology. The member of Al-Qaeda is a little bit similar to the foreign mercenaries, sure they are for money, the Al-Qaeda is for their religion. That's the reason why even the most powerful country like U.S. has enormous difficulties to fight against Al-Qaeda. Just like wikipedia or any open platform, we don't need any order comes from e.g. Wikimedia.org or Facebook.com etc. to edit the articles or write something. So long we have the ideology of the free editing, then We can realize it any where in the Internet. So some one could say, that's the Microsoft hire me to do that, but no one can say, we write the articles in Wikipedia, only because Wikimedia send us to do it. 90.128.116.236 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think moving it to "Limited/Alleged" is a good idea because no WP:RS has alleged al-Qaeda involvement at all and there is no evidence that they, as a group, are actively engaged in the conflict as a force. Nothing, at least, that supports putting them in the infobox. I would support moving it to the "International reactions" and discussed alongside Chavez and Ortega. (BTW, 64.1.120.166 is me. I was at a different computer and forgot to log in.) Fovezer (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds like the best option. As the other member of the edit war has decided to withdraw, I suggest we wait a few hours for any further comments and then unprotect the page and make this change - I do suggest we move Egypt as well to the 'international reactions' section as well - especially as its only backed up by one reliable source, which puts it in a similar boat to the al-qaeda claims here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good on both points. And, just for the record, al-Qaeda is already discussed on the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising page. Fovezer (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've had to very rapidly get up to speed on this one :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I think everyone agrees that al-Qaeda types don't like Gaddafi and some are involved in the opposition to him. But we can't put it in the infobox until we have some RS on the Qaeda Chums. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hate to bandwagon, but I think limited/alleged is good. No RS has said they involved yet, but it has been said by the rebel leader and the Chadian president, and yeah that should probably be in the body of the article to elaborate upon the whole thing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that Telegraph article is poorly written with an even worse headline. The guy is hardly a rebel "leader" seeing as there is a very limited sense of leadership amongst the rebels right now. Most people seem to view the TNC as the "leaders" for the time being. Also, the article only says a handful of rebels fought in Afghanistan, but doesn't specifically identify the men as al-Qaeda members and it never says the group itself is active. In fact, the US intelligence community says that there is no organized presence. [38] The so-called "rebel leader" from the article is actually said to be from the LIFG, which severed any affiliation with al-Qaeda in 2009. As for the Chadian president, he is a Gaddafi ally and there is no evidence to support his assertion. We can't go adding every accused group/nation to the infobox with no reliable source. Fovezer (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I suppose that's what happens when you edit while playing Red Dead Redemption. Bound to miss things, heh. So the article is junk then? The Chadian president is his ally? I thought they disliked each other as a remnant from the Toyota War. I could have sworn it was still the case. Ah well, no RS, no addition to the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I've heard good things about that game. The article headline is just incredibly misleading as to what is actually in the article, and people have kneejerk reactions without reading the article. And Habré was the President of Chad during the Toyota Wars. The current Chadian President is Idriss Déby, and he is quite close to Gaddafi. Fovezer (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only game greater than Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood /end of off-topic stuff. I have mostly been absorbing info from the stuff posted here on this talk page to be honest (one of the reasons I have not contributed anything of value to the actual article itself). I figure the article will be much tidier when this is finally over. Oh, I was thinking that restoring relations with Libya wouldn't have been on the current Chadian administration's priority list, but that's what I get for not reading the article on their president. I think I will probably take a read through the whole thing on Wednesday just to see where it stands. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually current chadian president Idriss Deby was a general in Toyota War who inflicted most humiliating defeats on Gaddafi troops. And now he's Gaddafi's friend? Makes you think if old Muammar is really such a mad vindictive monster intent on annihilating anybody opposing him, according to jazeera and western media))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.189.249 (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure money played some role in that. Is there an article documenting their relationship? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, here is one. [39] Déby was supported by Libya during his successful attempt to overthrow Hebré. Fovezer (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Well that does help explain some things. Appears to me that he turned Tchad into an illiberal democracy like some call Russia. Looks like Gadaffi also might have used him to get back at his predecessor. I don't suppose some of the stuff from that article could be used here, now could it? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack
"Get ready. We are coming tonight to hunt for the scum and the traitors.." Gaddafi mid-March, getting ready to massacre civilians who rose up, unarmed, against his military police and soldiers , in February. In February in Benghazi a human rights protest over a massacre of dissidents 15 years before. Then, Gaddafis killers appeared on the scene, "Strangers appeared wearing yellow helmets and the shooting began." And then Gaddafi called the unarmed protesters terrorists..and now his ideological epigones pick up the lies. "Get ready. We are coming tonight to hunt for the scum.." No, not vindictive at all. yeah, right , whatever you say Moscow ip. Moscow ips=Stalin's childrenSayerslle (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CivilWipsenade (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in the last two sentences you unnecessarily crossed the line and made a very offensive personal attack. Please criticise the argument only. Do not attack the editor as it makes people ignore the actual substance of your argument. It is also quite rude to say the least. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's so wrong in killing the real scum and traitors? Now it's YOU who's calling ALL Benghazi inhabitants the scum! Do you know that thousands of them came greeting Libyan army tanks when they were close? Do you know there were firefights for several days after when the peaceful democracy-loving rebels indeed hunted all the local government supporters and black-skinned men? Do you know that these protests started when police dispersed a mob commemorating two criminals killed during robbing attempt few years earlier, not any human rights bul*sh*t? Do you know that Eastern Libya was a den of radical islamists for many years? Btw i'm not in Moscow and i'm not even an ethnic russian. I'm avar and proud muslim, but i hate these islamist scum who ruined everything they touched here. Yet the recent things make me hoping that al-Qaeda starts shooting down your airliners with these stolen missiles as soon as possible - maybe THIS will kick some sense into the arrogant heads of brainwashed europeans and americans who don't know a little bit about the countries they're messing with. 77.45.151.95 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright my friend, let's pull back a bit. When we are editing we have to try and not put our emotions into what we are saying and we have to try to keep a cool head so that we can edit properly. =) We must remember that regardless of our own feelings about what is happening, we just repeat what our reliable sources are saying. We cannot help it if we don't like what they are saying or we feel the major sources are propaganda, because those are what we have to go on. What counts as a reliable source is also based on concensus I believe (there is a page for it somewhere) and so we work with those. We do realise though that all sources have some form of bias or another, but it isn't our job to interpret them. We just find what's relevant, put it in and move on. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC radio 4 has just announced that US intelligence has established that Al-qaeda is indeed present among the rebels. Egg carton (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very selective - the words were 'flickers of al qaeda' presence - and the U.S intelligence guy went on to say he believed it was not significant. Your selective cutting off of the U.S intelligence words just reveals again that we all have ou biases. The outburst from the ip is revealing in another way - in the end I don't resepect that 'you don't understand what you're dealing with' very much - a peaceful march being gunned down by thugs in yellow helmets in Benghazi in 2011, is no different to understanding that event if it happened in croydon in 2011. Sayerslle (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not read anything into my comment above, I was only reporting what I'd just heard on the radio. Nothing more. Egg carton (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here [40] is a Telegraph article about this. A quote: "'But at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence,' Admiral Stavridis added." So this is an issue worth watching to see if any evidence of an organized al-Qaeda presence emerges, but right now the person saying there are "flickers" of al-Qaeda admits that he doesn't have enough evidence to say one way or another. Fovezer (talk) 22:44, 29 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]

