Talk:Libyan civil war (2011)

Requested move 16 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Per the discussion below (after three relists, there is no consensus to move nor a consensus on where to move.(closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Libyan civil war (2011) → 2011 Libyan uprising – This page should move to 2011 Libyan uprising, as a both naturally disambiguated (per WP:NCDAB) and descriptive title (per WP:NCE) that also finds prevalence in scholarship. While "civil war" is one descriptor for this event, the majoritarian language for this event is as a "revolution" or "uprising". As Ngrams shows, there are more results for "revolution" and "uprising" overall than for "civil war". Of these two near synonyms, the terminology of "uprising" specifically is the most effective for disambiguating the event from the earlier revolution in the 1960s, since the terminology of "Libyan uprising" is fairly unique to this event as a specific move against a perceived dictator/Arab Spring uprising. "2011 Libyan uprising" also appears to find slightly more prevalence in scholarship, at 314 hits in google scholar to 262 hits for "2011 Libyan revolution". If all of the different names for the event are plugged in together, you will also see that uprising or revolution generally emerges on top. But ultimately it is a choice, as this source notes, different sources and authors use all of the terms “revolution,” “civil war ‚” and “uprisings” to capture different dimensions of the events unfolding in Libya from February to October 2011. But per the points put forward above, I would suggest that 2011 Libyan uprising is the best choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the “2011 Libyan uprising” was the most known title in 2011, but now the “Libyan civil war (2011)” is the most known title. Even the “2011 Libyan Revolution” seemed better than uprising, since Gaddafi was overthrown, which normally happens in revolutions. 2A01:CB1D:636:9B00:290B:FD8A:D638:8FEB (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A "civil war" title, aside from seemingly not being the most prevalent, risks considerable confusion with the more enduring and significant civil war beginning in 2014, just three years later. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In libya its called as the 2011 Libyan revolution. Therefore you have no right to name it other than what the libyans themselves call it. its either going to be called "February 17 Events" or "2011 Libyan Revolution" 102.69.43.149 (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Never have i ever seen someone call it an uprising in libya, refer from calling it any other names that the locals themselves dont use, "2011 Libyan Revolution" is the only acceptable title 102.69.43.149 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

NB: I have no objection to and would also support 2011 Libyan revolution as the title. As noted above, the level of usage of these two terms (most notably the scholarly usage) is fairly comparable. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Africa has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Arab world has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sociology has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to 2011 Libyan coup d’etat - It was a coup carried by the west, using rebel groups.

188.25.122.194 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not supporting that and Ngrams provides little sign of its usage, Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I would not support that, due to the fact that it was a 8 month long deadly civil war. Coup d’état gives off the idea that it was a quick overthrow of the Government. Also, no one refers to it as a coup d’état, most would refer to it as the Revolution. S Molecular (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - This Google ngram shows that the Libyan civil war has higher results.

188.25.122.194 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

But that's only part of the picture; as the initial Ngrams showed, revolution also exceeds civil war, and revolution and uprising combined hugely exceed civil war. And scholarly titles clearly favour one of these other two titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it's best to keep the current title of Libyan civil war (2011) or move to the title 2011 Libyan civil war. For the sake of WP:Neutrality, I think maintaining the status quo of the current title (or changing to 2011 Libyan civil war) is the best option compared to the proposals to move it to "2011 Libyan uprising" and "2011 Libyan revolution". This is because, in contrast to a traditional revolution or uprising where the governing regime has little to no support and is suddenly or swiftly overthrown, in this case there was a civil conflict (i.e. a civil war) between the Gaddafist regime and its supporters and the rebels which lasted 8 or so months. As stated in the article, there was also an insurgency of Gaddafi loyalists after the end of the conflict, which is uncommon for your typical nationwide 'uprising' or 'revolution'.

