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 92.7.4.36 (talk) at 11:29, 27 August 2011 (→‎Rename to Libyan Revolution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

STOP! Are you here to raise concerns or complaints about any of the maps? This is not the proper venue for such requests.

Discussing specific complaints on the Commons talk pages keeps discussion here focused on the article and makes it much more likely that your concerns will be properly addressed. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Template:Pbneutral

Cross after dead persons?

Theres a cross behind several dead persons in the article, as used by christians to mark a dead person. But those people are muslims, isnt KIA (killed in action) better term? RGDS Alexmcfire (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol isn't a cross, it's a dagger. There's no religious symbolism to it, and IIRC, its use to signify death predates the rise of Christianity. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NATO and NTC are committing genocide

Translated excerpt from an interview of the German magazine "Der Spiegel" with the secretary general of the National Transitional Council:

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it true that a list was published with the names of all Ligan Thauria, a kill list with 7200 people? Basama: There are many lists, you know."

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,752447,00.html

They have turned Libya into a slaughterhouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO_o-0NRhwg

http://www.obamaslibya.com/

http://theintelhub.com/2011/06/23/the-ugly-truth-video-of-libyan-rebel-beheading-gadhaffi-soldier-and-other-nato-war-crimes/

One of thier leaders is a CIA asset who spent nearly 20 years in Virginia. NATO has established a no-life-zone by poisoning and irradiating Libya with uranium. This war against Libya was planned by NATO long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.215.103.107 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Are you happy to have gotten youre little rant of youre chest.


I laughed at him and his sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.41.154 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal aspect of the war is real

I am growing tired with some editors probably thinking it is a funny thing to remove important information about belligerents in the war. Tribes are a very important aspect of this civil war.

Among the most important tribes involved there are of course the Gaddafa and the Magariha tribes supporting Gaddafi and others opposing him.

But the tribal dimension is present everywhere:

Tawerghans vs Misratans http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576395143328336026.html

Zintan tribe vs Mashashya http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,776695,00.html

In the east of course, all the tribes are against Gaddafi. In the south also there are mention of anti Gaddafi tribes (toubou) and we know the tuaregs are pro Gaddafi.

So you can continue with vandalism by removing the mentions in the infobox but I will keep writing the truth back. --Geromasis (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you, please assume good faith and refrain from characterizing others' edits as "vandalism" unless they are a clear example of such. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toubou are pro-Gaddafi [1] (or more likely anti-french and against racist Benghazi clique) 77.45.161.168 (talk) 08:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claims of one blogger who claims to be a Toubou, the Toubou, like other notable ethnic minorities (notably the Berbers of the Nafusa mountains, who form one of the strongest hotbeds of pro-NTC sentiment and the bulk of the fighters there), have fought on the rebel side. --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because the Toubou are/were one of the main rebel fighting groups in the Southern Libyan Desert campaign: 1. Seems like you may be wrong. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom they were? Because the article you find so funny clearly shows anti-rebel sentiment of the Toubou National Council and its supreme chiftain. And its much more believable giving the Toubou history with the French and the recent Benghazi racist massacres. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great example of WP:SYNTH. We have to go by what secondary sources report. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the link: "We have been attacked twice in the past week by Gadhafi's army," said Mohammed Sidi, a Toubou tribal leader". News source > blog. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another source that says that Gaddafi had to send in helicopter gunships to quell a rebellion by the Toubou in Kufra back in 2009. Your position is getting less and less credible, anon... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a UN document describing systematic discrimination against the Toubou (among other minorities) by Gaddafi. Allow me to quote some passages for you:
  • "STP recalled that massive discrimination of the Toubou minority had been reported from the south eastern part of the country. Some 4,000 Toubou people are living in the town of Kufra, an oasis city of 44,000 inhabitants some 2,000 kilometres from Tripoli. In the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, they were treated as foreigners by the authorities. In December 2007, the Libyan Government withdrew citizenship from members of the Toubou group, stating that they were not Libyans but Chadians. Furthermore the local authorities issued decrees barring Toubou from access to education and health care services. The armed movement “Front for the Salvation of the Toubou Libyans” has opposed these measures and up to 33 people died in Kufra, during five days of fighting between the official security forces and the Toubou in November 2008."
  • "Despite public criticism, the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to expel Toubou people from their residential areas in Kufra according to STP. Since November 2009 dozens of families lost their homes due to forced destruction by bulldozers supervised by state security forces. Several dozens of Toubou were arrested because of their opposition against the forced evictions. They only were released after publicly confirming that they would not block any destruction of houses. People who refused to move from their houses were beaten by security officials. Some were notified by the authorities to leave the houses only minutes before bulldozers destroyed their homes. No alternative housing was proposed to the victims of the forced evictions. Furthermore, Libyan authorities refused to renew or extend passports to members of this minority. Several times parents were prevented from registering births of their children and denied birth certificates. According to STP, the Libyan Government is responsible for a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing in Kufra which violates both Libyan and international law."
Your claims continue to disintegrate when exposed to real research... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate section

The stalemate section should be removed. The rebels have rejected the possibility of a retired Gaddafi remaining in Libya, and they gained four towns yesterday which shows they are winning. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Rebel proposition is not relevant with the notion of stalemate. Rebels appear to have made some gain in the Nafusa mountain according to their announcement but it is the least important of the three main frontline and nothing major happenned there.

The stalemate title is there to indicate that the major offensives on the big frontline on Brega and Zliten failed and that the situation is close to frozen.--FreemanSA (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have pretty much taken Brega and they now have $149 million from the UK with another huge loan. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Last news are rebels failed to take Brega. They claimed victory almost two weeks ago but have still not entered Brega who is still under loyalist control, they are 20 km away and no clashes are happening since one week. The page of the battle has been finished. --FreemanSA (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi only holds part of Brega. (92.7.4.91 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And the Sun is blue. Like we didn't know.89.102.1.194 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information 92.7..., but the rebels have themselves confirmed they are a full 20 kilometers from the town while the loyalists are still in full control of Brega. Their earlier claims of taking Brega is nothing new, they do that every time just a few hours after they attack Brega for the last four months. If what the rebels say is true than they have captured Brega 20 times by now. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says 5 km. Anyway they control part of the town. (92.7.5.54 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actualy they don't per their own commanders, and source you are looking at that says 5km is out-of-date (around the time the battle was still ongoing), the updated source (one day after the battle ended) says 20km [2]. Please stop pov-pushing for the rebel cause. We need to keep a neutra point of view. EkoGraf (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BREGA BEING TAKEN TODAY BY THE REBELS. Ghaddafi's men are just in few suburbs. You can change color at last. Hopefully forever.MaXiMiLiAnO 20:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Zliten is also under attack as we speak. (92.10.137.9 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While I also hope Brega and Zliten are taken, the information on this page and others has to be neutrally presented and it has to be verifiable. It's jumping the gun to say it's time to change Brega to dark red on the map. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind sources do you need ? Al Araybia had already reported along most of press agencies , Brega had fallen to rebels hands several days ago, when the reality, the rebels were just entering the eastern parts of the town.The piece of news was not full exact, but not totally wrong either, just not precise due to the difficulty in the front line and the continuos advances-retreats during battles. The rebels "twits" according to you are unreliable, so only Ghaddafi's propaganda and Libyan State TV is left, is this the reliable source you need ? If this is the reliable source, so that you should change to the color to Adjabiya too, since according to Libya press agency rebels have all retreated to Benghazi. I think the only solution is to keep the blue point (as you had before)in the town where combats are still ongoing, so Brega and also Zliten (rebels are in the eastern outskirts). Green and reed points are not enough and always matter of ambiguisness. Right now Brega is partly controlled by the rebels (2/3 or 3/4 ? hard to say) and small parts of Zliten (maybe 10-20%), so these places must have a blue point until the situation will be clear. Just a thoughMaXiMiLiAnO 13:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