The use of † in infoboxes is customary and widely used via Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history practices. If you want to challenge its merits and usage the place to do it would be on that WikiProject's talk page, though i doubt there is much support in changing the practice as it is so widely used.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the symbol is actually called a "dagger," and implies "killed" rather than "given (Christian) burial." It definitely looks like a cross, but much like the BC/AD convention only grudgingly giving way to BCE/CE, it might take a while before an acceptable alternative is both developed and adopted widely. ChristopherGregory (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the same point at Gaza War, where it was used for some Hamas fellows. Somebody switched to a skull and crossbones and since then to just say "KIA" in brackets. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a problem with it being so small. I wouldn't think dagger if you had not mentioned it. Skull and cross bones would cause a bit less confusion imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think so? The Gaza War infobox looks fine to me, even on my laptop. I don't really care though. I only brought it up there because I thought it was ironic to use Christian symbols for Islamist figures. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I mean it's supposed to be a dagger, but it looks like a cross unless someone says it is a dagger and even then it still looks like a cross. Hell if you put it in another font, it looks more daggerlike (fancy one though), but also like a fancy cross. I guess it is because Christians often shaped their blades like crosses (mostly from the Roman Spatha though, but I don't think it has to do with religion). KIA makes more sense because it also says they were killed as a result of the conflict. Putting just that odd dagger symbol there could mean that they were part of it, but they died as a result of choking on a fishbone or something, though common sense would/should (common sense isn't very common after all) tell you they were killed during fighting of course. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you meant the dagger. Yeah, I agree it is small. But it is cross-like. That part of the hilt is even called a crossguard. But check out the "KIA" at Gaza War. I think it looks okay although we don't have any dead commanders here at the moment. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well even before Christianity was the cool religion in Europe (and long before it was the required one) they still had the shape called a cross of course as that bit crosses it. =p (though the name crossguard probably came later so what I just said had no point) I did, I thought the K.I.A.'s looked nice and uncontroversial. Looked nice and organised as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khamis Gaddaffi has come back from the dead! He's resereted him self! He's imortal!Wipsenade (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can he bring back micheal jackson? XD wipsnade!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nightlight sales will skyrocket.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:35, 29 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]