Basically, in my view this would be more accurately described as an uprising or revolution if Gaddafi didn't have any supporters and was otherthrown quickly in a span of a month or less. Instead, he had a base of support and held on in a somewhat protracted civil conflict (protracted in the sense that he held on for so long despite the NATO intervention and the rebellion). Therefore, to keep it neutral I think we shouldn't move to uprising or revolution. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@ThatRandomGuy1: Proceeding along these lines and assessing whether we think the terms are correct is going a little bit beyond our remit as editors - this versus gauging the prevalence in sources, which is a very policy-based approach. However, on your interpretation of the term 'revolution', on what basis do you suggest that revolutions are quick and easy? Sure, some can be, but perhaps the most archetypal revolution, the French Revolution, lasted 10 years. The Russian Revolution lasted 6 years. The American Revolution lasted 18 years, with its final conflict alone lasting 8 years. So eight months, in the grand scheme of things, is barely a mouse squeak of a revolutionary period. I think you are thinking more of coup d’etats, which - being just the very limited removal of a head of state - tend to be quicker affairs. A 'traditional revolution', on the other hand, tends to involve the wholesale removal of the executive branch or government and the ripping up of constitutions (Libya's here was ripped up) etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking back, I admit I was wrong with the time span argument. I hadn't known that those revolutions lasted so long and was looking at it from a more modern/recent perspective. Well, I say that, but in my ignorance I neglected to note that there have been revolutions in recent years which took a prolonged period of time too, like the Yemeni Revolution for example (over a year!), even if the ones I can think of (more modern/recent ones) were swift like I said.

However, I do still prefer the status quo of Libyan civil war (2011) or moving to 2011 Libyan civil war due to my understanding of the conflict (there were two sides, Gaddafi had genuine support in large parts of the country and was expected to win if not for the NATO intervention, from my understanding of the term a revolution usually has widespread majority support all across the country, etc); in the words of another editor above, this conflict was a civil war, not just a revolution (if you think of it as one that is).

I'd also bring in WP:COMMONNAME in my argument. Looking at Google Ngrams, it's clear that 2011 Libyan civil war is the more common name of this conflict than 2011 Libyan revolution and 2011 Libyan uprising: [1], [2]. While the uprising looks very close to the term civil war in commonality and is also more common than revolution, if you add both 2011 Libyan Civil War and 2011 Libyan civil war (upper+lower case because for some reason Google doesn't count both of those together unlike with the others), the term civil war wins against uprising by quite a margin.

The issue with the Ngram which you use is that the term "Libyan Revolution" also refers to the bloodless coup in 1969, more commonly known as the Al Fateh or 1969 Libyan revolution, and with Gaddafi's death that event would also be mentioned quite a lot at the same time as the 2011 conflict due to obituaries, country profiles, conflict explainers, etc., making it more questionable as evidence of being the more common name. Hence, my position is still to oppose the move to revolution or uprising per WP:COMMONNAME and per the nature of the conflict itself. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that doing a Google search of the terms 2011 Libyan revolution (12,200 results), 2011 Libyan uprising (6,930 results) and 2011 Libyan civil war (32,700 results) also shows that the term civil war is the more Wikipedia:COMMONAME for this event.

Likewise, on Microsoft Bing the results come up as 2011 Libyan civil war (446,000 results), 2011 Libyan revolution (55,000 results) and 2011 Libyan uprising (23,500 results), once again showing that the term "civil war" is the most common by a large margin.

OP also mentioned Google Scholar, which returns 420 results for 2011 Libyan civil war, more results than uprising and revolution which as he states returns 314 and 262 respectively. Thus, it is actually the term 2011 Libyan civil war which has more prevalence in scholarship, not 2011 Libyan uprising, again adding support for the argument that this event is more commonly refered to as a civil war. Calling it a civil war is also more descriptive as the conflict itself can be described as a civil war with different conflicting sides and support bases (Gaddafi in the West and South, NTC in the East), in turn making it more WP:NEUTRAL than 2011 Libyan revolution which implies unanimous support rather than mixed support. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Support a move to 2011 Libyan Revolution since it centered on the successful overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. But uprising is better than civil war. --Plumber (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Support move to 2011 Libyan Revolution per prevalence in RS, above comments, and my personal understanding of the term revolution and how this event qualifies as one. Either way it or uprising are clearly preferable to the current title. Yeoutie (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Support move to Libyan revolution - 1. It qualifies as a revolution and many sources are calling it like that. 2. We will not use the year because the 1969 coup does not count as a revolution. 3. Using the 2011 Libyan uprising title feels like we are in February/March 2011, at the begining of the conflict. UkraineFella (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

My bad, the 1969 Libyan revolution was changed already, so the 2011 Libyan revolution would indeed work. UkraineFella (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And we’ll not capitalize revolution because it’s not a common name, like the French Revolution. UkraineFella (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 04:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is indeed a common name the Libyan Revolution is a controversial topic 102.69.49.142 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to 2011 Libyan Revolution already if thats what the libyans themselves call it 102.69.49.142 (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Support alternative: Move back to First Libyan civil war under WP:COMMONNAME. AmericanBaath (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for that? UkraineFella (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. SilverLocust 04:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