The rebels have themselves said today they still haven't taken control of the town or are even in the town itself. Read today's source [3]. Quoting the rebels A spokesman for the rebels in Ajdabiya said they had pushed Gaddafi's heavy weapons out of reach of their forces around Brega but the rebels were not in control of the oil town. All earlier reports (by rebel commanders at the frontline themselves) put them at around 20 kilometers east of Brega [4]. So please enough with the claims they took the town or even a part of the town. They have claimed 50 times by now to have taken Brega. And Al Arabiya is not reliable because it is highly pro-rebel. Until a BBC or Reuters reporter says he is standing in Brega everything that the rebels say should be considered unreliable as well as what the loyalists say. It's a propaganda war people. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough what ? You must stop with you biased news, not me, if Al Arabya not reliable, Al Jazeera not reliable , AFP not reliable, what is reliable than ? Libya TV channel ? Before slandering myself you should get informed too.I have never seen another wikipage so biased in this way, refusing to take into account main international sources and relying only to Ghaddafi's propaganda. AFP has also confirmed rebels have taken Zliten, besides Brega. Journalists cannot be inside a town where fights are still ongoing. .The towns where fights are ongoing,situation unclear and are occupied in parts by both sides, should be coloured in blue, as they were before. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a war and war has continuos changes of frontlines, when i edited correctly about Al Jouf , i have been accused of being a liar, when i edited about Al Qatrun the same thing, It is obvious some towns switches hands several times, early today rebels retreat from Brega residential area again to organize for a new push. It has been like this for awhile. It doesn't mean everybody else except you is a liar. Front changes quickly and news are foggy. MaXiMiLiAnO 13:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Biased? I was highly offended with that remark. I never talked to you specificly. When I said enough I ment enough edits based on rebel claims. I never said that AFP or Al Jazeera are not reliable, if anything I said BBC or Reuters should be trusted firstly. I sad Al Arabiya is the only foreign media that shouldn't be trusted because it is highly biased and pro-rebel. I never said to trust Libya TV, again, I also said that the loyalist TV is unreliable. I pride myself that I am highly neutral and maintain that the only sources that should be used are eyewitness accounts of BBC, Reuters, AFP or any other journalists. And not what they report the rebels or the loyalists claim. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even rebels at this moment don't say that they have taken Brega or Zliten. It would be outrageous to change it in the article. --FreemanSA (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels are saying they have taken Zliten, and that they defeated an attempt by Gaddafi's forces to retake the town today. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You are again not reading the sources correctly. I get it you want the rebels to win, but you have to read the reports more carefully. The source you read [5] says the rebels (and this is only per their claim, no independent confirmation) defeated the counter-attack on the eastern outskirts of the town where they took up positions yesterday. This even contradicts their earlier claim they are in the center of the town. All reports now state that the rebels are on the eastern outskirts, loyalists on the western outskirts, and nobody sure who holds the city center. EkoGraf (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have invaded Libya in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Gaddafi took over in 1969. :P Please refrain from your personal points of view and try to remain neutral here on Wikipedia. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, I would have invaded Libya as soon as he began arming the IRA in 1972. (92.10.132.20 (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My friend, ok we must be careful with the sources, but at least try to follow them at 360 degrees, there are not only Reuters and AP in this planet and they cannot be everywhere. FF are still fighting in Brega, some of them managed to skip it forward to the village of Bishr today. Also the situation in Qatrun is unclear, it appears many rebels are inside the town which is encicled by Ghaddafi's forces. I just suggest to put a blue point (unclear situation, ongoing fighting) not just at Zliten but also at Brega and Qatrun. I think it would be fair and balanced. And you know how war is, going forward, retreat, waiting for reinforcement, moving forward, retreat, etc...well, it is complicated, so please consider put the blue point in these important fronts. Cheers. MaXiMiLiAnO 16:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

At the moment the situation is realy clear. The rebels themselves have stated they have retreated from Al Qatrun and the loyalists have re-taken the town. A large number of foreign journalists from a number of leading media outlets (BBC, CNN, etc) were taken to Zlitan and they confirmed no presence of the rebels in the city except the sound of artillery fire a few kilometers east of the city, no sign of fighting inside the city. And as far as Brega goes, all reports indicate skirmishes on the road 20 kilometers east of the town and a few raids by rebel groups into the eastern part of Brega (which the rebels previously claimed to had taken) and than those groups retreating quickly over back over the frontline to Ajdabiya. EkoGraf (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it looks as if the stalemate has continued- despite brief rebel claims to the contrary, the rebels have failed to take and hold both Zliten and Brega. The situation in the southwest is fuzzy at best (though apparently Alain Juppe lent credence to the idea that rebels are making gains there, I have yet to see any RSes confirming this). Until there is a major victory that lasts on one side, it can at least be regarded as a quasi-stalemate. --Yalens (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (EDIT:On the other hand it looks like Bir al-Ghanam has just fallen to the rebels...)[reply]

There is no longer any stalemate now the rebels have taken Bir Ghanam. (92.7.16.72 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]


I agree, the stalemate is over. The rebels have launched massive offensives on all fronts and appear to be having significant success. The stalemate section should be added to the main narrative.

EkoGraf, you keep missing the point that a war like this has continous changes of front, the fact Brega and Zliten centers were free of rebels few days ago, it doesn't mean few days before the rebels hadn't briefly reached them.The fronts change lots of time and Ghaddafi uses the brief favorable spells when his mercenaries manage to repel the rebels, to take journalists there to say "everything is under control" when it IS NOT. The war is fluid, fronts change continously, don t get trapped into the Ghaddafi's tricks. Moreover, the situation is further complicated by loyalists disguised as rebels to avoid NATO strikes and also rebels disguised as loyalists in some small villages. It's not easy to report amongst this kind of situation: journalists are used by Ghaddafi to show only what he wants to show.Anyway, as today speaking, the situation is changing fast and the wave is turning in favour of the rebels. Next days battles for Gharyan and Zawya will be decisive. Also Sebha is shaking and might fall. If rebels will also take Ghadames, Ghaddafi can count his days . On Tuesday he will celebrate his 42th and last anniversary in power, of course he will say everything is under control.MaXiMiLiAnO 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


--Korona (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have finished liberating Tawarga. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

From all of its people it seems. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiji was liberated without a fight. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Same here. The word "liberation" is so flexible it seems))) 95.32.167.148 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian help

Here I found an article about Polish humanitarian plans for Libya http://www.wbj.pl/article-55392-poland-presents-libya-assistance-package.html?typ=ise Boniek1988 (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels say that they controlled Al Zawiyah

This arab site say that rebels said to Al Arabia TV that "Liberated" Al Zawiyah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.135.23.112 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebelish:We control Al-Zawiyah, hooray!
Translation: We are attacking Al-Zawiyah and hope to control it soon. --Yalens (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens is a good translator, the most likely event is that the rebels hold the southern bit of the town and are attacking the rest, but the town is not fully liberated.MonteMiz (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might need new articles for battles for Gharyan, Aziziyah and Az Zawiyah

Apparently the rebels are already engaged in fighting the Gaddafites in Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, and they plan to take aim at Aziziyah as well according to Al Jazeera's field reporters. We should probably at least make new articles for Gharyan and Az Zawiyah, I think, as they are due to be major battles due to the importance of those two cities. Separate articles from the Nafusa campaign, I mean. --Yalens (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels have made huge advances on all three fronts so I think the "Stalemate" section should be removed. (92.7.26.238 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Their only undisputable advance was in Nafusa Mountains. 95.32.197.234 (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalemate section should not be removed but a new section should be started under it. I say wait and see if the rebels capture some or all of the towns they are attacking then update accordingly MonteMiz (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reporters in Zawiyah have confirmed the rebels have taken the city. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