It's good stuff.Wipsenade (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

In the main article text is lists Romania as a country opposed to the no-fly zone, but in the side panel Romania is recorded as a country supporting the aerial campaign. Which is correct? Saccerzd (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romania is a co-belligerent and has contributed to international military operations off the Libyan coast. As far as I know, it has not yet committed to sending planes to the no-fly zone, but it didn't hold up the transfer of responsibility for the aerial campaign to NATO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I herd they had sent a patrole boat and a frigate, but no planes. Wipsenade (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update map to show airtrikes/movements?

Rather than just recoloring the cities time and time again, which makes it difficult to track the exact course of progress - and completely excludes any representation of NATO / UN actions...shouldn't we consider adding icons to the map to display these things? 76.230.58.80 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot squeeze the entire timeline of the conflict in a thumbnailed map image. for details, as always, people need to read the actual article. --dab (𒁳) 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sirte claimed by rebels.

Change to either "rebel held area" or "area of conflict"? Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132681812362552.html

AFP reports -9.15 am London time - 'rebel advance halted 85 miles east of Sirte' -John Simpson said too that a journalist he spoke to driving round the town, says it is Gaddafi held still. Sayerslle (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. So far as I am writing the rebels are still far from Sirte, so we don't need to change the color of the point right now. When (if) they will reach Sirte and there will be an ongoing conflict to take it, we can change to area of conflict. So far in the city there is not conflict yet.MaXiMiLiAnO 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Kadaffi has just kikied them out again [[41]]! Wipsenade (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EuroNews is reporting that the city is now in rebel control and has video to prove it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=16f_1301319596 128.227.12.67 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in that video that indicates that any of it was shot in Sirt. Alfons Åberg (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone confused it with as Sidr. 95.32.130.28 (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter terrorism category?

Why is there the category "Counter terrorism in Libya" in the article?. Nothing related seems to be mentioned in the article either. It isn't even clear whether the one who included intended to describe Gaddafi as a terrorist or the rebels or what. Munci (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musrata in Guddafi control.