'''Support Alternative''' : Change it to "The February 17 Revolution." This term was the most commonly employed title for the Libyan Civil War. The majority of individuals referred to the conflict as "ثورة ١٧ فبراير" (translating to 17 February revolution) in Arabic, with only a small number using "The Libyan Uprising" or "The first Libyan civil war." Among English-speaking Libyans, the prevailing reference was "Revolution" rather than "civil war," while Arabic speakers in Libya would denote it as "ثورة ١٧ فبراير". That makes the most sense. S Molecular (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose completely Just a civil war per WP:COMMONNAME. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  The very first piece of evidence contradicts this claim of a common name, and nowhere has the claim above been established. Frankly, as a piece of reasoning, that's just out of the blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I put forward that argument above, as has the IP @188.25.122.194. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Belligerents

Is it necessary to add all the NATO members in the belligerents when it already says NATO? I don’t think it’s needed considering the fact that NATO is already mentioned. Lybcarian (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Sudanese involvement

Sudan literally admitted to supporting the rebels, which led to the fall of Gaddafi here. TheLibyanGuy (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

They have only said that they are protecting their borders to avoid any spill over. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Nations in support of Gaddafi

This article currently showcases that Gaddafis regime did not have any nation backing it, which is not the case. Here are a short list of nations that expressed their support and supplied Gaddafi with arms:
Algeria 1 1
Belarus 2
North Korea 3 3 3
Syria 4
China 5
These should be included in the article Baqiyah (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Yousefsw07)

Vocal support and arms purchases before the war are irrelevant for the infobox of this article. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

These nations had voluntarily sent weapons in support of Colonel Gaddafi, not just vocal support. The article also includes nations on the rebels side who enforced resolution 1973 which meant that a lot of these nations had done nothing but demand a ceasefire, which IS vocal support. Remove those nations since its considered "irrelevant". Baqiyah (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Yousefsw07)

First of all this is a 14 year old article so any major disputed change will require clear consensus. Your edit warring is unproductive. Secondly, arms supplies were made only before the war but not after that. Since this article's infobox only seeks to include those who have participated in the actual combat, I am certain that none of your edits are productive. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources I had provided were published during the Libyan Civil War. During these times, arms were provided to both sides from various nations which count as military support. The earliest publication date of the sources provided was during mid to late February 2011, which means they were published after the civil war had begun. This does not determine the validity of the source, considering that a vast majority of the sourced provided in this article were published around the same time.

Many of the nations listed on the "Anti Gaddafi Forces" side are nations who enforced Resolution 1973, which means they imposed a no fly zone, and for some nations, it meant they called for a ceasefire in favour of the Libyan People [3]. Some of the nations on the rebel's side did not interfere in the actual combat, yet they are still included in the infobox. All of the sources I had provided should be considered reliable, per WP:RS. There is no reason as to why these nations should not be included in the infobox. Baqiyah (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Yousefsw07)

Just jumping in here to say my piece. Vocal support does not equal military support, for which the military infobox is reserved. Now, any arms that were provided before the civil war, does not translate as military support during the war itself. Finally, the cited sources mention either weapons supplies from before or right before the conflict (doesn't count), or boil down to accusations/suspicions of weapons support or discussions of possible weapons support during the conflict (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), but nothing definetly confirmed. So I have to agree with Abhishek0831996. EkoGraf (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the sources I provided in the info box or the ones I had listed in this talk page? Because the ones I had put in the info box before it got reverted are most definitely about military arms being supplied to Gaddafis forces DURING the war. The ones I listed here in this talk page aren’t the same ones I put in the info box. Please check one of the older versions of the article in order to view the sources I had cited. Thanks! Baqiyah (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Yousefsw07)

Looked those over too. Like I said, accusations/suspicions of weapons support or discussions of possible weapons support during the conflict, but nothing definetly confirmed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Nations like Belarus and NK have openely spoken about providing arms to Gaddafi. Belarus has even participated in some of the Civil war battles. Shipments from Algeria to pro-gaddafi troops were found carrying supplies on multiple occasions. Zimbabwe had sent troops to fight in the war, which was reported by multiple Zimbabwean news outlets. Syria had sent arms to gaddafi according to many belarussian and arabic sources. How could those not equate to military support? I see no reason as to why they shouldnt be added. Baqiyah (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Yousefsw07)