News that the rebels are assaulting all coastal towns west of Tripoli. Those might all go under one article. Wait and see. 93.232.152.76 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've libertaed Surman now. (92.7.1.131 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A new section on this should be written yes, but the stalemate section stays no matter what. Because the stalemate was an undisputable part of the conflict for five months. Create a new section after the stalemate one. EkoGraf (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any stalemate at all. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sabratha has been liberated so it should be changed to brown on the map. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

All of Zawiya has been liberated now. (92.7.26.244 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Libya conflict: Rebels capture key Zawiya oil refinery found this on BBC--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now,fighting also going on at Ghadames, Qatrun and Ghat. Maybe we should add a third map showing better the situation in the south.Ghaddafi's has three main bases or strongholds :Tripoli,Sirt and Sebha and rebels are advancing towards them. Murzuk is under rebels' hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References broken

Somebody broke the references section. The links to the Al Jazeera Live Blog should be in the article text. The way the {{Reflist}} is currently formatted with those refs listed is preventing all the references from being displayed. Fortguy (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Tripoli

Zawiya is 50 km from Tripoli and there are, according to specific article, fierce and unclear fighting. Garyan is also about 50 or maybe more km from Tripoli so I think that it is to soon to make new section Tripoli surrounded. Maybe Struggles around Tripoli?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The map seems to show there is still one clear road out of Tripoli to bani walid so tripoli is not 100% under seige. A fighting around tripoli section may be a better idea but we already have a new section about the rapid rebel advance so we should wait untill things peter out MonteMiz (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see tripoli sourounded as already been added. does that mean the tripolania map is out of date? It clearly shows the road out of tripoli to the south via beni walid is clear and the map says it keeps going to shabba MonteMiz (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no supply route through Bani Walid apart from the road. With Garyan and the coastal road taken, there is no route for oil to reach Tripoli, and the only option through Bani Walid would be to supply Tripoli from Sirte. Although I think Sirte has a port, you can't get oil that way, and food/arms would not be easy. So, while "surrounded" is an exaggeration, Tripoli essentially has its supply lines cut. — kwami (talk)

Tripoli is indeed surrounded and cut off. Even if Sirte has a port, the NATO naval blockade would prevent anything from getting through. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Just a professional note from my experience. Sirt's port has been abandoned for years. Its port gets shallow fast, so it might need almost a year of foreign-professional work to get it going. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few 4.5 inch guns will do the job better still. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Liberation of Misrata

There are some reports that Misrata has been liberated by the pro-government volunteers (Report here). Could somebody verify this claim? Zupi (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we shouldn’t buy any piece of news that emerges from the internets.--Rafy talk 10:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was true it would be reported everywhere. It isn't the first time the regime's spokesman has been known to lie. (92.7.10.62 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Well...the same can be said about the rebels' propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.142.172 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very use of the word 'liberated' should have made the news suspicious to begin with.--Yalens (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. Mathaba is the major controler of Gaddafi's government. Their members are like secret agents all around the country, whom take control of the government at the bad times. Therefore, we definately have tons of lies before, which is why the Western and Arab media didn't give it any attention. ~ AdvertAdam talk 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg's Chris Stephen, who is based out of Misrata, disagrees with Tripoli Tom and the Gaddafist meat puppets over at Mathaba: [6] -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Days of ongoing conflict is wrong

There is an error... I think he counts February with 30 Days or so (360 days year?), because I think 185 is there since a while and today its the 183. Day since 17. February. So it can't be 185 since a week or so. Maybe this should be fixed or edited manually. Kilon22 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered all of the bits about the breakout from Nafusa under the siege of Tripoli, but the dates are all over the place. Needs to be cleaned up; I don't know the actual dates. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

list od comanders

Is it really necessary to list Charles Bouchard twice? (once as nato once as canada) MonteMiz (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Canadian Charles Bouchard is useless as he is a Nato commander not a Canadian diplomat or something. BenjaminMarine9037 (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something's apparently happening in Tripoli

Note: Sources are obviously VERY sparse at the moment, and so I'll try to keep things posted as more information becomes available. However... [7] [8] --FineHourglass (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoli is close to collapse. There are tens of thousands of anti-Gaddafi demonstrators on the streets, and most of them are armed. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah I heard about the news as well. Lots of intense gunfire and protesters have started marching. Here is the source. [9] Noneofyour (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC, Sky News and Reuters are reporting it as well. The rebels are attacking Tripoli in force, while a huge uprising has begun inside the city. (92.7.2.245 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

With the main rebel army 27k from Tripoli, this may very well be the end. Noneofyour (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page desperately needs updating, especially the introductory section. It seems to end in March, yet a lot has happened since.--Halma10 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As rebels are closing on Tripoli, a detailed map of Tripoli would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.156.162 (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddafi Security Surrenders

GADDAFI'S SECURITY FORCES SURRENDER, SAIF AL-ISLAM CAPTURED!!!!! [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.185.194 (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt Gaddafi the reference talks about, it was his guards that surrendered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources claim he died, others claim he surrendered, or that he is still on air ranting against the invaders and "small rebel groups". It's all very vague and unclear as of now. Polozooza (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added a reference list with <references />, as the reference template was not working. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show Tripoli As a Rebel Stronghold

Its time has there have been live tv scenes from Green Square that Rebels are in the centre of the city so its time on the maps for Tripoli as a rebel stronghold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.223.201 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking in the worng place, try asking over at the commons [11], im against it though as the status is still unclear in Tripoli. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations

There are too many citations in this article, that especially when accessed on the secure servers [12], the page is not loading. (502 proxy error) and when it does load on nonsecure server, it's crazy slow.

I think things either need 1) splitting out more into subarticles and/or 2) converting the citations to just plain text, not using templates. Thoughts?

Any objections to us doing something to make the page more manageable, both for editors and readers. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting database errors and imagine it's almost impossible to edit at this time. I think this calls for emergency action to split parts of the article out into subpages or even a sandbox and we can reorganize things to make the article more manageable. (any objections to me trying this? editorial-wise, i'm pretty open to how things are done but just want the page viewable and editable) --Aude (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, this article has been a time bomb waiting to go off, it needs structure badly. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily moved contents of the international reactions to a sandbox:
User:Aude/International_reactions_to_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war
Feel free to edit if you want. I couldn't move it to the subarticle, as I see that already has almost 500 references! --Aude (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone commented out the references, nominally as a performance measure. Now users must "view source" to get them, and the performance hit that imposes. May I suggest reforming cases like "[123][124][125][126][127]" for a single sentence instead? Int21h (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

I think the course of the war section needs to be split out. Yes, I see there already are timelines. This part of the main article summarized more and have more details in the subarticle timelines? maybe the timelines even could be split into shorter time segments so everything stays manageable. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

Just some ideas:

thoughts?

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being impartial, I guess as an admin, right now... but both those ideas sound good to me. (I'm happy to help with summarizing and stuff, if people want) --Aude (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to handle citations.

I believe it would be best to boil down the citations and just provide a link to the website that offers a citation to the many articles. So the people viewing can search at their own will and we won't need 500 citations.

If I remember correctly, we did that with the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article back in Feb, though only ~300 references. (looks like they've been changed back now). I think that helped and think it would help here. --Aude (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Saif al-Arab from Commanders list

Youngest son whose death was announced by the regime was not a military commander and was virtually never seen in public. Scottbp (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

I've taken off full protection, making it semi-protected for now.

I suggest two things:

  1. convert references to be just plain text, no templates
  2. work to summarize things and put details in subarticles, so the split sections can be put back in summarized form.