This Lebanese link

http://www.elnashra.com/news-1-545147.html say guddafi forces controled all Musrata at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.174.224 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafis TV says this every day for 2 weeks now... lets see if anyone confirms this. noclador (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Comical Ali etc. Sindragosa (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were true more reliable sources would have reported about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several media reports that Misrata has fallen to Gaddafi's troops. CNN as well made a story in the city itself where it was clear that Loyalist troops have control of the city and move freely there and that the rebels (might) are in control only of couple of small districts (allegedly). Al Arabiya, AFP and Buisness Insider all have reports that Gaddafi's troops "sweept through Misrata" or "are in control of Misrata".Ratipok (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Reverse the latest edit of 83.189.90.131. See discussion above about Al Qaeda. Munci (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be adding another WP:WRONGVERSION to the article instead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no, it would correct IP vandalism. noclador (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page is frozen with al qaeda listed as a full belligerent. that isnt how its reported in the Independent or on BBC News. and the refs don't say so either.doesn't the admin who is freezing a pro-gaddafi propaganda version have to give an account here for his action? Sayerslle (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before you comment any further, please read and understand m:The Wrong Version.
Make a reasonable and detailed {{editprotected}} request that includes the references already there or introduces more sources, and the article will be changed. But I'm not going to simply revert what appear to be good faith edits. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like an editor said above, some al qaeda are involved in the oposition to him, no doubt, some al qaeda members came from libya, that is a fact , but that is not the same as al qaeda being a full belligerent - the uprising began , Panorama had a full programme on it, Fighting Gaddafi you should watch it - when yellow hats police fired on unarmed ptoesters in Benghazi, they fired at a human rights protest over a massacre of dissenters in 1996, then it escalated when authorities launched a crackdown - 3 days of killing , then though unarmed, using benzine and bulldozers they beat the police and gaddafi soldiers- - gaddafi began to call them terrorists, scum, al qaeda - if the U.N hadn't intervened he would have wiped benghazi out 'get ready we are coming tonight to hunt for the scum..' etc - and in the time since there has been no story that however it began since then al qaeda have assumed a significant , full belligerent role, there just is no RS material for that story - you put al qaeda as a full belligerent because of 'good faith' edits . bloody hell, those are probably Gaddafi-ite edits - ever thought of that?Sayerslle (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another "gaddafite" thing for you my brainwashed friends - TRUE FACE of the "peaceful pro-democracy protesters" (warning, graphic content): [42] [43] [44] 77.45.146.187 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It is intresting and graphic User:77.45.146.187.15:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wipsenade (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Map

Hey guys, I made a map showing most of the cities, towns and villages along the coast in the Gulf of Sidra, I think it would be good alongside the current country map to illustrate the current situation. What do you guys think? Infernoapple (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love the level of detail, but the more detailed we get about any particular small town, the more likely we are to replicate inaccuracies of journalists. Any large or major city, we will have multiple credible sources stating it to be under the control of one side or the other. With small villages, that may not be the case. Not saying I am opposed to this type of map, just pointing something out that is worth considering. 76.245.46.147 (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, Good detail. I would say it is worth including B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, but I have seen in the press that as the rebel advance is slowing down, reports have moved from the larger cities to the smaller villages. The advance on Sirt is definitely going to be reported through villages captured, as aside from that the route from Ben Jawad to Sirt is nothing but desert. I think that the map is good taking into account the vast amount of empty desert - fighting is only going to be concentrated around the small villages and towns. Just today I saw many sources reporting on the fighting near Uwayja and An Nawfaliyah, two small towns. As the rebel advance slows, every small village and town is going to be important gains. Infernoapple (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny because I was also working on a new map myself. I think it would be good to display the current fighting around the Gulf of Sirt region. Rafy talk 22:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your map a lot, very detailed - better than anything I would be able to come up with. I like the outlines of the cities/towns. Where did you get your outline of Libya from? Infernoapple (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I traced it from wikimapia using inkscape.--Rafy talk 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a cartophile I approve of both these maps! =D Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made it into an svg so people can update it easier. Working on changing all pages from the png to the svg. Infernoapple (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff from the map editors. But, shouldnt there be a km measurment line somwhere in the corner of the maps? I think it would be great if that would be added so the neutral observers would have a better view about the scale of the battle and distance between towns/cities.Ratipok (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Fovezer, 29 March 2011

Edit protected Per the consensus reached above, I request al-Qaeda be removed from the infobox as a belligerent for the Libyan rebels. The sources provided in no way support al-Qaeda's inclusion as a group that is an active and significant belligerent. In fact, most evidence indicates there is no organized presence, see [45] The consensus was to move mention of al-Qaeda giving verbal support to the "International reaction" section, even though it is already covered in the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan uprising article.