(I'll help however you want me to , or if help's not needed/wanted, that's fine)

Cheers. --Aude (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the war

Whoever changed that obviously did it without community consensus. Someone should change it back.--RM (Be my friend) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Too many references (615!) was causing technical problems for the servers, errors when viewing and editing the page! Please summarize the section and re-add something back but please do not put it back, as it was. That would be most helpful! Thank you. --Aude (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were a lot of LibyaFeb17.com references later shown to be unreliable. We can put that section back in, and remove all those.--RM (Be my friend) 02:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the unreliably sourced material certainly is very helpful. Here is the subarticle with the entire text that was in the "Course of the war" section: Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war.
This timeline article has 239 references itself and adding them all back to this article would bring it up to almost 500 again. Maybe there still is room to summarize things a bit more or at least pulling out some of the most detailed information and putting it in the timelines. (below)
The timeline has three subarticles of its own, where I think the super detailed information should go:
I'd also like to change how the references are done, to do them in a way without using the {{citation}} templates. I think that would help quite a lot.
I'm sure there are other ways to do things to help make the article size more manageable and I'm fine with pretty much anything that helps. --Aude (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of red links in above post:
Before material was moved to other pages today, the article was in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded because it broke Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. The number of citation templates certainly contributed to that but I don't recommend to worsen the citation formatting by dropping citation templates. The article also simply seemed too long before when it reached 332,388 bytes of wiki source. The html source of the rendered article currently says "Post-expand include size: 1016723/2048000 bytes". This shows that it currently only uses around half of the limit it previously broke. So some of the removed material could be readded or summarized without breaking the limit. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining the template limit. Sounds like we're okay with keeping the references formatted, as-is, but should summarize more and split things into subarticles. Cheers (and links fixed!) --Aude (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

"United Kingdom 1 airman killed in traffic accident in Italy[33][34]" -- Is this really a casualty of the war? Yes, he was on the way to the front, but I dont see how it counts really. If someone being deployed, but still on base, died, would that be a casualty?
"Netherlands 3 Dutch Marines captured (later released)[35]" -- If they are released, how are they still casualties?
"United States 1 USN MQ-8 shot down[36][37]" -- a drone is not a casualty
"Netherlands 1 Royal Netherlands Navy Lynx captured[35]" -- This appears to be about a helicopter, not a casualty.
"United States 1 USAF F-15E crashed[38]" -- crew survived
"United Arab Emirates 1 UAEAF F-16 damaged upon landing[39]" -- link is dead, but it appears the same as above

These should all be removed. They are not casualties.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, they shouldn't belong here. Especially the one about the traffic accident in Italy, which is just ridiculous to include. Dtnoip28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I agree, materiel losses are not casualties of war. 99.69.86.204 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may only agree on the issue of the planes. However, war articles regulary include the numbers of soldiers captured during the war. As far as the killed british soldier goes, the international media and the British government/MoD declared him a casualty of the war. The Iraq war, Afghan war and Vietnam war articles include hundreds of US soldiers killed in non-combat situations, and dozens of them even not in the war zone but places like Kuwait, Bahrain, Thailand, Japan, etc. So personal opinions don't count when something is properly sourced. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Revolution

If Gaddafi's regime loses power, should the title of this article be changed to "Libyan Revolution"? Macarion (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what makes the most sense, but those "running" Wikipedia oppose to change the name of the article for reasons no one seems to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.77.195 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed article names are decided by all editors via consensus. If a requested move discussion is started then everybody can participate. It is usually considered important whether a name is common in reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site. It is sometimes a factor whether a new name is likely to stick. They are still fighting and "Libyan revolution" may be a little premature for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean we never change names. In February it was moved from "2011 Libyan protests" to "2011 Libyan uprising". In March it was moved to "2011 Libyan civil war". It's certainly possible it will soon become "2011 Libyan revolution". However, there are many African civil wars where the regime changed and the winner may have called it a revolution but the name didn't stick. Even if we move it to "2011 Libyan revolution", it might be moved back again later if another dictator soon emerges and the outside world consider him no better or worse than Gaddafi, and stop calling it a revolution. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Libyan Revolution is what Gaddafi himself led 40 years ago. A better name would be New Libyan Revolution or 2011 Libyan Revolution (or just be patient and don't try to be newsy about this, the people there will come up with a name for it). -- Avanu (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution began as peaceful public protests, and only when the urban crowds were subjected to artillery, tank, mortar and cluster bomb barrages did the revolutionaries begin arming themselves. When fighting began, it was volunteer combatants representing their city quarters taking on trained regular army troops and mercenaries. That is a revolution, not a civil war. Only in a few small pockets of territory, such as Sirte and its environs, did pro-Qaddafi civilians oppose the revolutionaries, but it would be wrong to magnify a handful of skirmishes of that sort into a civil war. Qaddafi’s support was too limited, too thin, and too centered in the professional military, to allow us to speak of a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.232.49 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an armed conflict that ensued a partially failed revolution, very similar to the Spanish and Russian civil war, it has all the hallmarks of a traditional civil war and it should be called so.--Rafy talk 09:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's isn't any necessary to change into a 'Revolution' since it's already a civil war. Just highlight it as black colour and call it a revolution, but the 2011 Libyan Civil War should remain unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.139.225 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it is clearly a revolutionary movement, where Libyan citizens are revolting against the existing regime, aiming to overthrow it, you can't argue much about that. However, I have to admit, that since "at the moment" the campaign have not succeeded "yet" mainly because, part of their "own Libyan population" are resisting the revolt, by definition that defines it as a "Civil" war, where the warring factions are from the same country. Having said that, I do believe that, as soon as the opposition succeeds their mission in disposing Gaddafi, it has to be renamed as a Revelation or Uprise something to that extend.--96.56.3.62 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a revolution. All of Gaddafi's troops are mercenaries. (92.7.3.54 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That's a blatant lie.
As for the name of the article, well...a war was fought, and it's still being fought. We could follow the example of the American Revolution and American Revolutionary War articles and move the stuff about protests and the NTC (and eventually, as will likely follow, the transitional process into a new elected government) to a 2011 Libyan revolution article while keeping the battles and intervention and whatnot in this civil war article. Considering the massive size of this article, I would support that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes a lot of sense, Kudzu1, because if you really think about it, the 2 terms "Civil War" and "Revolution" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it could be both, and that is exactly what the case here is. It is a revolt, no question about it, subjects of a long-time oppressive ruler are rising up and revolting against the regime aiming to overthrow it, that is in plain English a revolution. However, it could very well be that a Civil War played out during the campaign leading to the final revolution, where part of the population fought for the revolution and part resisted. So eventually, splitting up the article, would make sense, one focusing on the movement, and one on the battles.--96.56.3.62 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the article name to Revolution or Uprising today, it's just comical to see wikipedia the only place on the web or elsewhere to label it a Civil War. It just looks foolish. --75.99.39.162 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, especially as a Libyan, that this is not a civil war. As the user above has stated, Wikipedia is the only site that refers to it as a civil war, and it does indeed look ignorant. The name should be changed to Conflict/Revolution FizzBrine (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "libyan civil war" excluding the term "wikipedia" returns 36.6 million results on Google. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what last entry is supposed to show. Checked out Google just before this writing, with the following results:

2011 Libyan civil war -wikipedia 36.8m
2011 Libyan revolution -wikipedia 55.5m

I'd be very much in favour of calling it a revolution, and soon. The aim, of the early protesters and before, was always to remove the dictator. With the possible exception of the Qadhadhfa tribe, it had great and probably majority support across all the social divisions in Libya - tribal, ethnic, religious and geographic. The comment of 89.100.232.49 (22 August above), is most cogent. This was almost entirely a conflict in which a trained and abundantly armed military, heedless of any social divisions, engaged and attacked civil targets. When a revolutionary army,armed mainly with captured weapons, emerged from defections and civilian volunteers, its sole stated objective was the removal of the tyrant. Its enemies were soldiers or well-armed militias, defending or establishing military positions, who used civilians as hostages. A major political objective, and the main reason for popular support on the revolutionary side of the conflict, is the creation or restoration of a civil society that is not divided along social lines. The Libyan people, with their friends and allies, have achieved the revolution they aspired to, however it turns out in the longer term. So far, and let's hope forever, the conflict has not seen the factionalism that characterises a civil war.

Can we submit this issue to resolution now? Concord113 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the desire of many editors to believe this conflict has simply pitted the entire population of Libya against a cadre of delusional, corrupted, and/or imported soldiers, the accounts from the front lines (past and present) simply don't bear that out. The thuwaar themselves have admitted that many civilians in places like Tiji, Sirte, Sabha, Bin Jawad, Zliten, Ghat, and southern Tripoli are pro-Gaddafi; in many of those places, pro-regime militias organized to fight them. So, my position is: the revolution has not yet taken place, but the civil war is ongoing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that there is some popular support for Gaddafi, and that it may yet come to a civil war in which a fairly clearly described group - Gaddafi's tribe for instance - remains violently opposed to the revolution. It's most unfortunate that more people have to die before its remnants stop fighting; in the worst of cases, this may become a long drawn out process or even escalate to something that could be reasonably classified as a civil war. But I would argue that the revolution itself has already been achieved, in the sense that the regime has fallen definitively; the political upheaval has occurred, even though we do not know exactly what will replace it.
Kudzu1, what in your view would be decision point here? If large-scale military violence ends shortly, it should be clear enough as a tail-end of the conflict. If not, we will have to start a whole other - unfortunate - subject. Concord113 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, didn't see there is a poll going on below. Probably shouldn't add any more to this section. And for tidiness, maybe someone could move it to that section (I don't trust myself) Concord113 (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Status' is conflict infobox

With so few of the good guys left fighting, at what point does it become incumbent to vary the status from "ongoing" to recording it as decisively victory for the NATO proxies?LowPointForLibya (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are still pro-Gaddafi areas - 'ongoing' is the correct word - western prosperous neighbourhoods for example are more pro-Gaddafi than the eastern poorer areas of Tripoli apparently, those who have done well out of the regime and could care less about repression and shooting unarmed demonstrators kind of thing, - 'ongoing' is the correct word - if a word is used straightforwardly, does that blow the mind of a pro-gaddafi person, used only to twisted words and thoughts 92.4.115.63 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zwara

Zwara has been taken by rebels forces, but it 's under attack from 3 fronts by Ghaddafi's forces who are trying to retake it. Situation in the South is very blurred, since everything is concentrating in Tripoli,but there are many news of uprising from almost every town, including Sebha. Eastern front of Ghaddafi's forces stationed between Sirt and Brega are negotiating a surrender with rebels.MaXiMiLiAnO 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Apparently Mutassim went back to Bab el Azizia and Khamis is leading his brigade in Tripoli, although some rumors say he might be dead.MaXiMiLiAnO 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

==al khums

Reports rebels forces have just entering Al Khums. In the east, Brega at last under rebels control after Ghaddafi's troops retreat towards the west. Ghaddafi's forces still hold the territory from Ras Lanuf to Sirt,Beni Walid and most of the South-west despite clashes being reported there. MaXiMiLiAnO 19:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

Real map of war

Due to misinformation and NATO NATO-controlled media, you must add an additional section with an alternative point of view, or modify existing information. For example, the real map of hostilities. http://vusso.ucoz.ru/_nw/1/s02421829.jpg Green - free from the scourge of the city Red - the battle continues Brown - the city under the control of bandits and mercenaries (the rebels) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.157.71 (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that 'real map' shows Misrata as pro-Gaddafi controlled, is that right Moscow ip - 'you must this, you must that, you must - modify existing information' - Stalinist authoritarian drivel. anyone can add anything - then if it has good RS and survives the scrutiny of reality it stays in I guess, - stop telling people what to do Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All your information is based on a NATO-controlled, biased sources. And do not become personal. Here everyone has a right to the point of view. Do not need to turn Wikipedia into a source of misinformation. I do not need to put my point of view as the only true, I want to give both versions of what is happening!89.250.157.71 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are images of rebels celebrating in Tripoli and Misrata on TV right now... on multiple channels. Unless nearly all major media outlets throughout the world are a part of some vast NATO conspiracy, I'd have to say that map has no bearing on the reality of the situation. 68.7.4.181 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/*TV Moovies is Fake from Quatar...*/ example89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafy, What right have you to delete someone else's, unwanted messages to you in the discussions? If you do so again, I'll have to complain about.89.250.157.71 (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're sources don't come remotely close to meeting our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. There's no point in discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is discussion, not article! And photos, this is not what you need to choose from which sources.89.250.157.71 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.gif map

Could someone create a better war map, as a .gif image? It should:

  1. Work as a slideshow of updated maps, showing each week.
  2. Have a date in one corner.

A map like that would be very helpful.

90.191.78.48 (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian

The link to the daily blog in EL is out of date again. Why not include the main link with the ME live blog underneath it for now? 99.50.188.177 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 22 article on reasons for sudden rebel success

How Did Tripoli's Stubborn Stalemate Suddenly Become a Rout? It includes links to its sources. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposals

Its definitely time to rename this article "2011 Libyan revolution" -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, this article must be renamed to ""2011 Libyan revolution" Brio-En (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