Fovezer (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done harej 05:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

estimates and statistics

is there an information about the percent of Libyan people opposing Gaddafi and percent of those supporting him. thanks. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean this to sound like what you're saying is silly, but I don't think anyone has been able to conduct polls about it among the Libyan people. Too much else is going on for them to think about doing such things. Also, I doubt most people would answer honestly for fear of being arrested by one side or the other anyway. Ahmed Q. Libyan: "Gadaffi is a pig" Caller: "Shukran, your opinion is valued." *a few minutes later soldiers show up* At least that is what many would think. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi has only 10k to 12k troops?

How could editors build this article to such an extent while leaving this weird figure in the main infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Sidr, Ras Lanuf

As per Aljazeera, http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-29 Ras Lanuf is now being contested. That would probably also mean that As Sidr is under pro-Gaddafi forces' control. Uc smaller (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFP, Al Arabiya etc. have reports that Ras Lanuf is allready fallen and that the battles are currently around a town of Uqayla, halfway between Ras Lanuf and Brega.Ratipok (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebels are pulling out of Brega to Ajdabiyah according to Reuters.[46]. 23sports (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economist as a neutral source ?!

Template:Pbneutral

After removing the following PR text: "Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." I was attacked by User:Hon-3s-T for removing the text as it came from "neutral" source. The text was backed by two pieces from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/18290470 and http://www.economist.com/node/18239900.

The text not only uses an absurd statement of "impoverished" which is in stark contrast of the wealth buildup between 1970-2011 THROUGHOUT Libya (less in the East but "impoverished" implies the fall of living standards not a slower rise). The two references were clearly heavily influenced by the Benghazi-based rebels POV.