2011 Libyan civil war → 2011 Libyan revolution — Now that Muammar Gaddafi has been forced out of power, many major news outlets are referring to it as a revolution. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
Support
The graph shows that the term "civil war" has become more popular as the war progressed.--Rafy talk 16:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think the main article should be named The Libyan Revolution or similar, with a sub-article for the war-stage of this process. And I don't think civil war isn't fitting even for the sub-article as per reasons mentioned above in the "#Libyan Revolution" discussion. 194.16.30.114 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditionally: It isn't a revolution yet (the Gaddafis still have some power bases and their people are still fighting), so we should wait a day or however long it takes. However, calling this a civil war seems iffy. I'll put more in discussion. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The people overthrew the government. That's a revolution. This isn't East vs West, Sunni vs Shia, etc. This is not a civil war. The "pro-Gaddafi forces" are just the Libyan military and mercenaries. Should the American Revolution be called a civil war? No. Macarion (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per Merriam-Webster a civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." This revolution is a war between the citizens and the military. Also see Top Ten Myths about the Libya War. Vroo (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: Skimming through other users' comments here, I'm torn in having this article renamed to the 2011 Libyan revolution or leaving the 'civil war' in the title (in this instance, the Libyan Civil War would be a much better alternative to the 2011 Libyan civil war). However, I Strongly Support in having this article being split off that would include both the revolutionary AND civil war aspects of the entire conflict, as Kudzu1 had suggested. --FineHourglass (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: This was a revolution from day one, not a civil war. The revolutionaries, who are untrained civilians forced to carry weapons, fighting against the government's military trained forces and foreign mercenaries. NOT factions against each other. FizzBrine (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: The loyalists and the rebels are fighting each other since February, so it is certainly a civil war. But a civil war fought against government forces and with mass support completely defines a revolution, I think. Since we saw mass support of the rebels in Tripolitania in August, for me it is clear that this was a revolution and a civil war as well. But primarily this was definitely a revolution. (Think about the Cuban Revolution, that also was a civil war as well.) Also, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support : More and more the journalists I watch on BBC say 'the Revolution that began in February appears to be moving to a conclusion..' kind of thing. Sayerslle (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The revolutionary objective, removal of the regime, has been achieved since Gaddafi lost control of his capital and main center of operations and was forced to flee. The path to this point forms a unified whole, and a fairly specific end-point, even if there are significant unresolved issues. There was a civil war aspect to the conflict - in the sense of coherent social groups fighting each other -and it is important to take this correctly into the overall historic analysis. In the worst case, in the event that the NTC cannot impose adequate political and military control, one could imagine the current situation sliding into a civil war proper, where demographic or social groups were pitted against each other. This is still for the future to reveal, but I believe the conflict up to this point cannot be usefully called a civil war, which would be to emphasis the internecine aspects above the main achievement: the sudden and complete destruction of the power structure. PS: the people probably agree: a Google search today for the terms is showing almost two to three (58.9%)in favour of revolution over civil war. Concord113 (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Also, it should be the Libyan Revolution, the only one so far, so no need to specify the year. Concord113 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, when we take history into account, the victors of the civil wars get to call them revolutions, particularly if it is civilians against a government. Besides in the end it was shown the average citizen did not support gaddafi or take up arms in defense of him. Zenithfel (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • Oppose: Please refer to Talk:2011 Libyan civil war#Libyan Revolution section. I think material not related to the war should be split off and placed into a new page (although calling it 2011 Libyan revolution may be premature, as the likes of President Barack Obama and Chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil have pointed out that the real victory will be when Col. Gaddafi is captured), but a war took place. It's lasted for six months and counting; it's not done yet, and I strongly suspect there will be further actions at Sirte and parts of the Libyan South even once Tripoli is pacified. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are also sources such as CNN still calling this an "Uprising" I think we should let things atand as the majority of sources refer this as a "civil war". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose, I aggre with Kudzu1, but at lest WAIT: the war hasn`t finished yet: there`s fighting in Tripoli, while Sirte and Sabha are in hands of Loyalists. --Ave César Filito (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I quote here from Princeton's WordNet:"(n) revolution (the overthrow of a government by those who are governed)". Compare this with " (n) civil war (a war between factions in the same country)". It's quite obvious that the conflict had turned from a revolution to a civil war when an opposing governing council was created in the eastern part of the country, thus creating two warring authorities in one country.--Rafy talk 23:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your objection is that the rebels were too well-organized? Macarion (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Macarion That's what seems like it. @Rafy The National Transition Council was created to try and take care of the administrative issues in Libya. Its objectives were not solely "fight Gaddafi" but rather form a new government, hold elections, restore civil life, and most importantly conduct foreign policies in a state where the Gaddaffi was left practically powerless. Clealry, the NTC was not another "faction" but really a newer democratic faction that emerged perhaps a bit too prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.79.137 (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that there are two authorities striving to gain control over the same country, sure loyalists always formed a minority (10-15% of Libyans) in my opinion, and rebels were often disorganised but that doesn't change much. I find the situation very similar to the Spanish civil war: republicans were disorganised but enjoyed popular support while the nationalists lacked that support but relied more on professionalism.--Rafy talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  • Neutral. I think it is too early to call it either way. "Civil war" has been the moniker of choice for the past few months, but that is not to say that it is permanent. Already Al Jazeera is calling this the Libyan Revolution; see the banner on the spotlight page for Libya. It is quite possible that this will come to replace "civil war" in some time. However, the term does not have enough currency at the moment to merit changing this article's name. I suppose that makes this a weak oppose !vote, but hey... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Calling this a civil war is a misnomer. The implication of a civil war is that you have two (or more) large parties/groups of citizens battling each other. However, it is clear that, in general, this is a war between the citizens at large and their government/military. (Compare this "civil war" to the American civil war, the civil strife in Iraq a few years ago, etc.) Also, the involvement of external forces (ie NATO) in the war has been big and absolutely vital to the outcome, more than in the typical civil war. I think simply "2011 libyan war" (big in google insights) would be best until it's actually over, when "2011 libyan revolution" would be better. Hazydan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a textbook case of a civil war. It is from the term bellum civile as used in the Roman Republic, the Roman civil wars, especially Caesar's Civil War. The Optimates weren't "citizens at large" any more than the Gaddafi loyalists. The point of a "civil war" is that it takes place within a state as opposed to against a foreign nation. Especially when one side of the conflict is monarchist or aristocratic and the other is republican, as in the textbook case of the English Civil War (where "civil war" was first used in English).

Or, short answer: WP:UCN. --dab (𒁳) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, the British might have called the American Revolution a civil war. There are plenty of conflicts that take place within a state that are not called civil wars (see separatist movements). Besides, Gaddafi is absolutely fighting foreign nations as major belligerents. NATO is virtually the air force for one side. The origin of a term can have little bearing on its current meaning. The popularly understood meaning of "civil war" is that the two (or more) primary belligerents are large parties or groups of citizens within a state. This is a war of citizens, with international backing, against the current power structure, not a large group of other citizens. I think WP:UCN supports my argument.Hazydan (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Libyan Revolutionary War, similar to the American Revolutionary War? 115.132.139.225 (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is futile. The American revolution was a "revolution" because the USA seceded from the UK. The rebels in Libya did nothing of the kind, they never tried to secede from Tripoli, they just tried to (and did) oust the dictator. Hence it is a civil war, while the American revolution was not a civil war. But see Russian Revolution (1917) and Russian Civil War for an example how a revolution may involve a civil war and vice versa. The French Revolution was also a revolution, but the French Revolutionary Wars were not a civil war because they affected most of Europe, not just France. I am not sure why we should need to discuss basic terminology here in this section. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the Survey section, I don't understand that if the Wikipedia (I think correctly) lists Muammar Gaddafi's power seizure in 1969 a coup, than why we should call the events as the 2011 Libyan Revolution? Calling it simply the Libyan Revolution would be much better if we choose the "revolution" option. Beleszólok (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose creating a separate indipendant article called 2011 Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. 66.57.88.38 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of RS since using revolution

Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi NOT in Rebel custody

According to Fox News, Saif-al-Islam was spotted by one of their producers at a hotel in Tripoli, and is not in Rebel custody. Just saw on TV, I'll keep an eye out for a web link. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both Fox and CNN have banners on their websites now regarding it, but no actual published reports yet.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On CNN.com: Live blog: Saif a-Islam Gadhafi appears outside hotel --L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

Everyone here at Wikipedia better starts holding on the editing of all this Libya related articles. Those rebels are not reliable and they have been lying about the sons and their captures, they are not true. The story has been the same for over six months, they keep saying they are doing something when they haven't. Even if the media reports something as editors we should follow a more scientific approach and wait until reports are factual and provable. Please. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are using propaganda and manipulating the news media to their own advantagen/ no info should be included unless it has reliable confirmation. citing a media outlet or blog or tweet is not sufficient, especially when the those sources themselves do not include verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.183.117 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but as you imply yourself the criteria is verifiability. Did a reliable source say that Saif had been reported captured? If so, then it can be used. Whether it should have been, i.e. every little turn and twist reported in a complicated and rapidly evoving (and devolving) story, is another matter. 81.178.38.169 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the article said, "rebels said/claimed/confirmed/etc." No-one added it as a fact. If Muhammad didn't speak in-public on TV, then they would-of said it's lies too. Things aren't clear, so we just use what reliable sources say and keep them as claims (even the ICC believed that Saif was captured). ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, "Those rebels are not reliable". As opposed to the Gaddafi regime? That keeps making pie-in-the-sky claims about how everything is under control and the "masses" would march to solve this little problem of armed gangs, like, any moment now? The TNC is doing their best to provide decent information, in their own interest, as they have every motivation to want to be seen as reliable partners once this is over. Of course there is still going to be misinformation, this is a civil war not a football match. Which is why we always say "according to", "rebels said", etc. As for "they keep saying they are doing something when they haven't", in my book, they have been saying for six months that they are fighting the Gaddafi regime and that they would try and march on Tripoli, which it turns out is exactly what they have done. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody please chill and assume good faith. The general rule of thumb, I think, is to be meticulous about attribution, as User:Dbachmann says. Neither governments' claims can be assumed to be factual because neither has proven themselves to be a reliable source; but even reliable sources' claims should be attributed, e.g. "Reuters reported that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi said he enjoys chocolate-dipped strawberries and bubble baths" (obviously Saif al-Islam isn't a reliable source in general, but as to his own dietary and hygienic preferences, he can be considered more credible but still should have his own statements about himself attributed to him). There's no need to put a blanket freeze on editing Libya content just because the NTC claimed to have captured a couple of Gaddafi's sons and then they were confirmed to be at large several hours later. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try not to edit anything yet. Unless they have confirmed that the operation has been proven successful then it is ok to add it on Wikipedia, the rebels have been know to give unreliable information. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we should stop editing Libya articles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heard a spokesman say there was some confusion because 'the eldest son' was captured and Saif is the eldest son of Gaddafi and his second wife - - so there was a bit of confusion - whatever, the rebels have been absolute models of reliability and truthfulness compared to Gaddafi and your way of speaking about, and denigrating, the rebels is disgusting imo. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of the rebels reliability besides your mantras? Eg pls remind how many times Khamis Gaddafi was "killed" or Brega "taken"? 95.32.162.39 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

look, Camilo Sanchez and assorted IPs, this is not an issue. What is "Let's try not to edit anything yet" supposed to mean? This entire article is about an ongoing conflict, based on preliminary reports. If mainstream news media can report it, we can report that these media have reported it. Wikipedia is doing nothing less and nothing more than summarize what other, secondary sources have been saying.

It is safe to say that Tripoli has fallen to the rebels. It is also safe to say that it is completely unknown where Gaddafi is hiding. So the article is going to state as much. Any speculation beyond that will just need to be marked as speculation. --dab (𒁳) 06:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Camilo Sanchez. The rebels have been spreading deliberate lies and misinformation from the beginning. Claiming to have taken cities while they were in fact firmly in government hands; claiming, without any proof, that Gaddafi employs foreign mercenaries; claiming that Gaddafi ordered mass rape while Amnesty International found not a single rape victim; claiming to have the sons of Gaddafi in custody only for them to appear on television as free men, etc. etc. The rebels are unreliable and their statements should not be trusted unless there is independent evidence for their validity. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I find it quite appalling that a handful of editors here have been accusing the rebels for spreading misinformation without ever mentioning a word about the untruthfulness of the Gaddafi regime. I mean, sure, the rebels' sincerity have been indeed questionable at times (The capture of Gaddafi's sons, for instance), but shouldn't we all be raising eyebrows from all the claims and statements the Gaddafi government has been spewing out as well (especially in recent weeks)? --FineHourglass (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- they are systematic propagandists - a map of Misrata showing it is in Gaddafi hands? - reminds me of Orwell , the Stalinists called him a Fascist at the time of the Show Trials, the totalitarian minded use propaganda relentlessly -the people who spread lying totalitarian propaganda and call the rebels liars , they 'swallow the elephant and choke on the fly' - if thats the phrase I'm looking for - they are vraiment dégueulasse - Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, why talk about Gaddafi propaganda?? He's fighting, and he will be telling everything that will help him win. Same about rebels. But let's better talk about CNN and FOX news, and almost ALL other "reliable sources" who are misinforming us all, who base their reports on rebel info only and showing fake scenes. Are they fighting, too? What war are THEY at? ----66.182.195.115 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'almost ALL base their reports on rebel info only' - there again, lying - I've watched BBC a lot for the last 6 months - I have seen Jeremy Bowen interview gaddafi, I have heard loads from Moussa 'I thought I knew the West' Ibrahim, - anyway 'reality is the master' - I think that's Lawrence Durrell. Sayerslle (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to burst your bubble, Texas IP, but Gaddafi's not going to win. The war's still going, but it's not going to be for much longer. Those scenes on the TV aren't fake. The rebels may have lied and spread propaganda at points throughout the war, but it's not all a big conspiracy. The rebels are in Tripoli. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, guys, I forgot "independent" BBC;) Hey, I was watching Bloomberg TV on the wall in the office, and they have shown a "central Tripoli square" with a palm that doesn't grow there. I opened CNN and saw cool news that Gaddafi's sons were captured by rebels, and later that day I saw him being interviewed among Gaddafi's supporters. He "escaped", no doubt;) I don't care if Gaddafi's killed or not, I just care about giant media who's controlling way tooo much nowadays. At some point, they will be able to tell people to become fascist "because it is right" - and people will, without doubt. -- Anthony --66.182.195.115 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
THat sounds a bit paranoid to me tbh. its true that journalists from the BBC seem to follow events more with the rebels - maybe the gaddafi side are not so open to let journalists follow them around - Kim Sengupta has a good piece in the independent [13]- from Abu Salim where it seems there is some real support for Gaddafis side - they resent soldiers from outside tripoli entering their area, - but then the area of abu salim is the site of the massacre of 12000 prisoners apparently, many of them political prisoners from the east. like Orwell said - in a war its not possible to choose between good and evil - you choose between two evils - maybe more journalists are unwilling to risk being killed while covering events from , ultimately, the more evil side, and that explains the bias you see everywhere. anyway, NOTAFORUM Sayerslle (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Costal Advance

The BBC and Reuters are reporting an a significant advance in the east of the country with pro-government forces retreating from Ras Lanuf and Brega towards Sirte. Perhaps worth a mention/new section? We are getting a lot of coverage of Tripoli and the ongoing fighting in the west, but significant gains in the east deserve a mention also? Sorry if this is being dealt with on another page/should be dealt with on another page. -- JamieHughes (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox displays File:Libyan Uprising.svg which changed Ras Lanuf to anti-Gaddafi forces earlier today. Timeline of the 2011 Libyan civil war and military intervention (from June)#23 August says: "Rebels took control of Ras Lanuf and advanced towards Bin Jawad and Sirte." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo is a Ghaddafi supporter, it is clear, anybody who is against that genocidal monster is pariah for him and his followers. Some Chavez sympathizer.

SOUTH

Many southern towns are either at rebel's hands or with unclear situation, including Sebha, where according to Al Jazeera this afternoon 25 August, rebels are controlling most of the town. Qatrun and Ghat seem to be under rebel's control too. No news about Adiri. Ghadames was invaded by Algerian army. Ben Jawad with fights. Beni Walid and Sirte still under Ghaddafi's control.MaXiMiLiAnO 16:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebel Weapons Platforms

I've noticed a lot of strangely rigged weapons platforms over the course of this conflict. After the dust settles (and to the limitations of what the rebels will allow), perhaps a section dedicated to this should be developed. A REDDSON

See Technical (vehicle). -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the “technicals” page (though it appears the page has changed quite a bit since I last saw it), I am proposing that a blurb and link be included, and some photos of such vehicles verifiably involved to this event be included (without comment as to abilities), and specifically after the conflict is verifiably over (irregardless who the ‘victor’ is). Moreover, the use of a helicopter rocket launcher is, to my knowledge (admittedly I do not know everything) unique to this particular conflict. A REDDSON

A revolutionary war?

Lets atleast consider changing the name of the 2011 Libyan civil war to the Libyan revolutionary war, as the victors (the rebels, as well as civilian supporters) refer to it as a revolution. The american revolutionionary war was a complete war, yet we still call it the american revolution/revolutionary war. Any thoughts. Zenithfel (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The war is still ongoing and unfortunately it could be go on and transform into fighting within tribes and different rivalries. So we have to wait until the conclusion.