I hereby question the position of The Economist as "neutral" for the Libyan conflict. Its reporting on _this_ conflict is of the JANA class PR warfare and its statements shall not enjoy the blanket benefit of being considered neutral.Ihosama (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Gaddafi supporter nor do I believe that he's somehow done more good than harm, HOWEVER I believe that neutrality MUST be upheld. I read The Economist now and again and I can say that it mostly consists of editorials and less news. One needs to find 1. A source showing that the area was once a fertile "breadbasket" way back in time, and 2. a source indicating a rise in poverty/decline of living standards under Gaddafi which present fact. Perhaps an history-based site or an About.com article. I agree that The Economist's fact-to-opinion ratio is questionable given the large amount of editorials and opinion pieces in its content. MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
It is ridiculous to have the assumption that all sources must be neutral. Everything that is written is biased towards one way or another. The neutrality of an article states that the entire wikipedia article cannot be biased towards one view.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. Would not bring this up had my edit not been summarily deleted on that exact assumption by a senior user.Ihosama (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the Economist just likes to state thinks how they actually are.
Given how much living standards have improved throughout the developing world, from South America to Asia, I think saying "impoverished" is a totally fair thing to say about an oil state if living standards haven't improved significantly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically says in WP:V#Neutrality that the aource does not have to be neutral itself. Read the last two sentences please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find another source to give credence to the Economist' view of the situation? And do we have any way of checking how they concluded what they did? -- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/idIN108205791820110304 looks pretty solid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Perhaps it should be cited instead of the economist? MarsTheGrayAdept (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
Unfortunately, in that article there is not a single mention of Cyrenaica. Most claims are very general preferring vague statements over numbers. One comment caught my eye though:
CIA Factbook: "Population below poverty line: N/A, note: About one-third of Libyans live at or below the national poverty line" ("national" poverty line is defined by the government and arbitrary)
article: "According to the latest CIA statistics, 1/3 of Libyans live below the poverty line."
An article which takes "N/A" and make it into "according" does not really scream "reliability!".Ihosama (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some impartial info:
So I took a look at these sources, the first is just copying content from the CIA world factbook, the second is owned by Pearson Plc so should be reasonable, and the latter is a Czech blog, who according to their Wikipedia page posts conspiracy theories. So the middle source looks reasonable, but we could just go and post from one of Pearson Plc's better known media sources, i.e. the Economist or the Financial Times. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
eubusiness has reasonable comment, infoplease too, and blisty.cz were quoted for the comprehensive information including within the article. There are virtually no english-language sources with that level of detail. As mentioned this is caused by a massive trade/construction/culture exports of CzechoSlovakia into Libya during the 80ies.
My original point is getting lost though: I protest for the Economist opinion pieces concerning this topic being taken at face value. Especially the economy pieces written during' the uprising by authors directly influenced by either side.
I have yet to see a single specific and verifiable proof of any "impoverishment" of Cyrenaica by the Gaddafi policies. Especially in the sense what "impovershed" means within the African context (say Egypt nearby). Opinion pieces not backed by a single hard(=verifiable) number do not count whomever will publish them.Ihosama (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prefer these sources but they are much more borderline in terms of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria than the Economist. Surely there must be other Czech sources you can use, e.g. Czech newspapers? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point here was the dismissal of contributions based on contradicting some sacred "neutral" source. I really do not want to debate the obvious here, but one snip - The (material) living standards actually have tremendously improved with average income being several times as before the oil exploration era (in Libya), they just did not improve vis-a-vis Tripolitania thanks to a loss of Cyrenaican agriculture sector importance after the industrialization and oil-infestation of the economy and Tripoli (as the capitol) enjoying higher growth rates.Ihosama (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you have a source for that claim? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sources are (over the years) direct contacts with people from/working-in Libya. Plus some digging during this crisis on top of that (much of it in Czech).Ihosama (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have anything that meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? Being in Czech is fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the "Ekonomika ropného socialismu(Economy of the Oil Socialism)"section of an already cited article: http://blisty.cz/art/57915.html includes these sources: Human development Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index; Literacy, Malnutrition level, Infant and Child mortality, Education expenditures, Telecomunication/Internet penetration, Transportation system, Agriculture: http://www.indexmundi.com/libya; Health sector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya, http://countrystudies.us/libya/55.htm
Plus a bunch of Czech references not sourced but source-able from paper government records. (The article was co-written by JUDr. Václav Jumr, former ambassador and the head of the African Dept. at the Cezechoslovak Foreign Ministry during the 1980's.).
I am no getting any further into this never-ending argument of least-common-denominator semantic battle on what considers an opinion piece and what is news reporting. If someone reads those Economist pieces and considers them "factual description of reality" despite their consistent employment of blog-style semantics, there is not much more to say from me. I am not a native speaker, and nor a language expert to start fighting here using proper vocabulary needed for such a debate.
This is the last time I reply to this PR war directly. My question was NOT about the specific content but whether The Economist could be taken at face value considering the whole tone and un-sourced nature of the pieces that were cited. I say it should not.Ihosama (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK so you've got a left wing Czech blog, Wikipedia, and another source copying the CIA world Factbook, none of these sources are remotely comparable to the Economist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are incomparable. They cite their sources (with one of them being a primary source thanks to his former gov position).Ihosama (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Economist doesn't always cite its sources, but it doesn't need to as it is well known for being extremely reliable. So you're basically trying to argue is that a source equivalent to the New York Times is wrong/bias. Now it is possible to do that, but to do so you have to present a strong case backed up by multiple reliable sources, ideally involving some peer-reviewed academic works or something. The sources you have bought to the table so far aren't anywhere near good enough to meet that level of seriousness - the only source that looks reasonable is http://countrystudies.us/libya/, but it is dated 1987. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That same Economist who in 2009 just bunched up together all Czech bank passives and called them private foreign debt? That same Economist who has managed to come up with $2,000 billion figure and stick to it despite the reality being around $200 billion even after the Central Bank (unusually) publicly intervened to dismiss that crap?
Yeah. Extremely reliable to have an opinion. Seems I have questioned the sacred texts, thank God the Inquisition is no longer around./leaving Ihosama (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sources make mistakes from time to time, sounds like an extra zero was added by accident. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a gross misunderstanding of accounting, not a rounding error. The paper then stood by the numbers causing further mayhem on the markets. But I am glad you finally concede that any paper may be wrong.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be free of bias per se but they do have to be "reliable". The problem here is that you decided the Economist was not, without any discussion on the matter and removed content with the edit summary "propaganda removal". It was reasonable for Hon-3, a recent changes patroller, to revert that. If you believe that a mainstream source like that is not appropriate for use here because it fails WP:RS requirements, you should have brought it up on the talk page first. If you have other problems about the text, that it is inaccurate, misleading or not a widely-held view, you shouldn't have left a summary that it was "propaganda". Hon-3 is not a mind-reader and could only judge your removal on the basis of what you said in the summary. I don't mean to criticize you; I realize that you're a new editor. But you seem upset about it and I think you should understand what happened and how to proceed in the future. I don't have an opinion on the actual content. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reason I have dared call it propaganda:
"Once a breadbasket of the ancient world, the eastern parts of the country became impoverished under Gaddafi's economic theories." The highlighted text was:
1) not explicitly present in the references (i.e. there was not a single mention of "impoverish" or no real mentioning of "poor" etc.)
2) the "breadbasket of the ancient world" is a completely irrelevant statement when judging a regime that is in power 40yrs (Not 1500 years). The relevant mention would have been agriculture production 40yrs ago which is neither in the "neutral" articles not in the text.
Since this WP article is generally over-sourced, I have decided to summarily remove the reference as it was backed by two heavily-opinionated articles and even on top of that clearly designed to evoke an emotional misunderstanding of the reality.
As far as me being "angry", no I was not angry. A was appalled by the arrogant removal of my work backed up by an absurd reasoning. A reasoning repeated after another use pointed it out.Ihosama (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all valid points to consider. But your edit left the community no opportunity for anyone to consider them. What you did was simmer all those things in your head and decided X+Y+Z = "propaganda". That might be a fair characterization but it is a very vague communication. Hon-3 took that for its most likely meaning, that you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source, something you just can't do on your own. As it turns out, he seems to have been correct since it is also what you called for in opening this section.

I don't think you committed some grave error here. You left a bad edit summary. That's no big deal. Hon-3 made a completely reasonable revert based on that. Since then, you've complained about how it was an "attack" and a summary dismissal from a "senior user" (incidentally, his first edit was 13 days before yours). I won't count that you called it "appalling" since I prompted that. But you should understand that what happened was completely ordinary, routine, not malicious. I'm telling you this not to argue but I think it will hamper your experience on Wikipedia if you think every revert is a personal attack on you. It is very common for new users to think that. You did the right thing to take it to the talk page. Just don't take it so personally and remember to assume good faith in other editors. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged. You have a point in wrongly assuming ulterior motives. It comes from me witnessing several weeks of professional PR warfare on this topic coupled with removal of information referenced from neutral source and rv removal of content referenced from neutral sources. Please do not remove material solely according to your sympathies. Two not-exactly WP:AGF complaint statements. In the middle of a raging PR war I have found it hard to trust someone who is right-out (implicitly) accusing me of malice ...
On another note: "... you were dismissing the Economist as a usable source." No, I was not. There is a very big difference between usable and axiomatically neutral. I never claimed the refs were unusable. Though they were useless (in an article where they are reffed several times) and on top of that used to back up a made-up PR sentence.Ihosama (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

solution for this problem is to find another source stating how libya got rich during the period, and to contrast those two statements in the article. every reader will believe more facts and data (from this potential reliable source) than opinions (from economist and the like). 188.2.162.17 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you'd ideally do is compare it to other oil states and compare how rich/well educated/healthy Libya is in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, direct comparison is not of much use as there is exactly zero of comparable sparse-populated, oil-rich (since 1960's), desert countries which were pretty much medieval just 50yrs ago... Funnily-enough, Russia around 1950s would be probably the best fit (sans Stalin).Ihosama (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia is a pretty good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Algeria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait are all good exsampels of backwaters, come oil emirates.Wipsenade (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saudi Arabia has 4*the population density on top of a magnitude bigger oil industry. The Oman example would be appropriate though.Ihosama (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Civil

Template:Pbneutral

Let's all go and read WP:Civil!Wipsenade (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2011 Libyan uprising

65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews has related news:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 2011 Libyan protests.