Foreign boots on the ground

Assault on the Azizia compound was led by special forces of Qatar and UAE [14]. Thats definitely not instructors or advisors this time. So long for the proclaimed "USNC Resolution 1973 enforcement" 95.32.6.41 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM. As for adding these as combatants, if that is what you are suggesting, CNN has a different take, reporting they're acting in an advisory/supply role only: [15] -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when giving a reference falls under WP:NOTAFORUM?! And what's so special about the CNNs "different take"? Is it the Voice of God or the Ultimate Truth? 95.32.160.148 (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Libyan Revolution

2011 Libyan civil war → Libyan Revolution – At this point most media is referring to the events as the "Libyan Revolution", of which the military action is a part of it. I also do not agree with the above request to move it to "2011 Libyan revolution", since there was no other revolution before that (Gaddafi led a coup d'etat against the monarchy as opposed to a genuine revolution by the people). Gryffindor (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You barely have to look up to see an identical section. I'm indifferent in this matter, but you really shouldn't duplicate topics. --Yalens (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The requests are not identical though, so it's not a duplicate. Gryffindor (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the same request started a couple days ago. They should be either merged or this one removed.--Rafy talk 16:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as above. Most sources continue to refer to this as a civil war. A revolution is an overthrow of those in power, which has not strictly occurred; a civil war is an internal conflict between two factions within a state (sometimes with outside support or involvement, but never in a broader theatre for a sustained period), which has occurred. We can split off a page called Libyan Revolution or Libyan revolution or 2011 Libyan revolution, whatever, to deal with the political, social, economic, cultural, etc., aspects of the event, but only once Gaddafi is gone - not just from Bab al-Aziziya, not just from Tripoli, but from power altogether. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Proposing Alternative I propose creating a separate indipendant article called Libyan Revolution that is separate from the current civil war article. Using the example of the Russian Revolution and the concurrent Russian Civil War, having the Revolution article cover the broader social and political changes that are taking place within Libya, as well as creating a space allowing for developments in the reconstruction and re-implementation of government that's rather out of the purview of a "civil war". That way the current article would remain pertaining only to the armed conflict that seems to be winding down, while the Libyan Revolution article would look at the broader overview that the Civil War is (admittedly a large) part of. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE - why do we have to have jerks come out of the woodwork trying to upend things every time the news shines a spotlight on an article? We are not a 24-hour instant news channel. We don't have to rename things at the drop of a hat because a couple of people on newscasts decide to use different names. Leave it be, go back and get your remote and if you are still willing to help improve the article in a month, ok, we'll talk, but otherwise focus on research instead of stupid name changes. (rant over) -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE - where is revolution change? Is there some totaly different system? Capitalism to communism or something else? I dont see it. --Alexmilt (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support, also in reply to the comment above mine, its only been 3 days since gaddafi is gone... and ntc didn't even move to tripoli yet. There is a big change too, from dictatorship to transitional council. Its a WAY bigger change than TUnisia and Egypt. Zenithfel (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE - This is already a civil war. When a civil war starts, the titled will be remained as 2011 Libyan Civil War. And even if Gaddafi steps down, it will still remain as a war. This can be compared with the Second Ivorian Civil War where the title remains even if the former Ivorian Coast leader Laurent Gbagbo has deposed. If you named it as 2011 Libyan Revolution, this title is more likely suitable when it comes to non-violent uprisings which resulted into overthrown of the leader and the government, such as Tunisia and Egypt. HOWEVER, since IF Gaddafi steps down, you can shade the color of Libya inside the Arab Spring article of the Arab world map and the Summary of Protests by Country as Black from Dark Red (Also name the shaded black table as 'revolution'), but this 2011 Libyan Civil War will remain unchanged. 115.132.143.220 (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - if a civil war results in regime change, it is still a civil war. For example, the English Civil War resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, but we do not call it the "English Revolution". In addition, the term "Libyan Revolution" is already in use for another historic event, namely the Gaddafi-led Libyan Revolution of 1969. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - I see brutal executions from two opposite sides. I see a city (Sirte) defending itself against rebel forces. I see Gaddafi forces bombarding a city (Tripoli), which is supposed to be controlled by his opponents. I see tribes, cities, groups of people with conflicting interests and goals. I've seen battles, where the same city changed hands two or even three times. After all that, deciding that this is a revolution because that is what we are told by (some) media or politicians is for me - at least for now - a simplistic approach. Avanu's question above expresses completely myself as well. This encyclopedia is not a news agency. We thus should act seriously and responsibly. We should not let impressions, first news about events and media reports determine our stance, but we should follow the events. And then we should take responsibly our decisions as encyclopedia, when these events are clearer and when we can safely draw conclusions. We are not CNN web site to change the heading when something new happens.Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have heard too many witnesses I trust say 'the vast majority of us are glad that gaddafi's time is up' - there is Sirte, there are his thugs and mercenaries, there is no evidence that there is any degree of popular support for gaddafi - revolution is widely used , and increasingly used - and Avanus 'why do we have jerks come out of the woodwork..' shows the gaddafi-ite vocabulary has infiltrated his approach in addressing people, too. I want to be on the other side to the editors opposing the name change at all cost! as for the other 'revolution', re-name it Gaddafi Coup.Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose international media still calling it mainly a civil war and except for the rebels themselves and Arab countries supporting them nobody is calling them revolutionaries. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This is the only revolution in Libya's history. To call this anything other than a revolution when the overwhelming majority of Libyans support the freedom fighters would be madness. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose There were two different governments with their own unique armies engaging in armed conflict in one country. It's a classic civil war. --Tocino 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on above - there was I thought , at the beginning, in Benghazi in February - gaddafi and his thugs planned to shoot down unarmed demonstrators , but the demonstrators rose up, with nothing, used a bulldozer to ram the barracks walls - you are re-writing history - of course, now , to some extent, quoting Nietzsche, 'to kill a dragon, one has to become a dragon' - but you shouldn't re-write history - what there was - check out your history - Benghazi in february - Sayerslle (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are naive if you think Benghazi revolt was not planned. Anyway, it's a lot more a civil war than a revolution. You can even argue that it's more a military coup than a revolution with Jalil and Younes. Anyway it's perfect like that.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Anyway its perfect like that' - dont know what you're on about. You know all about what happened in february do you - it came very close to being destroyed until the U.N vote - you have your conspiracy theories, your fantasy maps, your love of dictators - mini mladic's Sayerslle (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose completely : Civil war is a much more correct description of the events. Rebels trained themselve into an army to conquer the country with the help of NATO. It is a full war.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support completely It is no different than the American Revolutionary War, where the North American colonists were armed and aided by France, Spain and the Netherlands from the very beginning. (92.7.10.93 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The Revolutionary War wasn't named until after the fighting had ended. If the British had somehow managed a turnaround at Yorktown and defeated the colonials, the American Revolutionary War article would instead probably be something like the American Colonial Rebellion (1770s). The Revolution title isn't appropriate until victory is complete. The news still says there's fighting in Tripoli, so calling it a revolution as of now is simply jumping the gun. B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User 92.7... there is a big difference between the American revolutionary war and this war, that was was between the Americans and a foreign (British) occupying force. This war is among Libyans. Learn the meaning of a civil war. Also, to those that will count the number of votes in the end, this is user 92.7's third support vote in this pool. User Lothar warned you that by adding multiple support votes in your own name that that doesn't change anything, it's still counted as just one vote. So please stop trying to disrupt the discussion to go your way. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, who were these "Americans"? Foreigners from Britain who had settled there and stolen the land from the Native Americans. Very much like the Boers in Africa. And who do you think is doing the fighting in Libya? NATO and the SAS. (92.7.4.36 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Status of the vote Comment on the current situation, 8 support votes, 14 oppose votes, 1 support (if the rest of the world calls it a revolution), two votes invalid (made by same editor who already cast a support vote before). EkoGraf (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghat

Several Ghaddafi's drivers were spotted today at Ghat, which is very close to Algeria border, it is also close to Niger and Chad. These countries refuse to recognize the rebels as legitimate leaders. It's not a coincidence. I think we must focus on this, because Ghaddafi's whereabouts is very important for the conflict.MaXiMiLiAnO 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The current information war on Libya

Hi! I've added a new subsection to the article List of conspiracy theories, following all the talk about lies from all sides in Libya. I would very much like to hear what you think about it, if it's a fair assessment about the current information war. Or if it's not. Many TIA.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read that piece you've added and it was useful and intersting - russia under Putin-medvedev seems pretty lousy really for honesty - Ive noticed a lot of the more hysterical things said come from Russia at the moment - i'd take issue with 'lent credibility to' - surely 'lent their credibility to' - also that there is anything 'left wing' about the sources of the conspiracy theories - more like corrupt elites in different countries unnerved by the sight of one of their corrupt elite number getting kicked out trying to spread confusion and lies. Why is there no water in tripoli btw, do you know? Sayerslle (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libyan_civil_war_(2011)&oldid=446959148"