Are these other 2 are still O.K.?Wipsenade (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Queda

Should information from this article be incorporated into this article? If so, how? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Quaeda and Hamas have both been supplying the rebels. I added in a small section but am not sure how to add in the references? BBC carried the stories. Thanks! 152.131.9.132 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Opinion vs. Facts

Wikipedia's reputation has just taken another hit. People are making revisions based on what they think instead of what has been in the news. I will not get into an edit war, but I am sorely disappointed that people are putting their personal feelings ahead of the facts. I asked in the talk page for help with the citations, but it appears that people would rather their own personal views be on the page then put out what the news is reporting. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to this [47], in which you add your unsourced personal opinion. I agree that isn't good; I'm glad you've realised it. In particular, there have been reports that Al Qaeda has infilitrated the rebel organization to supply them with fighters and small arms, as well was Hamas supplying them with Katyusha rocket systems. is obviously contentious and you'd need a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and "Wikipedia's reputation", in your opinion, before this critical "hit" it suffered just now, has been what exactly, dear 152.131.9.132? It's not like the project had had smooth sailing for ten years just until this specific conflict erupted. --dab (𒁳) 13:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theres been some spectacularly one sided coverage of the uprising in many WP:RS so it not surprising many good faith editors seem to have a pro rebel POV. However very credible sources as well as my personal conversations with Lybian ex pats are saying that a substantial proportion of the rebels are racists, Islamic fundamentalists and tribalists who hate Gaddafi for cracking down on FGM and other barbaric practices, along with remnants of the old regime who want to get their hands on the oil revenue. Gaddafi is certainly oppressive and probably crazy, but he's channeled more of the oil wealth into his peoples' welfare than any other comparable leader. Possibly the allies are right to support the rebels, but theres a much less clear good /evil divide between the rebels / Gdaffi forces than the article currently suggests. Will add a few balancing sources, lets keep it NPOV please. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gadaffi also biult a masive trans-Sahara water pipeline from an aqiufer to Tripoli and Bengazi in 2006[[48]].Wipsenade (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article: Yoweri Museveni on Gadhafi [49] 95.32.200.229 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent piece. One of the very few at least attempting a neutral stance. It really needs to be somehow included in the article.Ihosama (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the uprising/civil war, not about the achievements of the Gaddafi regime or about Gaddafi himself. Also, this is the Ugandan's President's opinion and views regarding Gaddafi. So while it is an interesting article, I just don't see where you can incorporate anything he said into this specific article. Maybe a good place would be the International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war page or Muammar Gaddafi's page itself? Fovezer (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Lanouf, Uqayla and Brega post 15.02 GMT/30/March 2011.

Gadaffi has retaken it [50]. Wipsenade (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uqayla re-taken by Ghaddafi, Brega under fire and almost taken.-- User 58.9.150.113 (unsinged)
BREGA JUST RE-TAKEN BY GHADDAFI FORCES Source:Al Jazeera breaking news from Libyan 58.9.150.113 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last rebels are fleeing Brega [[51]]. Source:Monsters and critics.Wipsenade (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gadaffi now controles the towns of Ras Lanuf, Uqayla and Brega! Source:Sydney Morning Herald, [[52]].--Wipsenade (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize Letters on Title!

Right now it is 2011 Libyan civil war. "civil" and "war" is uncapitalised!! do it Civil War!! it look very unprofessional like that!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A civil war is not a proper noun. This is an encyclopedic article, not the title of a film. J1.grammar natz (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use title case per WP:Manual of Style. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chadian involvement

I have reverted an Infobox edit quoting [53]. So far the only claims of Chad's involvement came from the rebel commanders. Are there any other sources confirming it?

EDIT: Regarding this topic there is a high probability of mis-understanding. Over the past decades Libya has been actively enticing Chadian refugees to settle in its southern provinces. These people are likely to have high level of allegiance to the Gaddafi regime along with a possible experience from the Toyota War(which would fit current Loyalist tactics) thus can be easily misidentified as Chadian mercenaries. Ihosama (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=421556832"